Being an old shrink, i have come to the conclusion he is traumatized losing out scania to the swedesThs,
tell me, did you have a very very bad divorce from a Swedish woman? :nutkick
little brother complex
Gripen - Red Flag
- Thread starter chrishorne
- Start date
- Status
little brother complexGrand Danois
Entertainer
But what does it tell you when a pop reference is used to deflect from an erosion of perception of self?Being an old shrink, i have come to the conclusion he is traumatized losing out scania to the swedes
Last edited:
Dr. Freud: You could say that. There is no doubt the loss of Scania traumatised the nation for centuries. today the problem is not the little brother complex, but that Sweden is still under the delusion that it is the big brother.
Take an example: A lot of people live in Scania; but works in Copenhagen (partly because Danish housing prices have gone through the roof). The Swedes entered into an agreement that taxes are to be paid in the country of employment, not of residence. They obviously thought they would benefit, as Scania was - in their challenged mind - the growth center of Scandinavia - for no other reason than it being under Swedish rule.
Now reality has turned the table somewhat: Sweden has all the expenses (hospitals, kindergarten and what have you of that kind of paraphenalia); but not the tax income.
they are constantly trying to raise the prise for tickets for the bridge between Copenhagen and Malmø.
The fact of the matter is that there is no justification for Scania belonging to Sweden: It doesn't make economic sense. The agriculture is more or less taken over by Danish enterprises.
It has for long been my contension that Sweden - as a nation - does make very little sense. Up to - and including - the cold war, Sweden could play the major powers against each other, no so any more!
Sweden is airing the possibility of joining Nato. That is obvious enough, as the defence of Scandinavia is done in the Baltic - on the land side in the 3 small Baltic nations. The problem is that Sweden is not very interesting for Nato.
As has filtered through on this thread: The Gripen is a plane to defeat/annoy American planes - and Nato has precious little use for that. In fact the entire Swedish defence has NOT changed in its fundamental structure as a response to the changed circumstances: It is still a defence against a seaborne landing on Sweden proper. The somewhat outdated planners haven't considered, that we have build a bridge for that purpose!
The long term security in scandinavia hinges upon a Nato dominance of the Baltic Sea and the defence of the Baltic Nations. Of Course such a defence cannot resist a determined Russian attack, but such an attack would be very costly, as it would be a sideshow relative to the wound it would open on the Polish boarder.
As Russia couldn't/didn't deem it profitable to attack Western Europe during the cold war, they will not do it know - if only because their strategic position is so much worse: Nato has gained strategic depth.
The engagement of Sweden in Afghanistan is an attempt to cull the favours; but not succeeding toooo much:
If there are soft billets in Afghanistan, Sweden has one in the North. The Canadians are annoyed with Germany for their disinclination to shoulder their part in the Southern Afghanistan - Sweden isn't even an also ran.
The Dansih Withdrawal from Iraq must be seen in the context with Afghanistan: After Musa Qala it has been obvious, that Dansih forces can fight the dirty and cruel war of light infantry - the step up is the integration of forces to operate on a higher level - which means tanks and airsupport. This again means a concentration of Danish forces in Afghanistan and away from Iraq. Please note: Even the opposition is supporting this war:
We cannot allow Al Qaida access to all the drug funds.
It might have been a bit off topic; but it is in this context the Gripen must function.
Take an example: A lot of people live in Scania; but works in Copenhagen (partly because Danish housing prices have gone through the roof). The Swedes entered into an agreement that taxes are to be paid in the country of employment, not of residence. They obviously thought they would benefit, as Scania was - in their challenged mind - the growth center of Scandinavia - for no other reason than it being under Swedish rule.
Now reality has turned the table somewhat: Sweden has all the expenses (hospitals, kindergarten and what have you of that kind of paraphenalia); but not the tax income.
they are constantly trying to raise the prise for tickets for the bridge between Copenhagen and Malmø.
The fact of the matter is that there is no justification for Scania belonging to Sweden: It doesn't make economic sense. The agriculture is more or less taken over by Danish enterprises.
It has for long been my contension that Sweden - as a nation - does make very little sense. Up to - and including - the cold war, Sweden could play the major powers against each other, no so any more!
