Sweden/Soviet Union provocative actions

[Tasman]

Thanks for the detailed information Maskirovka.

Your comments about the navy are interesting. The need for bigger ships with greater endurance seems to be the theme with a number of navies that perhaps went 'too far' down the FAC/corvette path. There is a need for small ships. They can be built comparatively cheaply, in large numbers and are adequate for many tasks. There are some tasks, however, where larger ships are needed and now that modern technology means that these ships can be manned by comparatively small crews (just 70 in the Singapore Formidibles for example) they can be economical to run.

I think the air force still looks reasonably strong and would make things difficult for potential adversaries. 120 + Gripens is still a potent force and, as you say, a plus for the army has been the modernisation.


Cheers

 

[Maskirovka]

Thanks for the detailed information Maskirovka.

Your comments about the navy are interesting. The need for bigger ships with greater endurance seems to be the theme with a number of navies that perhaps went 'too far' down the FAC/corvette path. There is a need for small ships. They can be built comparatively cheaply, in large numbers and are adequate for many tasks. There are some tasks, however, where larger ships are needed and now that modern technology means that these ships can be manned by comparatively small crews (just 70 in the Singapore Formidibles for example) they can be economical to run.

I think the air force still looks reasonably strong and would make things difficult for potential adversaries. 120 + Gripens is still a potent force and, as you say, a plus for the army has been the modernisation.
Cheers

When I say "big ships" I still mean ships smaller than the american LCS. The ships I´m speaking of is 100-120 metres long, like a pimped-up Visby or the Meko-frigate. But it´s still bigger then the ones we got in sweden right know. There´s really no need for those in Sweden, we could just build a couple large armed coastguardships to hold our borders in peacetime. But these will solely be built for international missions. But still, in the eyes of the world they will be brown-water navalships...

After hunting mines live in the baltic sea for the last almost 70 years (with very much the last 15 years outside the coastline of estonia/latvia/lithuania) and hunting subs in the archipelago of sweden for the last 30 years I would dare to say that the swedes has the most knowledge in the world when it comes to warfare in littoral areas. Not to mention the fact our entire navy is trained on littoral warfare when it comes to ship vs ship war for centuries. And today when this is becoming more and more important in international campaigns (like the Persian Gulf) I see a bigger role for the swedish navy. That is one of the reasons US. navy has leased the swedish sub HMS Gotland for more then a year....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bs_Zz4CC7go

 

[rattmuff]

Maskirovka, I hadn't realised how much the Swedish forces have shrunk in size. 400 fighters 15 years ago down to 100-150 tomorrow! One of my first military aviation books,William Green, World Aircraft Directory, Butler and Tanner, London, was published in 1961, when the Royal Swedish Air Force was the fifth largest in the world, based on the number of operational combat aircraft. At that time it had approx 700 front line aircraft in 24 day fighter, 6 all weather fighter, 12 all weather attack and 5 recce squadrons, backed up by Bloodhound and Hawk SAM batteries. I couldn't get over how a country with such a small population could have such a powerful air force, but with its long borders and coastline, I guess there was no alternative, if it was to be able to defend its neutrality.

It was either A-bomb or A-force.

The swedish a-bomb was basicly finnished, all they needed was a yes from the goverment but it became a nono after heavy protests and demonstration marches, especially from the women.

 

[Maskirovka]

It was either A-bomb or A-force.

The swedish a-bomb was basicly finnished, all they needed was a yes from the goverment but it became a nono after heavy protests and demonstration marches, especially from the women.

Are you shure about that? I can´t recall any major public demonstrations and protests...

I thought the armed forces were divided into two camps. Side A; wich wanted the A-bomb at the cost of a smaller airforce and side B; that wanted the opposite. The politicians were divided aswell but finally decided on side B. Remember, this was in 60´s, when all nuclearpower were considered to be an blessing in the sky and a gods gift to mankind. Compared to the 80´s when greens/leftist became a major impact on swedish politics the idiots constantly marched against anything that could be considered nuclear or pro-american...

 

[Rythm]

Other then that I don´t see how russia could pose any military threat against Sweden in a foreseeable time.

Are you serious? It seems the shift in russian military doctrine has escaped you. It now clearly states that Russias military forces mission is to ...defend vital russian interests in ...its closer area. As in: the Gazprom pipeline thru the swedish EEZ. They certainly are a smaller threat today than in the 80s, but they are still a threat. Examplified by the comments Swedish Admiral Moore made (in February?) about russia becomming a threat in the future. Altough it seems that swedish politicians dont want this to be true, i grant you that.

 

[rattmuff]

Swedens biggest interest is of course the Baltic Sea. And after reading between the lines it's very obvious that Sweden is to remain the dominating naval power in the Baltic Sea. So in theory if Russia tries to gain naval power in the Baltic Sea, Sweden will follow.

