Swedish Defence Minister wants More Gripens to Counter Russia

[Tshering22]

I don't know what Swedish people are paranoid when they have faced the most powerful face of Russia in the form of USSR.

More like an attempt to bail out SAAB.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I don't know what Swedish people are paranoid when they have faced the most powerful face of Russia in the form of USSR.

More like an attempt to bail out SAAB.

I think you are confusing SAAB = Aircraft manufacturer with SAAB = Car manufacturer.
The latter went tits up several years ago.

They have not been associated with each other since General Motors acquired the car division.
That was way back: 1989-90.

 

[Tshering22]

I think you are confusing SAAB = Aircraft manufacturer with SAAB = Car manufacturer.
The latter went tits up several years ago.

They have not been associated with each other since General Motors acquired the car division.
That was way back: 1989-90.

I am talking about SAAB Aerospace that manufactures Gripens. It is an excellent aircraft with fascinating capabilities no doubt. But to tell that a couple of dozen will be enough to stop a hypothetically-invading Russian military is foolish and immature.

Sweden is simply finding a way to keep Gripen's orders flowing. They had strong potential sales in European countries especially around the Nordic region. But US government arm twisted the Danes, Norwegians and Finns into choosing US made weapons.

I am not blaming them as it is a common business practise globally. But see the situation; Gripen has won only two recent contracts: 1 in Switzerland and another in Brazil. Both orders are limited at 22 and 36 respectively. Brazil has shared its intent to buy 120 of them at a later stage to replace and boost their air force, but that is not decided when. It is only a contract for a limited time.

While US and Russian made jets dominate international markets, European individual aircraft are second in the position like EFT and Rafale.

Compare this to Swedes. They have an increasingly unstably economy. Thanks to crazy immigration policies and appeasement of radicals along with handing hefty dole outs, their economy has weakened and their beautiful country is in trouble.

SAAB Aerospace represents one of the most dominant industries from Sweden apart from Volvo and a few other names.

DO the math.

 

[flamer84]

I am talking about SAAB Aerospace that manufactures Gripens. It is an excellent aircraft with fascinating capabilities no doubt. But to tell that a couple of dozen will be enough to stop a hypothetically-invading Russian military is foolish and immature.

Sweden is simply finding a way to keep Gripen's orders flowing. They had strong potential sales in European countries especially around the Nordic region. But US government arm twisted the Danes, Norwegians and Finns into choosing US made weapons.

I am not blaming them as it is a common business practise globally. But see the situation; Gripen has won only two recent contracts: 1 in Switzerland and another in Brazil. Both orders are limited at 22 and 36 respectively. Brazil has shared its intent to buy 120 of them at a later stage to replace and boost their air force, but that is not decided when. It is only a contract for a limited time.

While US and Russian made jets dominate international markets, European individual aircraft are second in the position like EFT and Rafale.

Compare this to Swedes. They have an increasingly unstably economy. Thanks to crazy immigration policies and appeasement of radicals along with handing hefty dole outs, their economy has weakened and their beautiful country is in trouble.

SAAB Aerospace represents one of the most dominant industries from Sweden apart from Volvo and a few other names.

DO the math.

But can we consider a meager 10 extra planes as a bail out for SAAB ?

 

[Tshering22]

But can we consider a meager 10 extra planes as a bail out for SAAB ?

I don't know about what htey have in mind for later. Looking at Swedish economy, they don't seem like a very war-willing country with all due respect to them and their desire for peace.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I am talking about SAAB Aerospace that manufactures Gripens. It is an excellent aircraft with fascinating capabilities no doubt. But to tell that a couple of dozen will be enough to stop a hypothetically-invading Russian military is foolish and immature.

Sweden is simply finding a way to keep Gripen's orders flowing. They had strong potential sales in European countries especially around the Nordic region. But US government arm twisted the Danes, Norwegians and Finns into choosing US made weapons.

I am not blaming them as it is a common business practise globally. But see the situation; Gripen has won only two recent contracts: 1 in Switzerland and another in Brazil. Both orders are limited at 22 and 36 respectively. Brazil has shared its intent to buy 120 of them at a later stage to replace and boost their air force, but that is not decided when. It is only a contract for a limited time.

