i've worked (and still work) with swedish military technology companies.
it's not just about collins. i can and do separate the issues.
Will latest F-35 problems push Norway towards a European solution?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
- Status
it's not just about collins. i can and do separate the issues.
GF0012, I have to admit that your statements above are a bit opaque to me -- are you referring to the F-35 technology in particular? Or something else?
Norway is a long-standing ally of of the US and a NATO member that (at least most of the time) fulfils its obligations, AFAIK. Norway and US has shared info and intelligence very actively during the cold war; I have personally talked to US personell that were "tourists" in Norway during the 70's and 80's and (as you probably would expect) the activities were much "deeper" and more numerous than what most people could ever imagine. This just as an example of the excellent relations between the US and Norway in the recent past.
Are you alluding to the hypothesis that purchasing Swedish aircrafts and not US could weaken these ties, above and beyond the obvious reduction of cooperation in the aviation sector that procrurement from Sweden would cause ? Or to the seemingly obvious fact that the technology in F-35 is significantly more sophisticated than what we may expect to find in the Gripen NG?
To me it seems that the Czech Republic , in spite of choosing Gripen, still is an important and valued ally to the US; therefore I assume you were alluding to the latter (?) Or are you referring to something else different?
V
Something else.
Not sure why you're pointing this out. It's quite apparent that Norway and the US have close associations across a number of vectors - what I was trying to reinforce was that the silly concept that a skandinavian association would trump the US relationship. Norway is pragmatic.
The Norwegian/US relationship is strong enough to survive a procurement decision - Czechoslovakia is a good example of how the US behaves when they're unsuccessful. ie no impact.
It's obvious to me but seems to be a difficult concept for some others to grasp
See previous. The issue is how a US Govt official conducted themselves and thus compromised what was almost a "sure thing". The Czechs and Americans haven't had a falling out over that at all - in fact the Czechs ended up with greater intel access in the end.To me it seems that the Czech Republic , in spite of choosing Gripen, still is an important and valued ally to the US; therefore I assume you were alluding to the latter (?) Or are you referring to something else different?
what I have been trying to politely point out to some of the fanboy commentators is that nation state interests are far more robust and based on mutual needs - throwing in the genetic association or geographical co-location card is not a winning hand.
Not sure how many times I need to say this - Norway for whatever reason may elect to go with Gripen - it's their choice. I however think that the arguments thrown in as a vehicle of logic to support a shift in favour of the Gripen are not robust in their own right.
Yes, but a rise in the dollar will increase any price fixed in dollars in domestic currency, & relative to Gripen (or any other aircraft with a larger proportion of its costs in a weakening currency than F-35) which I think is what B3LA meant. So unless LM agree to a fixed price in Norwegian kroner, the price to Norway, in Norwegian currency, is subject to exchange rate fluctuations.
I think few seriously believe that a scandinavian association would "trump the US relationship". It is more a question of considering if such an association can complement existing relationships. As noted before, Finland and Sweden are not NATO members; Norway is not in EU. Thus all three may see some benefits in strenghtening the Scandinavian relationship to compensate.
Should a closer scandinavian collaboration imply that Norway should buy Gripen? Not necessarily, and perhaps that's one area in which we see a breakdown in logic?
I agree that capabilities vs requirements should be the deciding factor, not politics or offsets. If F-35 is the aircraft that meets the needs of the rNAF then it should be bought.
IF Norway chooses Gripen then it may be tempting to blame the politicians 100%; however, I think it would be difficult for the politicians to choose a plane that clearly does not meet the requirements. Thus if Gripen is chosen, and if Gripen turns out to be inadequate, then I would have to question not just the politicians, but also the list of requirements set forth -- were they specified sufficiently strict to weed out inadequate aircrafts?
There is a risk that the rNAF in the initial phases of the project did not realize that the competition arranged by the Norwegian govermnent was supposed to be a real one, and not just a theater; there is a risk that, assuming this to be a "theater" not sufficent attention was paid to details in the requirements specifications and making them sufficiently rigorous to avoid acceptance of a 4. gen aircraft.
Do I have any foundations for these speculations? I have noticed that people linked to the air force recently have focused more on the risks of buying aircrafts that presumably will be produced in low numbers, rather than on lack of capabilities or failure to meet requirements. If Gripen did not meet the specs then presumably that would be the easiest way to kill it. Currently that's not the main argument presented through the Norwegian media.