 

[Rythm]

it is? Because if you look at the decisions made by swedish politicians (Forsvarsbeslot) it states Out of area ops and the securing of capability is the main concerns of the armed forces. And in view of the future structure 2010 it really doesnt seem that the armed forces themselves are viewing the baltic as important. But i might be missing something, please enlighten me!

oh, and i wouldnt call sweden "the dominating naval power in the Baltic Sea". To be dominant you need information. And a couple of JAS-39 recce birds are not going to give you that, you need maritime patrol aircraft, wich sweden lacks AFAIK. And what about Poland and Germany? Surely they are a force to be reckoned with in the Baltic Sea?

 

[Waylander]

Ah, don't worry. We have not enough money to make our navy and air force a significant player in the baltic sea.

 

[Rythm]

Note by your own standards, waylander, but compared to sweden, IMHO Germany is a major player in the Baltics

 

[Waylander]

That was just a joke about our current money problem.

In the end Germany is THE major player in the baltic sea besides Russia if we ever decide to get really active in the baltic sea.

More FFGs, FACs, FFLs, SSKs, auxiliary vessels and combat aircrafts than Sweden with comparable technology standards and training.

 

[rattmuff]

it is? Because if you look at the decisions made by swedish politicians (Forsvarsbeslot) it states Out of area ops and the securing of capability is the main concerns of the armed forces.

They also state that the armed force main task is and will always be full scale conflict.

And in view of the future structure 2010 it really doesnt seem that the armed forces themselves are viewing the baltic as important. But i might be missing something, please enlighten me!

Perspektivplan: page 26-28. You can read clearly the Baltic Sea is a vital interest in a military strategic way.
http://www.mil.se/attachments/perspektivplan.pdf(swedish)

You can also take a look at this map

oh, and i wouldnt call sweden "the dominating naval power in the Baltic Sea". To be dominant you need information. And a couple of JAS-39 recce birds are not going to give you that, you need maritime patrol aircraft, which sweden lacks AFAIK. And what about Poland and Germany? Surely they are a force to be reckoned with in the Baltic Sea?

I think Sweden has pretty good idea about what is going on in the Baltic Sea. "Erieye", "Korpen", "Orion", underwater surveillance, radar stations, "STRIL". AFAIK Sweden do patrol the waters with armed Gripens. The fighters don't need any recce equipment because of state of the art air defence system on the ground and in the air.

Perspektivplan: 5.2
The swedish goverment wants 143 Gripens but the armed force states it's to many to achieve a continuous development of the system and wants 100 Gripen. Fever air crafts means more hours in the sky, more funds for development and longer life time of the system.

Heard of "Rbs 15" and "Rbs 15F"? The continuous development of "Torpedo 2000"? These are high tech weapon systems capable of destroying or damage any ship. I don't know about "Rb 17" (HSDS), IMOA this is also a multiplier to consider.


Maybe Sweden is the dominating naval power because they make it a full time job supervising it?

 

[Rythm]

Rattmuff, that is all well and true. But in order to dominate the baltic sea you need more than the capabillity of producing high-tech weapons and platforms. For example the RBS15 that you mention, the swedish navy uses the old mk2-version of it. The german navy uses the improved mk3 and has already ordered the mk4. Same goes for the corvettes, Sweden has 4 (?) Visby whilst germany has 10 Braunschweig. Eurofighter outclasses Gripen, and so on.

And this is just compared to the germans, then you got the poles, the russians, the finns and the danes too. The numbers just arent there to be able to dominate anything!

 

[Karoliner]

THE "player"

That was just a joke about our current money problem.

In the end Germany is THE major player in the baltic sea besides Russia if we ever decide to get really active in the baltic sea.

More FFGs, FACs, FFLs, SSKs, auxiliary vessels and combat aircrafts than Sweden with comparable technology standards and training.

Germany is not THE major player in the Baltic sea, Germany has quite a narrow shore in the Baltics or the East Sea as we call it. Naval ships are quite vulnerable in the baltics - land or air launched missiles are a major threat as well as subs - and Sweden are a leading nation regarding diesel submarines. With about 150 Gripen aircraft we control the air above the baltics. Our electronic know how is absolutely state of the art and much of our efforts have been spent on that, i.e. radar technology and electronic countermeasures. Germany is NOT at all as succesful in that area. After all, you buy your anti ship missiles from us...

But "domination" is an ugly word that mostly russians and germans use...
Anyone with some understanding of the situation would understand that Sweden is creating an alliance together with Finland, the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and to some degree Lithuania) and Norway. The alliance with Finland is already there, has been for many centuries and continues. Soo, together with Finland and soon Norway, we are the major force in the north. Next thing on the agenda is to stop the russian/german pipeline that was supposed to cross the baltics... The so called "major" powers in the region are effectively blocked by Sweden and it´s allies. What russia and germany has a difficulty in understanding is that if you are unpopular you loose influence. Russias and Germanys actions during WWII are not forgotten by it´s neighbours
Waylander... germany has met Swedish and Finnish troops before and it took you sometime to get over that... If you are not careful you´ll end up behind Swedish curtains and are then served Schweden trunk... Enjoy!

 

[Grand Danois]

Where is Ths when you need him...