While US and Russian made jets dominate international markets, European individual aircraft are second in the position like EFT and Rafale.

Compare this to Swedes. They have an increasingly unstably economy. Thanks to crazy immigration policies and appeasement of radicals along with handing hefty dole outs, their economy has weakened and their beautiful country is in trouble.

SAAB Aerospace represents one of the most dominant industries from Sweden apart from Volvo and a few other names.

DO the math.

Actually the Swedish economy has been doing a lot better than many of the other EU countries.

The decision increases the Swedish Air Force plans from 60 to 70 Gripen NG so total orders increase from 118 to 128 (assuming Switzerland votes yes).
This is on top of the 230 Gripen A/B/C/D already ordered/delivered.
Adds up to a respectable number.

Fighting Russia alone is not possible for Sweden. We need enough to make Russia decide to avoid involving Sweden in a conflict where we are not the main target.

The Gripen NG is not in production yet so this decision will not affect any production for quite some time. First deliveries are planned for 2018.
Already the current orders will keep the factory busy, so the additional 10 are not needed for this, at least right now.

Finns choose the F-18A in 1992 which was before Gripen was available. Entered service in 1996.
Only Norway have decided for the F-35.
Danes have not decided yet. They put the decision on hold some years ago, and only reopened the tender this month

 

[Tshering22]

Actually the Swedish economy has been doing a lot better than many of the other EU countries.

The decision increases the Swedish Air Force plans from 60 to 70 Gripen NG so total orders increase from 118 to 128 (assuming Switzerland votes yes).
This is on top of the 230 Gripen A/B/C/D already ordered/delivered.
Adds up to a respectable number.

I never said that Swedes are weak. In fact, what impresses me about Sweden is that despite being neutral and peace-loving, they can easily hold on their own in a fight.

Fighting Russia alone is not possible for Sweden. We need enough to make Russia decide to avoid involving Sweden in a conflict where we are not the main target.

That tactic is your standard military doctrine so as to deter attacks.

Russia has nothing to gain from attacking Sweden or any other Nordic country. Ukraine was the bedrock of Russian civilization (Kievan Rus), and relentless NATO expansion is what forced Russia to interfere. Ukraine and Russia were quietly progressing with many industries being set up but the newly installed dictators in Ukraine right now have ruined the process.

Ukraine was never a part of NATO and therefore all the sanctions against Russia are simply illegal and defying international law. Prior to this crisis, Ukraine had no problems with Russia other than a few diplomatic concerns from the NATO-paid opposition.

You are from a democratic country; Tell me, if tomorrow your Prime Minister and your king are overthrown by some random military power, how will you feel about the 'new rulers' whom you did not choose?

Danes have not decided yet. They put the decision on hold some years ago, and only reopened the tender this month

RDAF still uses F-16s in its inventory. The point is, due to their closeness with each other, Nordic countries could have opted a more local product had it not been business arm-twisting from other powers.

 

[Mighty Caty]

I never said that Swedes are weak. In fact, what impresses me about Sweden is that despite being neutral and peace-loving, they can easily hold on their own in a fight.



That tactic is your standard military doctrine so as to deter attacks.

Russia has nothing to gain from attacking Sweden or any other Nordic country. Ukraine was the bedrock of Russian civilization (Kievan Rus), and relentless NATO expansion is what forced Russia to interfere. Ukraine and Russia were quietly progressing with many industries being set up but the newly installed dictators in Ukraine right now have ruined the process.

Ukraine was never a part of NATO and therefore all the sanctions against Russia are simply illegal and defying international law. Prior to this crisis, Ukraine had no problems with Russia other than a few diplomatic concerns from the NATO-paid opposition.

You are from a democratic country; Tell me, if tomorrow your Prime Minister and your king are overthrown by some random military power, how will you feel about the 'new rulers' whom you did not choose?



RDAF still uses F-16s in its inventory. The point is, due to their closeness with each other, Nordic countries could have opted a more local product had it not been business arm-twisting from other powers.

