Swedish Armed Forces situation.

[rattmuff]

Ok, I start with some headlines.

5 sep 07
Swedish defence Minister resigns over cuts
Defence Minister Mikael Odenberg has resigned in protest at government defence cuts. Savings of 4-5 billion kronor announced by Finance Minister Anders Borg were made "without basis or foundation".
http://www.thelocal.se/8395/20070905/

12 Jan 08
Financial crisis rocks Swedish military
Sweden's armed forces are mulling extensive cutbacks as a deepening economic crisis looms in 2008.
http://www.thelocal.se/9635/20080112/

31 Jan 08
Military cuts slammed by government
Sweden's defence minister has criticized plans by the head of the country's armed forces to cut the length of national service and slash flying hours for fighter pilots.
http://www.thelocal.se/9827/20080131/

23 Apr 08
Sweden's military plans further cuts
Eksjö, Luleå, Karlsborg and Uppsala will soon be without any military activity, according to documentation presented by Sweden’s Armed Forces after a meeting on Wednesday.
http://www.thelocal.se/11306/20080423/

Award for development of SEP multi-role vehicle
... Earlier this year the Swedish Armed Forces decided that they could not continue with the SEP project...
http://www.fmv.se/WmTemplates/news.aspx?id=4116

Part of the budget cuts. A shame.
________________________________________________________
Here I begin... The economic situation in the Swedish Armed Forces looks really dark. The peoples trust in their own military and what it should be able to do declines day after day. Just like before and after the FB04*.
* = The decision to get rid of the "invasion defence doctrine" ones and for all eternity.

The current swedish defence consists of ca 35 000 Home Guard soldiers, a few coastal corvettes without any AA-capabilities, a barely operational fighter division and the NBG (which due to the economic situation is missing key equipment like helicopters suitable for medivac in hostile territory). And then there's the 1 armour brigade every second year, consisting of conscripts which ends up in a really long readiness-time. This is not a credible military force. It can't do its main task, which is:

... to defend Sweden against attack by a foreign power.
http://www2.mil.se/en/About-the-Armed-Forces/Our-task/

Take a look at Gotland, a key island in the Baltic Sea, there's no stationary military force there!

And now they plan to close 4 garrisons. Move several training centres, among them we find the SF-units and whole Air Force divisions. Several Home Guard units disappears.
They want to disband and move the 21st fighter wing in Luleå (F21), which leaves north Sweden without AF-units... that makes no sense because: North Sweden is Europe's biggest aerial training area, F21 is the home base when it comes to huge international air force exercises in the area, as the Arctic Ocean get more and more attention it will become an important area and military projection comes natural. By closing F21 anyone can enter the airspace in north Sweden and cruise around basically unnoticed.
Yes, money is apparently more important than security, stability and international credibility.

Several editorialists and bloggers say:
"South Sweden without ground forces, north Sweden without Air Force and the main force stationed abroad."

What I ask for is a more international view of this and what do the defence analysts think of Sweden losing its defensive credibility in the region.
Do they laugh? Do they sigh? :crazy
Any military strategic consequences?

I hope made this somewhat readable and understandable.

 

[Jon K]

What I ask for is a more international view of this and what do the defence analysts think of Sweden losing its defensive credibility in the region. Do they laugh? Do they sigh? :crazy
Any military strategic consequences?

I hope made this somewhat readable and understandable.

As a Finn I think you're taking all this all too seriously. Swedish defense was the envy of the Europe during Cold War. Now Swedish Defense is just falling into level of many other European countries. If you take a look to Norway, Denmark or Finland the situation is not really that different. OK, in paper Finland has mobilization strength of 350 000 but only fairies and the Defense Minister believe in that figure.

Take a look to the army, for instance. Taking a look into Swedish Defense Budget it seems that Sweden has 8 mechanized infantry battalions and 2 guard (urban?) infantry battalions as her main combat forces. Danish Army seems to have 6 infantry and 1 armor battalion altogether, while Norwegian Army seems to have 3 mech infantry battalions, 1 urban infantry battalions and 3 arctic infantry battalions.

Then there's Finland with her fantasy forces. Finland has 5 mechanized infantry battalions (only 3 with good equipment), 3 motorized infantry battalions, 3 arctic infantry battalions and a massive number of infantry battalions not really equipped or trained.

Compared to her neighbours Swedish army seems to be exceptionally well armed with massive amounts of modern MICV's and Leo 2S's. On issues of mobilization and readiness, it's hard to see how Sweden's neighbours are any better in these respects. On issue of training, Sweden seems to enjoy high international status like other Nordic countries.

This could go on forever. It's good that Sweden has highly critical press and defense staff which isn't too shy to criticize the political leadership of Sweden, but one should never believe propaganda of the defence forces, whether it's trying to portray situation in negative light (like in Sweden) or positive light (like in Finland).