Sweden is airing the possibility of joining Nato. That is obvious enough, as the defence of Scandinavia is done in the Baltic - on the land side in the 3 small Baltic nations. The problem is that Sweden is not very interesting for Nato.
As has filtered through on this thread: The Gripen is a plane to defeat/annoy American planes - and Nato has precious little use for that. In fact the entire Swedish defence has NOT changed in its fundamental structure as a response to the changed circumstances: It is still a defence against a seaborne landing on Sweden proper. The somewhat outdated planners haven't considered, that we have build a bridge for that purpose!
The long term security in scandinavia hinges upon a Nato dominance of the Baltic Sea and the defence of the Baltic Nations. Of Course such a defence cannot resist a determined Russian attack, but such an attack would be very costly, as it would be a sideshow relative to the wound it would open on the Polish boarder.
As Russia couldn't/didn't deem it profitable to attack Western Europe during the cold war, they will not do it know - if only because their strategic position is so much worse: Nato has gained strategic depth.
The engagement of Sweden in Afghanistan is an attempt to cull the favours; but not succeeding toooo much:
If there are soft billets in Afghanistan, Sweden has one in the North. The Canadians are annoyed with Germany for their disinclination to shoulder their part in the Southern Afghanistan - Sweden isn't even an also ran.
The Dansih Withdrawal from Iraq must be seen in the context with Afghanistan: After Musa Qala it has been obvious, that Dansih forces can fight the dirty and cruel war of light infantry - the step up is the integration of forces to operate on a higher level - which means tanks and airsupport. This again means a concentration of Danish forces in Afghanistan and away from Iraq. Please note: Even the opposition is supporting this war:
We cannot allow Al Qaida access to all the drug funds.
It might have been a bit off topic; but it is in this context the Gripen must function.
Some swedes behave in that way - I know. But I think its not the case when it come to goverment-to-goverment-relation between Sweden and Denmark. But to put words about how "useless" sweden is - is to going more than just "a little bit" to far.
Yeah, The rulers here (in sweden) was behaps overconfident
Well, there are other area for business than just agriculture. Even in Scania.
We will see...what I did´nt understund is - what is the problem. Besides there is a treaty of defence in EU. I also thinks it´s important the consider pros and cons to join Nato, or behaps let population here in sweden get time to get used to the thought of being part of Nato. It´s not a desision we take lightly on!!
Really? - I though it was a "cold war product" - at least from the beginning
Really? - "who" is Nato? Hungery, Czechia. And Poland was´nt THAT far away to choose Gripen, I think
Okay, so Swedish partisipation in Afghanistan are just "a quest for goodwill" - and danish partisipation in Afghanistan is something more "noble" and deephearted? Interesting point of view.
Last edited:
Err... where? CFSP? ESDP? ESS?
No EU treaties dealing with defence or security matters contain any mutual defence clauses, unlike NATO's primary purpose.
oki-doki, I thought European Union Battlegroups (and even another assets) were intended even for internal use...but after a bit reading, I found out I was wrong.
EDIT:
How ever : I'm a bit surprised (and a bit worried), that a "Right-center-government" make some cuttings in the defence-budget. Behaps they expect a recession soon.
EDIT:
How ever : I'm a bit surprised (and a bit worried), that a "Right-center-government" make some cuttings in the defence-budget. Behaps they expect a recession soon.
Last edited:
Quote:
It(Gripen) is still a defence against a seaborne landing on Sweden proper. The somewhat outdated planners haven't considered, that we have build a bridge for that purpose!
Reply:
Are you serious? so you built the bridge in order to invade Sweden?
i find it hard to believe this is the plan of Denmarks high command.
But for the sake of argue: lets say Denmark once more ally with Russia in order to invade Sweden:
what makes you think you will fare better off this time then previous times...?
Quote:
It has for long been my contension that Sweden - as a nation - does make very little sense.
Reply:
In light of this..emm...contention, its obvious that you dont like gripen, or anything else that can remind you of the evil swedes.
Wich brings the subject right out from the question how well the gripen did
in red flag, and oddly, right into my domain.
It begs the question: was one of your parents swedish ? or do you suspect that being the case ?
I think i will withdraw from this discussion, and just suggest you find someone
you can trust to talk about your parents.