A.P. did not say Sweden was weak, he said Swedish Economy is not as weak as EU.

As for your reason why Sweden, Finnish and other Nordic country see Russia as threat, we beg to differ.

For us Scandinavian, we on the historical course to deter any foreign aggression, however, to maintain a deterrence stance, we need to set ourselves an arbiter enemy to deter against. It's in our geography and history that German, French, Denmark, Britain and Russia as our past aggressor. Now if we have to set a presumed enemy, which one will we set against ??

Many Finnish speak Russian or Russo language, especially the one near the Russian border, now if Russia say because our Russian speaking Ukrainian brother need help and so we drive into Ukraine and liberate them, then what stop Russian from saying "Since there is a large portion of Russian or Prussic Finnish in their eastern border, why don't we drive into Finland and liberate them too?" Finnish if I remember correct is one of the official language in some Russian cities.

You need to know Finland and Swedish are like brothers.

 

[Dubious]

Interesting wasnt Finland seeking the same not long back...what are the Scandinavians up to?

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

I never said that Swedes are weak. In fact, what impresses me about Sweden is that despite being neutral and peace-loving, they can easily hold on their own in a fight.
That tactic is your standard military doctrine so as to deter attacks.

Russia has nothing to gain from attacking Sweden or any other Nordic country. Ukraine was the bedrock of Russian civilization (Kievan Rus), and relentless NATO expansion is what forced Russia to interfere. Ukraine and Russia were quietly progressing with many industries being set up but the newly installed dictators in Ukraine right now have ruined the process.

Ukraine was never a part of NATO and therefore all the sanctions against Russia are simply illegal and defying international law. Prior to this crisis, Ukraine had no problems with Russia other than a few diplomatic concerns from the NATO-paid opposition.

You are from a democratic country; Tell me, if tomorrow your Prime Minister and your king are overthrown by some random military power, how will you feel about the 'new rulers' whom you did not choose?

RDAF still uses F-16s in its inventory. The point is, due to their closeness with each other, Nordic countries could have opted a more local product had it not been business arm-twisting from other powers.

There are two main reasons for Russia to attack Northern Europe.
To get better access to the Atlantic Ocean and control of Swedish Iron mines.
This would only happen when a war with NATO is imminent or ongoing.

Russia is violating several international laws, by sending troops to Ukraine.
Which International laws would Western Europeans violate?

As for being overthrown by a military power, I do not see this as close to the
Ukrainan situation.

You have an elected President which alienates significant part of the opposition,
puts the main opposition leader in jail, and apparently embezzles large funds.
So the president was forced to flee, and most members of the parlament
wants to put him on trial. Maybe Americans are financing the whole stuff,
But as long as any elections afterwards are fair, this is something I can live with.
There should be a way for people to force the government to resign mid-term in any democratic
country, if they go too far away from the wish off the people. Should be limited
to avoid constant disruptions on government though.
Ukraine should have had a referendum on strategy. Ally with EU, Russia or both.

In Sweden a minister was forced to resign for buying chocolate using a government credit card.
This results in less Ukraina style problems.

While there are many right wingers in the provisional government in Ukraine, it is likely
that others will replace them after May 25 elections.
They should get a new constitution, where the president is given ceremonial authority only.
The main body of power should be the parlament.

As for selection of military equipment, it makes sense for NATO countries like Norway or Denmark
to use NATO compliant equipment. JA-37 Viggen and early Gripen (A/Bs) were not.
Finland also stressed BVR fighter capability, and the Hornets can carry more missiles than Gripen A.
Before that both Denmark and Finland used SAAB J-35 Draken.
(Sweden considers 35s to be way past obsolence

Sweden had very limited choices in the late 1930s when it wanted to reequip its armed forces.
Only Italy would sell, and only obsolete stuff.
Self-reliance is a major part of the strategy.

 

[Black Eagle 90]

I think Ukraine, Norway and Finland should join in as this will be helpful in keeping the Russian away from them.