 

[Jon K]

Take a look at Gotland, a key island in the Baltic Sea, there's no stationary military force there!

By closing F21 anyone can enter the airspace in north Sweden and cruise around basically unnoticed.

I'll add my scepticism:

First, I have hard time seeing a crisis in which a aggressive power (ie. Russia) can act so fast that reinforcements cannot get into Gotland.

Second, unless Finland and Norway decide that their playful antagonism towards Sweden will be turned real, which country do you think can approach Northern Sweden and cruise around unnoticed? Especially as the Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish aerial and maritime surveillance systems will be networked soon. And even without F21, is it impossible to rotate a flight or pair of fighters to Northern Sweden for aerial showmanship duties when necessary?

 

[Dr Freud]

I'll join up on Jon K's take on this, strength comes through a good economy.

except for one thing

They want to disband and move the 21st fighter wing in Luleå (F21), which leaves north Sweden without AF-units... that makes no sense because: North Sweden is Europe's biggest aerial training area, F21 is the home base when it comes to huge international air force exercises in the area, as the Arctic Ocean get more and more attention it will become an important area and military projection comes natural. By closing F21 anyone can enter the airspace in north Sweden and cruise around basically unnoticed.

1) Vidsel will continue to be the The Missile Test Range not only for Sweden, but other european countries aswell. 2)It is of cource embarrasing if sweden cant send up a fighter to escort un-authorised aircraft out from swedish airspace. and 3) if the cold north turn hot, Sweden will want to re-activate that airbase.

 

[JHC]

about closing down military bases, you should note that nothing is decided yet. But the situation is not good, i mean just next year there are only plans for 40 drafted in Karlskrona, this year it was over 700, will the rest be employed or what? And sure we have a lot of modern equipment, but we have no money for gas. I think there´s only 2 operational mbt this year on one of our mech. training facilities. And if the NBG will be deployed the defense force will huge problems with the economy. I have no problems with a small army, etc during peace time, but we should not let that affect or research and dev. and we should also be able to keep the knowledge in all areas of defense.

 

[rattmuff]

... should also be able to keep the knowledge in all areas of defense.

Well, at least.
I'm satisfied as long they don't throw away whole abilities and as it looks now they can't take away peoples jobs and keep abilities. The only option left is lower the personnel and several abilities goes down the drain.

IF this comes true Sweden's ONLY Anti-Air regiment will be closed and disbanded and the ONLY engineer regiment gets closed, moved and replaced by a single mech. engineer coy. The AF gets lowered from 4 wings to 2 wings and the number of figthers is meant to be 100 Gripen C/D.
50 fighters per division sounds allot?
In 2008 the AF don't have the money to train new Gripen pilots. Also the flying hours/pilot has been decreased.

It's also interesting how this might affect the defence companies who has factories with thousands of employees in Sweden making equipment mainly for the Swedish military.

How's the officer per conscript/soldier-ratio in other countries?
SAF atm (2008) has approx. 1 officer per 1 conscript/soldier. I mean, just that is way to weird.
(ca 10 000 officers and ca 6-8000 conscripts and ca 2-3000 soldiers in NBG, abroad and other)

In the initial post I got "blind" due to "patriotic feelings". Sorry about that.

 

[Waylander]

I can understand that one wants to reduce some forces to the minimum but replacing the only engineer regiment with a mechanized combat engineer coy seems rather foolish.

It is not possible to put all the needed engineer tasks into one company without lossing some capabilities.
And if there is one thing one can never have enough of it is a whole big bunch of (combat) engineers, be it in peactime, wartime or during oversea deployments.

 

[Jon K]

IF this comes true Sweden's ONLY Anti-Air regiment will be closed and disbanded and the ONLY engineer regiment gets closed, moved and replaced by a single mech. engineer coy. The AF gets lowered from 4 wings to 2 wings and the number of figthers is meant to be 100 Gripen C/D.
50 fighters per division sounds allot?

The only reports I've read are written by Mikael Holmström who seems to be dead set to view every annoucement of Swedish armed forces through black glasses. Thus I'm in the dark on the most important thing.

The most important thing to ask is, are these reductions made to peacetime or wartime structure (insatsstyrke)? For example, when in Finland the only AA regiment was disbanded as an independent garrison, it's duties were transferred to another peacetime brigade where regiment continues it's former duties, but not more as an independent outfit.

As for fighters, Finland operates 3 peacetime fighter bases (2 too much, I think), Denmark 1 and Norway 1 (?). If organization isn't too rigid, one should be able to deploy smaller units to different parts of the country either for rotational purposes or on temporary basis.