It(Gripen) is still a defence against a seaborne landing on Sweden proper. The somewhat outdated planners haven't considered, that we have build a bridge for that purpose!
Reply:
Are you serious? so you built the bridge in order to invade Sweden?
i find it hard to believe this is the plan of Denmarks high command.
But for the sake of argue: lets say Denmark once more ally with Russia in order to invade Sweden:
what makes you think you will fare better off this time then previous times...?
Quote:
It has for long been my contension that Sweden - as a nation - does make very little sense.
Reply:
In light of this..emm...contention, its obvious that you dont like gripen, or anything else that can remind you of the evil swedes.
Wich brings the subject right out from the question how well the gripen did
in red flag, and oddly, right into my domain.
It begs the question: was one of your parents swedish ? or do you suspect that being the case ?
I think i will withdraw from this discussion, and just suggest you find someone
you can trust to talk about your parents.
SlyDog:
1. There are other businesses than agriculture in Scania: Yep, they are situated in Copenhagen.
2. Sweden joining Nato: They might; but on what conditions? And what will Sweden get? I honestly can't see Nato should offer Sweden anything!
Sweden does not have deployable forces in numbers, Swedish territory is militarily uninteresting - especially if Finland joins, Swedish defence industy - might be a gadget or two, but it is more likely to be unwelcome competition.
3. Swedish arms sales to Nato: I saw a program on Swedish television some time back on how these sales were made. My recommandation for these countries would have been stock F-16's untill F-35 had proven itself; but a few well placed bribes did sway oppinion - if I remember the broadcast correctly. I might be wrong: It took me a couple of months to discover, that the new digital television had cut me from recieving - in that period the swedish programmes were as entertaining as ever - and I was asleep.
The real problem for Swedish products is the US concept of the hi-lo fighter combination, where the F-22 is a tactical reserve of the alliance IN THE AIR supporting the lower end F-35 - and most likely a host of F-16's.
The A'stan issue is not noble: It is to keep Al Qaida from the drug revenue.
My concern is the effectiveness of the military effort.
In the south there has been some real fighting - where (to my great relief) the danish forces fought very well indeed. Now it seems likely - with the reinforcements - that Danish forces will operate on a higher level with integration of armour and aircraft.
The last thing is for me the most important, as if we EVER again have to fight for our lives we need armed forces that can get their act together on brigade and corps level!
1. There are other businesses than agriculture in Scania: Yep, they are situated in Copenhagen.
2. Sweden joining Nato: They might; but on what conditions? And what will Sweden get? I honestly can't see Nato should offer Sweden anything!
Sweden does not have deployable forces in numbers, Swedish territory is militarily uninteresting - especially if Finland joins, Swedish defence industy - might be a gadget or two, but it is more likely to be unwelcome competition.
3. Swedish arms sales to Nato: I saw a program on Swedish television some time back on how these sales were made. My recommandation for these countries would have been stock F-16's untill F-35 had proven itself; but a few well placed bribes did sway oppinion - if I remember the broadcast correctly. I might be wrong: It took me a couple of months to discover, that the new digital television had cut me from recieving - in that period the swedish programmes were as entertaining as ever - and I was asleep.
The real problem for Swedish products is the US concept of the hi-lo fighter combination, where the F-22 is a tactical reserve of the alliance IN THE AIR supporting the lower end F-35 - and most likely a host of F-16's.
The A'stan issue is not noble: It is to keep Al Qaida from the drug revenue.
My concern is the effectiveness of the military effort.
In the south there has been some real fighting - where (to my great relief) the danish forces fought very well indeed. Now it seems likely - with the reinforcements - that Danish forces will operate on a higher level with integration of armour and aircraft.
The last thing is for me the most important, as if we EVER again have to fight for our lives we need armed forces that can get their act together on brigade and corps level!
Behaps, behaps NOT
Not so unusual problem (with bribes) as it should be, what do you think? But on the other hand, I think you are aware about the political bias among journalists in sweden.
You mean Netcentric warfare? or what? Sweden are mayby "behind" denmark in some off this areas - but there are alot of work doing in this area in sweden. I think "RAKEL" is included as a part. I´m not sure.
ADD:
Or do you mean training, common exercise and procedures - well that's a result of active membership in NATO.