The Dutch are doing this in a different way it seems, I suspect that's because the Dutch AF is fully supported by their Defence Minister in not really considering alternatives to F-35; OTOH I find it difficult to agree with the Dutch approach! Being forced by the opposition to arrange a competition it seems to me that they are trying to obstruct it in different ways. Perhaps they consider it a waste of time, on the other hand the experts should also consider that the politicians lack the knowledge base to understand this. Why not grab the chance to demonstrate the superiority of F-35 in a fair competition?
http://www.jsfnieuws.nl/?p=258
Google translated:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsfnieuws.nl%2F%3Fp%3D258&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=nl&tl=en
Vivendi
Norway is on the distribution list for a number of future technology developments.
When we get them the docs are labeled with who has permission to view.
Norway (not Sweden) is on a number of them - and they're leading edge future systems.
thats the best that you'll get from me. if it's not enough then I understand and accept your vision of whatever you want anyway.
Selective response here as I think we're going around in circles.
It's also deliberately abstract as an answer.
We don't need to have access to physical Su-27's or Mig 35's to simulate and evaluate against JSF. We already have sufficient data to achieve baseline assumptions and have a level of confidence. Note this is real classified quality access to real data, not the Janes and Kopp/Goon data which is open source and often easily challenged.
Similarly, JSF partners don't need to get access to Gripens to compare performance specs.
In absolute terms do I care what the Norwegians get? NO. I only care what we get, and based on what we know and have from multiple sources it isn't the Gripen.
On the issue of politicians listening to the warfighters - thats a pretty long bow to draw, I can think of any number of military purchases where politicians polluted the process due to political imperatives at a local governance or regional level.
In an australian context the push to get the F-22 was politically expeditious for the existing Govt when it was in Opposition last year, however, once they got the briefings on why the F22 was not a good choice, they quietly started to reduce the volume on their intent to pursue the aircraft as a repalcement for JSF. The govt took advantage of the hysteria that APA were generating as it suited their political vehicle of pursuit against the prev government. Unfort, its come back to bite them as they now have to gently turn into the wind so that they don't look like hypocrites. Australian, German, Danish, American etc... politicians are the same cut of cloth when it comes to these issues. They're beasts of opportunity.
Hence, my clear view is that the rNAF, have made it clear that on capability they'd prefer the JSF, may end up with a less qualified aircraft due to whatever house rules apply. At the end of the day it's their choice.
Me? I'd rather get the best available capability and look at it holisitically rather than through the fractured prism of local, regional geopolitics. Sweden however has been much better at getting product out than the French with Rafale.
Dalregementet
New Member
I seriously doubt that Sweden are "excluded" from such information. Of you look at the projects that Sweden participates in or drive, then you quickly understand that Sweden has full access to any information that Norway has.
Projects that Sweden participates in or drives: Meteor, Iris T, Excalibur etc etc
I gather you've never worked in this environment?
when countries receive technical briefings they are flagged with who can read them and at what level.
as I said, docs that include Norway (and Denmark) don't include Sweden.
Whats important is who is permitted to view - I don't give a stuff about who can't.
Dalregementet
New Member
Oh - I have and I am. I know a great deal about cooperation between Swedish defence companies and US/Nato defence companies. Also about cooperation between Swedish defence and US/Nato defence. Swedish developed defence equipment is far more advanced than most other Nato countries, including Norway, Denmark and Australia thus the intensive cooperation with Sweden.
Dalregementet
New Member
Right now my focus is civil security - Swedish technology will be at the very forefront in this domain. The technology we use is partly defence related and, of course, my main partners are norwegians
Thats very odd, because you seemingly are unaware of Clearance caveats. Someone who knows would not question what I clearly stated in context.
Dalregementet
New Member
My main point is that Sweden is not excluded from high tech info shared in Nato - that's definately an illusion.
They obviously are as I see documents every day that are country specific.
Reality trumps illusion every time.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I freely admit I do not have any sort of security clearance or work in any environment requiring a clearance. Having said that though, I do pay attention to the Library of Congress and the associated law libraries.
I would say that yes, Sweden does indeed get data shared with the US and other NATO countries. I would have to strongly disagree that everything gets shared with Sweden. Right now I would guestimate that the top three or four nations that the US shares intel and tech with are the UK, Australia, Canada and Israel, and in something like that order.