How's the officer per conscript/soldier-ratio in other countries? SAF atm (2008) has approx. 1 officer per 1 conscript/soldier. I mean, just that is way to weird. (ca 10 000 officers and ca 6-8000 conscripts and ca 2-3000 soldiers in NBG, abroad and other)

Am I right that Sweden does not have career NCO's at all, training is done by officers or reserve officers on contract? In Norway the numbers are roughly 10 000 uniformed personnel, 10 000 conscripts. In Finland about 16500 conscripts and 8000 uniformed personnel. As far as I would put it, isn't ratio just better when there's more contracted personnel to conscripts, as conscripts can be trained better. Of course if the force is top-heavy with too much overaged generals this is not advantage, but disadvantage.

 

[kato]

Germany: four regulars for each conscript.

 

[rattmuff]

The most important thing to ask is, are these reductions made to peacetime or wartime structure (insatsstyrke)?

Sweden don't have a "true" wartime structure. The structure now is basicly the same when near war. It's there on a paper somewhere since I got placed in the military part of the "Total Defence Service Act". Just have to add that 1998-2005 no conscripts got placed there and the military part of the act containing hundred-thousands of swedes was cleared. 2006 was a sort of "fresh start".
http://www2.mil.se/upload/dokumentfiler/publikationer/the_facts_2006_2007_eng.pdf
Sweden has R10, R30, R90, R180? and R360. R is "readiness" and the number is no. days the unit has disposed to be deployed and fully functional. National or international doesn't really matter.
Wonder what happens to me if my regiment gets disbanded... :unknown

Am I right that Sweden does not have career NCO's at all, training is done by officers or reserve officers on contract?

Correct. Officers (those who attend years at military academy) acts as NCOs and if there's a shortage on officers they call in a suitable reserve officer to do the same thing. There are 10-15 "NCOs" per conscripted company.
There is a heck of allot officers you don't see, the so called "desk officers".

 

[SlyDog]

There are several regiment which have been closed down the last 20 years in sweden. When the artillery regiment in my home town closed down for 20 yaers ago, I didnt care. I m not sure but i think some of the regiment had to close down. I think they where a product of the "cold war thinking". But the last changes / downcuttings make me a bit worried. It feels like the politicians plan to taking away really important "cornerstones" in the defence. And something in my head is saying: Something have to be done - but my scepticism tell me that the politicians don´t know what they are doing. Defence policy in sweden are very "light question" in the general debate. To 90% it is discussions about how expensive equipment are etc. An important issue of course - but there are very seldom another perspective in discussions, when it is talk about the defence. Possibly about "conscription - or not". But that´s it.

 

[Feanor]

Why does the army need to be reduced in the first place? It was possible to maintain it's size, and still have a decent economy for decades during the cold war. What changed now?

 

[Dr Freud]

Sovietunion doesnt exist any more.......

 

[RA1911]

As for fighters, Finland operates 3 peacetime fighter bases (2 too much, I think), Denmark 1 and Norway 1 (?).

Right now Norway operates 2 peace time fighter bases (Ørland and Bodø), although there's a lot of talk cutting that to 1 with again lot of fighting about where that should be.

 

[Jon K]

Sweden don't have a "true" wartime structure. The structure now is basicly the same when near war.

I'm referring to primary documents, such as Swedish State Budget, see page 42 of the .pdf:

http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/08/81/69/e3abb9db.pdf

It's clearly different from Swedish peacetime structure. Furthermore, some peacetime units, such as K3, clearly refer to their mobilization units (Krigsförband) even on their websites.

As for the mobilization times quoted by Holmström et al I really have my doubts. If the situation really demanded, do you honestly think that peacetime garrison units would take a year calling in the necessary reservists and getting their units to the scene?

There is a heck of allot officers you don't see, the so called "desk officers".

Without doubt there are. This problem is fairly universal, while it's excellent that in Sweden the newspapers have the interest to tackle the question, the condition is unfortunately not unique for Sweden.

 

[Feanor]

Sovietunion doesnt exist any more.......

So? That's no excuse to lose military capabilities.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Sovietunion doesnt exist any more.......

That may be a fact, however the nation emergent from the breakdown (Russia) appears to be regaining some of its former belligerence.
The recent resurrection of overflights of Russian military aircraft into NATO airspace comes to mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6981541.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6957589.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6952008.stm
The claiming of the Arctic ocean floor, or parts there of -all seem to indicate a new aggressive posture.

rb

 

[Dr Freud]

To keep a large army when there is no threat, is to wage war against yourself.
self-inflicted Economic warfare

 

[rossfrb_1]

To keep a large army when there is no threat, is to wage war against yourself.
self-inflicted Economic warfare

I agree, however you had better hope that the assessment of 'no threat' has been made using creditable information.
You do not want to be attempting to restore previously held capabilities in a hurry. That can be very expensive.

rb

 

[Feanor]

Dr Freud they were able to keep a certain army size for decades without damaging the economy. Why reduce now?