I forgot to tell you - even the defence organisation in sweden have start to adapt to procedures and rutines according NATO-standard. And ...we will propably not join NATO tomorrow ...
Last edited:
The Gripen sales: Well I noticed a compensatory buy percentage in the South African deal of 130% - those trinket are going to expensive. Off course there are bribe to paid in arms deals, but You contented it was the planes merits.
As to higher command levels:
There is a world of difference between fighting with a company and fighting with a brigade - not just in numbers. Primarely my thoughts were on all the screwups that can occur - and does - if you haven't tried it before. Netcentric warfare is just a tool, Im talking about training for the commanders - tactical trainer are fine; but there is no substitute for real war.
I know the Swedes read up on the litterature; but it is more basic than that.
Sweden is in the position Denmark was in before WW2:
There was no way we could arm ourselves or fight the enemy for any length of time - and all the tricks in the book were tried.
We are in the middle of a fundamental change in paradigm in warfare - technologically speaking. This means the next generation of weapons is going to be hugely expensive.
Up to now Sweden has been able - just - to arm itself. The weapons they couldn't make themselves could be bought reasonably modern.
Today development of effective weapons systems is so expensive that a nation the size of Sweden cannot cover full range. And the the weapons for sale will not be the most modern in the suppliers inventory.
The problem of Gripen is: When it is finally operative it will have so few years of operational effectiveness before it has to be replaced, that the money and effort is largely wasted. If we buy Gripen today - it will take about 5 years before it operates effectively on a squadron level.
This is probably the reasoning behind the Swedish thoughts of joining Nato.
Sweden MIGHT be able to buy F-35's if they are not a member of Nato; but in all probability in a downgraded version and AFTER Nato-members needs have been met.
As I said: We've been through the same process 70 years ago.
The main difference is that Nato was formed when we were able to offer what the Baltic nation are offering: Critically placed territory.
The US donated us equipment for 2 divisions - some of it very good - as it was in the selfinterest of the US to do so. We are donating equipment to the Baltic nation - albeit on a much smaller scale - for precisely the same reason.
My Questions is: What has Sweden to offer?
Territory? No! The geographical position of Sweden, that has kept Sweden out of wars and occupation now works against her. That is what is behind my remarks about Stockholm falling into the well-deserved obscurity of a provincial hamlet. The attempts to market Stockholm as the capital of Scandinavia met belly-laughs in the town hall in Copenhagen, Where one of the mayors pointed out that Randers could make the same claim with the same justification. (Never heard of Randers??? Well very people have!)
Technology? No! Apart from the odd gadget or two comparable equipment are stock items already.
Well qualified troops? No! We can get all the fine light infantry we need in Lithuania - and I dare say cheaper.
A competent command system: Maybe - maybe not; but such a structure is already at hand.
You can't even make a nuisance of yourself - Göran Persson and Oluf Palme tried - there are too many ways of pulling the plug on Sweden short of warfare.
Strategically this places Sweden in a predicament: Too small for continued neutrality, too uninteresting for consideration as an allied. Denmark anno 1937. Why do You think Sweden will have any influence at all? Why should Nato put in an extra chair at the table?
That is just the military side of it.
As to higher command levels:
There is a world of difference between fighting with a company and fighting with a brigade - not just in numbers. Primarely my thoughts were on all the screwups that can occur - and does - if you haven't tried it before. Netcentric warfare is just a tool, Im talking about training for the commanders - tactical trainer are fine; but there is no substitute for real war.
I know the Swedes read up on the litterature; but it is more basic than that.
Sweden is in the position Denmark was in before WW2:
There was no way we could arm ourselves or fight the enemy for any length of time - and all the tricks in the book were tried.
We are in the middle of a fundamental change in paradigm in warfare - technologically speaking. This means the next generation of weapons is going to be hugely expensive.
Up to now Sweden has been able - just - to arm itself. The weapons they couldn't make themselves could be bought reasonably modern.
Today development of effective weapons systems is so expensive that a nation the size of Sweden cannot cover full range. And the the weapons for sale will not be the most modern in the suppliers inventory.
The problem of Gripen is: When it is finally operative it will have so few years of operational effectiveness before it has to be replaced, that the money and effort is largely wasted. If we buy Gripen today - it will take about 5 years before it operates effectively on a squadron level.