I believe GF's point is that Norway, by virtue of being a member of NATO and for additional reasons, receives intel and/or tech information that Sweden does not. I have nothing to offer as proof of that, aside from the suggestion that if the JSF is to be as advanced as intended with a host of capabilities new to most users, then the receiving nations/air forces would need to be briefed on those differences and ways to exploit them.
-Cheers
Dalregementet
New Member
Reality
This is really funny!
http://www.eusec.org/adams.htm
DOD (US) has been reluctant to release technologies that might tie into weapons of mass destruction or the means of delivering WMD. Although a DOP has been negotiated with Sweden, there appear to be no plans to initiate such talks with other governments. With respect to specific technology transfers, DOD (and State) have allowed German access to UAV technology, particularly the Global Hawk airframe, and for Italy with respect for the Predator UAV, but there has been no broader policy decision. In general the tone of DOD policy with respect to transatlantic defense industry cooperation has been less forward leaning than in the prior administration.
- - -
There is also a growing cross-national trend to create European-level institutions and policies to provide the legal setting and road map for European defense acquisition policies and defense industry behavior. Such harmonization is seen as necessary for an healthy, cross-national industrial base, as well as to ensure that this industry does not escape governmental scrutiny and controls. [11] Under the July 2000 "framework agreement" six countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Spain) have undertaken to harmonize practices and regulations on export controls, security of supply, the security of classified information and industrial security, defense research and development, the treatment of technical information, and defense requirements. [12]
- - -
Also, Saabs CEO, Åke Svensson, is chairman for the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. That´s the reality.
http://www.asd-europe.org/content/default.asp?PageID=1
This is really funny!
http://www.eusec.org/adams.htm
DOD (US) has been reluctant to release technologies that might tie into weapons of mass destruction or the means of delivering WMD. Although a DOP has been negotiated with Sweden, there appear to be no plans to initiate such talks with other governments. With respect to specific technology transfers, DOD (and State) have allowed German access to UAV technology, particularly the Global Hawk airframe, and for Italy with respect for the Predator UAV, but there has been no broader policy decision. In general the tone of DOD policy with respect to transatlantic defense industry cooperation has been less forward leaning than in the prior administration.
- - -
There is also a growing cross-national trend to create European-level institutions and policies to provide the legal setting and road map for European defense acquisition policies and defense industry behavior. Such harmonization is seen as necessary for an healthy, cross-national industrial base, as well as to ensure that this industry does not escape governmental scrutiny and controls. [11] Under the July 2000 "framework agreement" six countries (UK, France, Germany, Italy, Sweden and Spain) have undertaken to harmonize practices and regulations on export controls, security of supply, the security of classified information and industrial security, defense research and development, the treatment of technical information, and defense requirements. [12]
- - -
Also, Saabs CEO, Åke Svensson, is chairman for the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe. That´s the reality.
http://www.asd-europe.org/content/default.asp?PageID=1
Dalregementet
New Member
Sharing technology and Intel means give and take. Sweden has always had a lot to give in that respect, Also, over time, Sweden has proved to be trustworthy, thus the unique access for Sweden.
Exactly. The swedes get access to significant material - they DO NOT get access to all NATO material. They definitely DO NOT get access to all material that the Danes or Norwegians get.
Material access is based on relevance. What may be provided to Denmark, Norway or even Finland even may have no relevance to and for Sweden.
In addition, the Swedes DO NOT get access to information that may be provided to other Scandinavian countries.
In an australian context, there is some information that is relevant to us that may be provided, but we also don't need access to regional material unless it has international implications (eg but no exclusively terrorism)
Good grief, are you being deliberately obtuse? Make the effort to read my posts and understand them properly.
When in heavens name did the Chair for ADIAE have any impact on the provision of rated material to Sweden?
Again, the Swedes do not get any automatic right to NATO or caveated material.
In fact, as an example, there is material that is rated for Active NATO members, Australia, Sth Korea and Japan. Guess who's not in the briefings?
being a member of a European focused commercial conglomerate has no relevance to whether a country receives privileged material.
You are displaying complete ignorance of how it works in the real world when you trot out rubbish like that as evidence of Swedens inclusion in all critical technologies.
- Status