 

[Tshering22]

There are two main reasons for Russia to attack Northern Europe.
To get better access to the Atlantic Ocean and control of Swedish Iron mines. This would only happen when a war with NATO is imminent or ongoing.

Resource is in everyone's mind. The same as it is in the minds of NATO commanders when 'liberating' a weak oil or energy rich country. I am not aware of how much iron you produce but tell me, Russia is already blessed with massive resource rich territory. What extra would it gain by attacking for a few additional sources?

Russia is violating several international laws, by sending troops to Ukraine.
Which International laws would Western Europeans violate?

Not even close. NATO violated and mauled country after country, city after city, killing thousands and bombing the hell out of even those who had nothing to do with WMDs, rogue states or wars. What the hell was all that?

Liberation? Freedom? Democracy? Word of law?

No. It was an ugly show of force.

Mate, you know damn well that Ukraine comes in Russian sphere of influence not just now but since centuries. It is the cradle of slavic civilization and naturally, Russia will be concerned about its immediate interests.

I would have wholeheartedly agreed that Russia had done something illegal if it had attacked a NATO country or an EU country.

It did nothing of that sort.

Russia is as much legitimate in pursuing its interests as much as US, EU and collective NATO are.

As for being overthrown by a military power, I do not see this as close to the
Ukrainan situation.

Then who he hell was Turchynov? Was he elected? No. Was he chosen by a public body? No. Was he elected directly by either the Ukrainian parliament or the people? No.

He just used US help to topple a President legitimately elected by Ukrainians.

You have an elected President which alienates significant part of the opposition,
puts the main opposition leader in jail, and apparently embezzles large funds.
So the president was forced to flee, and most members of the parlament
wants to put him on trial.

Corruption is an internal problem in which external forces have no right to meddle. If he was corrupt Ukrainians would have voted him out. They didn't. Instead, opposition supported and foreign funded goons rioted, attacked and violently threw him out of power. Which is again not the right way of doing things.

Tomorrow, if Mexico has corruption problems, will you invade them? No right?

We Indians also have internal such political problems. So does that make it legitimate for anyone to invade and create problems? Not that anyone can walk in here, but just hypothesizing.

Maybe Americans are financing the whole stuff, But as long as any elections afterwards are fair, this is something I can live with.

The question is not about you. The question is about an entire country, now on the verge of economic collapse. People jobless, no rule of law, police state declaration by that junta leader Turchynov, the nation almost torn apart, rampant attacks and counter-strikes done... this is not what Ukrainians deserved. And NATO is responsible for this instability.

There should be a way for people to force the government to resign mid-term in any democratic
country, if they go too far away from the wish off the people. Should be limited
to avoid constant disruptions on government though.
Ukraine should have had a referendum on strategy. Ally with EU, Russia or both.

Ukraine's president chose Russia. Simple. So the foreign funded opposition destroyed their constitution and send him out of the country.

How very pragmatic.

While there are many right wingers in the provisional government in Ukraine, it is likely
that others will replace them after May 25 elections.
They should get a new constitution, where the president is given ceremonial authority only.
The main body of power should be the parlament.

Ukrainian elections will never be fair until CIA keeps financing one side and uses under the table tactics to weaken Ukraine as a whole nation.

As for selection of military equipment, it makes sense for NATO countries like Norway or Denmark
to use NATO compliant equipment. JA-37 Viggen and early Gripen (A/Bs) were not.
Finland also stressed BVR fighter capability, and the Hornets can carry more missiles than Gripen A.
Before that both Denmark and Finland used SAAB J-35 Draken.
(Sweden considers 35s to be way past obsolence

Hopefully Gripen E can solve those problems.

Sweden had very limited choices in the late 1930s when it wanted to reequip its armed forces.
Only Italy would sell, and only obsolete stuff.
Self-reliance is a major part of the strategy.

Self-reliance is always the only solution. Your country makes some really capable weapons platforms.

All the best.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

Resource is in everyone's mind. The same as it is in the minds of NATO commanders when 'liberating' a weak oil or energy rich country. I am not aware of how much iron you produce but tell me, Russia is already blessed with massive resource rich territory. What extra would it gain by attacking for a few additional sources?