This is probably the reasoning behind the Swedish thoughts of joining Nato.
Sweden MIGHT be able to buy F-35's if they are not a member of Nato; but in all probability in a downgraded version and AFTER Nato-members needs have been met.
As I said: We've been through the same process 70 years ago.
The main difference is that Nato was formed when we were able to offer what the Baltic nation are offering: Critically placed territory.
The US donated us equipment for 2 divisions - some of it very good - as it was in the selfinterest of the US to do so. We are donating equipment to the Baltic nation - albeit on a much smaller scale - for precisely the same reason.
My Questions is: What has Sweden to offer?
Territory? No! The geographical position of Sweden, that has kept Sweden out of wars and occupation now works against her. That is what is behind my remarks about Stockholm falling into the well-deserved obscurity of a provincial hamlet. The attempts to market Stockholm as the capital of Scandinavia met belly-laughs in the town hall in Copenhagen, Where one of the mayors pointed out that Randers could make the same claim with the same justification. (Never heard of Randers??? Well very people have!)
Technology? No! Apart from the odd gadget or two comparable equipment are stock items already.
Well qualified troops? No! We can get all the fine light infantry we need in Lithuania - and I dare say cheaper.
A competent command system: Maybe - maybe not; but such a structure is already at hand.
You can't even make a nuisance of yourself - Göran Persson and Oluf Palme tried - there are too many ways of pulling the plug on Sweden short of warfare.
Strategically this places Sweden in a predicament: Too small for continued neutrality, too uninteresting for consideration as an allied. Denmark anno 1937. Why do You think Sweden will have any influence at all? Why should Nato put in an extra chair at the table?
That is just the military side of it.
Sorry to butt in like this, but I'm curious, if the Gripen is on the verge of becoming obsolete, then the F-35 has perhaps only a few years longer, so what would the benifts of buying the F-35 be in the midst of this "fundamental change in paradigm in warfare".
As for NATO, it is debatable as to whereter it will be around in 10 years, esp as it exists now, it seems to be trying to set itself up as some kind of expeditionary corps with some pretty dismal results at the moment, there is a chance that the EU battlegroups will end up more important players in European defence (you may have noticed that the european projects start small but have a habit of building into pretty sturdy sturtures). In this case there is every chance that Sweden will become more intrgrated into European defence...oh the horror!:shudder
By the way does Denmark have a complex about Sweden? you seem to fly off the handle everytime its mentioned.
Norwegians also have the same problem with Swedes, I personally think its an inferiority complex, a touch of jealousy perhaps. Sweden has always been the bigger power of the three, always been more important and up until fairly recently had a better economy and higher standard of living.
On a lighter side Princess Madeline is better looking than any of the royals in Denmark or Norway.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Actually Denmark also had its 400 years of empire, which included Sweden.
Norway has not, and buttons can be pushed in this regard to very nationalistic Norewegians. E.g. Denmark kept Greenland/Iceland/Faroes after the Napoleonic Wars.
Inferiority/little brother complexes would be a wrong explanation. It is only used in relation to sports games, bacause there you use the most tired clichées. It is about perceptions of past glory and loss of empire.
I'd say Mary is better looking - but she is an Aussie so she doesn't count, I guess.
Not to rattle your cage to greatly but the Norwegians suffered Danish occupation longer than they did under the Swedish, plus in my experience living with a Norwegian for many years and now living in Norway Norwegians look down on both Danes and Swedes and feel superior to both, all that oil money has corrupted them.
Next point I can understand Swedish, Danish sounds plain weird, like you are constantily talking with your mouth full.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Yes - the Norwegians have a term called Danskenatten - The Danish Night - describing the 400 years in the personal union. They suffered a lot. So did the Danes, because everybody was treated equally harsly under the (Danish) Crown. A thing Norwegian historians seem to forget when they describe how unfair the Danes were.Not to rattle your cage to greatly but the Norwegians suffered Danish occupation longer than they did under the Swedish, plus in my experience living with a Norwegian for many years and now living in Norway Norwegians look down on both Danes and Swedes and feel superior to both, all that oil money has corrupted them.
Next point I can understand Swedish, Danish sounds plain weird, like you are constantily talking with your mouth full.
I'd say that Norwegian just sounds funnier than Danish, which is not the prettiest sounding language around, btw.
Not even sure if you could really consider Mary Australian since her parents are Scots. I find it quite amusing that when she speaks English she speaks with a Danish accent. Talk about taking the girl out of Australia and danifying her. I wish I had picked up norsk as fast as she learnt dansk.
Mero, I pray for day...
In the meantime, SAAB/BAE Systems are glad to offer the Teoshich's Government a choice selection of ex-Swedish Grippen and future-conformity upgrades.
Committ to double figures and we'll even fund your pilots through the NATO Flight Training Centre - free of charge!
I don't know about you, but I love European Unity...
Just a note: as far as I know, and maybe someone can correct me, BAE hasn't been involved with Gripen marketing for quite a while (2005 maybe?). By the way, most Swedes that I know get pretty annoyed when you spell Gripen with two "p"'s.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Well there are plenty of 1st generation Aussies (my girl included) and the ARE still Aussies. Her mum is from Macedonia and her dad is a Scott, but she is an Aussie and dont try to tell her anything different! I'm 5th gen and there is really no difference between us.
Merocaine:
Any fighter is designed around a scenario - and Gripen is designed around a very specific and somewhat unique scenario: Defence of Sweden.
The F-15 and F-16 is the "hi-lo" pair of fighters, where the F-16 is very capable of handling most situations, but in case the enemy concentrates force a backup is needed, and that is where the F-15 comes in. In itself the F-15 is to expensive to be bought in numbers to cover a given area.
F-22 and F-35 is an extension of that philosophy; but with a twist. The engine allows supercruise, which means the F-22 can act as a tactical reserve IN THE AIR. The differentation of military aircraft is no so much a destinction in role (i.e. fighter, bomber, recce) - that adaption kan be performed with pods and electronics; but a destinction in size and power: The F-35 will be as good as the F-22, but not to the same extend - if you get my drift.
As to age of aircraft: It is not so much physical age, as age of the concept. That is mitigated by adaptability. The Gripen is designed around such a narrow scenario, that adaptability is limited.
The F-16 has been around for since IIRC 1975 and will have served for 40 years as a first line aircraft, when replaced - indeed they are starting to wear out physically. They have been updated thoroughly at least twice.
When they were bought they were competing with SAAB Viggen and Mirage F1 both having been retired for quite some years.
This is partly due to the longer time taken to develop European aircraft, which leaves less time as a first line aircraft.
Secondly - and perhaps more importantly: The core technology in a fighter aircraft is the engine: You have many bad aircraft with good engines, but very few good aircraft with bad engines.
As to the future of Nato, I beg to differ. It continues to provide security for its members - large and small - at a very low price.
Any fighter is designed around a scenario - and Gripen is designed around a very specific and somewhat unique scenario: Defence of Sweden.
The F-15 and F-16 is the "hi-lo" pair of fighters, where the F-16 is very capable of handling most situations, but in case the enemy concentrates force a backup is needed, and that is where the F-15 comes in. In itself the F-15 is to expensive to be bought in numbers to cover a given area.
F-22 and F-35 is an extension of that philosophy; but with a twist. The engine allows supercruise, which means the F-22 can act as a tactical reserve IN THE AIR. The differentation of military aircraft is no so much a destinction in role (i.e. fighter, bomber, recce) - that adaption kan be performed with pods and electronics; but a destinction in size and power: The F-35 will be as good as the F-22, but not to the same extend - if you get my drift.
As to age of aircraft: It is not so much physical age, as age of the concept. That is mitigated by adaptability. The Gripen is designed around such a narrow scenario, that adaptability is limited.
The F-16 has been around for since IIRC 1975 and will have served for 40 years as a first line aircraft, when replaced - indeed they are starting to wear out physically. They have been updated thoroughly at least twice.
When they were bought they were competing with SAAB Viggen and Mirage F1 both having been retired for quite some years.
This is partly due to the longer time taken to develop European aircraft, which leaves less time as a first line aircraft.
Secondly - and perhaps more importantly: The core technology in a fighter aircraft is the engine: You have many bad aircraft with good engines, but very few good aircraft with bad engines.
As to the future of Nato, I beg to differ. It continues to provide security for its members - large and small - at a very low price.
- Status