Not even close. NATO violated and mauled country after country, city after city, killing thousands and bombing the hell out of even those who had nothing to do with WMDs, rogue states or wars. What the hell was all that?

Liberation? Freedom? Democracy? Word of law?

No. It was an ugly show of force.

Mate, you know damn well that Ukraine comes in Russian sphere of influence not just now but since centuries. It is the cradle of slavic civilization and naturally, Russia will be concerned about its immediate interests.

I would have wholeheartedly agreed that Russia had done something illegal if it had attacked a NATO country or an EU country.

It did nothing of that sort.

Russia is as much legitimate in pursuing its interests as much as US, EU and collective NATO are.



Then who he hell was Turchynov? Was he elected? No. Was he chosen by a public body? No. Was he elected directly by either the Ukrainian parliament or the people? No.

He just used US help to topple a President legitimately elected by Ukrainians.



Corruption is an internal problem in which external forces have no right to meddle. If he was corrupt Ukrainians would have voted him out. They didn't. Instead, opposition supported and foreign funded goons rioted, attacked and violently threw him out of power. Which is again not the right way of doing things.

Tomorrow, if Mexico has corruption problems, will you invade them? No right?

We Indians also have internal such political problems. So does that make it legitimate for anyone to invade and create problems? Not that anyone can walk in here, but just hypothesizing.



The question is not about you. The question is about an entire country, now on the verge of economic collapse. People jobless, no rule of law, police state declaration by that junta leader Turchynov, the nation almost torn apart, rampant attacks and counter-strikes done... this is not what Ukrainians deserved. And NATO is responsible for this instability.




Ukraine's president chose Russia. Simple. So the foreign funded opposition destroyed their constitution and send him out of the country.

How very pragmatic.



Ukrainian elections will never be fair until CIA keeps financing one side and uses under the table tactics to weaken Ukraine as a whole nation.



Hopefully Gripen E can solve those problems.



Self-reliance is always the only solution. Your country makes some really capable weapons platforms.

All the best.

Sweden Iron Ore production is about 25% of Russias.

The question was which International laws were broken by NATO/EU in Ukraine.
I have not seen this happening.

As for others, that is off-topic for this thread.

The Elected Ukrainan President made his escape when he realized
that the parlament intended to prosecute him.
Apparently everyone present (~75%) of members voted for prosecution.
Not clear to me if this fulfils all the requirements of the constitution,
but it sends a clear message.

Nixon was almost impeached and same for Clinton. Not unknown to democracies.

Don't see this as any "NATO invasion".
The only country which has invaded is Russia, which has sent special forces,
first to Crimea, and then to Eastern Ukraine.

As for the legality of Turchynov, it is of little importance after the May 25 election.
There should be something in the Ukrainan constitution which determines how
a temporary president should be elected.
He was IIRC elected by the parlament.

The important things is that the May 25 election is fair.
A temporary president/government should not make any strategic decisions.

 

[Tshering22]

Sweden Iron Ore production is about 25% of Russias.

The question was which International laws were broken by NATO/EU in Ukraine.
I have not seen this happening.

As for others, that is off-topic for this thread.

The Elected Ukrainan President made his escape when he realized
that the parlament intended to prosecute him.
Apparently everyone present (~75%) of members voted for prosecution.
Not clear to me if this fulfils all the requirements of the constitution,
but it sends a clear message.

Nixon was almost impeached and same for Clinton. Not unknown to democracies.

Don't see this as any "NATO invasion".
The only country which has invaded is Russia, which has sent special forces,
first to Crimea, and then to Eastern Ukraine.

As for the legality of Turchynov, it is of little importance after the May 25 election.
There should be something in the Ukrainan constitution which determines how
a temporary president should be elected.
He was IIRC elected by the parlament.

The important things is that the May 25 election is fair.
A temporary president/government should not make any strategic decisions.

Well then, Russia has to do what it does to secure the region's peace.

 

[boomslang]

I can't understand why anyone would be scared of Putin. He is a gentle and caring man.