 

[Waylander]

Germany is not THE major player in the Baltic sea, Germany has quite a narrow shore in the Baltics or the East Sea as we call it. Naval ships are quite vulnerable in the baltics - land or air launched missiles are a major threat as well as subs - and Sweden are a leading nation regarding diesel submarines. With about 150 Gripen aircraft we control the air above the baltics. Our electronic know how is absolutely state of the art and much of our efforts have been spent on that, i.e. radar technology and electronic countermeasures. Germany is NOT at all as succesful in that area. After all, you buy your anti ship missiles from us...

But "domination" is an ugly word that mostly russians and germans use...
Anyone with some understanding of the situation would understand that Sweden is creating an alliance together with Finland, the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and to some degree Lithuania) and Norway. The alliance with Finland is already there, has been for many centuries and continues. Soo, together with Finland and soon Norway, we are the major force in the north. Next thing on the agenda is to stop the russian/german pipeline that was supposed to cross the baltics... The so called "major" powers in the region are effectively blocked by Sweden and it´s allies. What russia and germany has a difficulty in understanding is that if you are unpopular you loose influence. Russias and Germanys actions during WWII are not forgotten by it´s neighbours
Waylander... germany has met Swedish and Finnish troops before and it took you sometime to get over that... If you are not careful you´ll end up behind Swedish curtains and are then served Schweden trunk... Enjoy!

What is this? A pi***** contest?
Yeah, we buy RBS15 Mrk.III but one should remember that RBS15 MrkIV is going to be developed by both countries.
The same goes for Meteor, also a multinational project.
For sure Sweden has a comparable huge and capable military industrial complex for a country of its size.
But not everything is like you want it to be.
The mentioned missile programes above are one example. That HDW is in posession of Kockums is another example.
It is not as if Sweden has an independent military capability and Germany on the other side is buying lots of its equipment from Sweden

For sure Germany is not going to dominate the baltic sea by force (Due to our rather pacifistic behaviour and a lot of other reasons).
But if one wants to compare military capabilities numbers also count (Besides a lot of other stuff).
And if one thinks about that I don't see any side having a huge advantage in training or technology numbers are even more important.
And while 150 Gripens are impressive (Especially when upgraded to C/D) this force is not going to dominate the airspace against a modern force of EFs together with the strike capability of the remaining Tornado Wings.

And trying to go com with the WWII stick is laughable in a debate about current military capabilities.
One might use it as a base for explanation of Germany's behaviour these days and its relations with it's neighbours.

Your explanations are much tooo simplistic. Last time I looked Norway and the baltic states where still NATO members.
And when has Germany ever talked about dominating anything by force after WWII?

Talking about Sweden blocking the pipeline by anything else than political or economic pressure is ridicoulus or does Sweden wants to blow it up?

This is much too much patriotic talking from you in my eyes.

 

[kato]

What is this? A pi***** contest?
Yeah, we buy RBS15 Mrk.III but one should remember that RBS15 MrkIV is going to be developed by both countries.

We could go further and say that SAAB is owned by GM actually
Kockums by TKMS (DE)... Bofors/Celsius by BAE (UK)... Norma by RUAG (CH)...

Meh, let's stop this. It gets boring fast.

When we get down to it, German Navy forces in the Baltic Theater are (currently! with squadrons stationed there):
FAC: 8 Type 143A
Subs: 4 Type 212A, 8 Type 206A
MCMV: 6 Type 332, 5 Type 333, 5 Type 352
Tenders: 5 Type 404
Amphib: 2 Type 520
Recon: 3 Type 423
Ground troops: 2 bataillons naval infantry (MSK, SEK-M)

If we subtract the stuff that isn't really there, we'll get half of that btw, for about every type.

No corvettes yet (especially not 10, wtf), no RBS-15 Mk3/4 (grand total of 32 Exocet MM38 instead), zero organic air-defense beyond self-protection (RAM, 27mm) etc pp.

 

[Waylander]

Good post.

There are a lot more connections between the different defence companies in europe and around the globe than one might think.

And for sure our current stuff stationed in the baltic sea is not that much but one should think that if a problem occurs in the baltic sea forces would be redeployed to face this threat.

In the end I don't see were this should lead to.

As I said before, Germany is not going to use any force in the baltic sea unless we are under a serious attack.
And then automatically NATO comes into the game.

Anything else is baseless fantasy in the real world.

Politics aside and focussing completely onto military capabilities one cannot deny that Sweden is not able to dominate the baltic sea (Yeah, we also call it east sea in Germany) if the other nations bordering it also get serious about challenging each other.

Major clashes in the baltic sea would at least see Russia and Germany deploying the majority of their assets into the area (The other nations are already massed in there).

But again, this is not going to happen. Neither Sweden nor Germany is going to use force in the baltic against each other to solve any possible problems.

Or should this went into a "what if" direction?

 

[Rythm]

I don't see any side having a huge advantage in training

I beg to differ, having served in both armies i dare say that an average german infantery platoon outclasses a swedish average infantery platoon by as much as a factor of 3 to 1. Only based on training and leadership.

A swedish average infanterysoldier couldnt tell you what a Tarnfächer is, nor could he explain why 400m is a good distance to set a machineguns sight to. Just as an example.

 

[Waylander]

You served in both armies? How come?

Conscript time in Germany and later joined the Swedish Army or vice versa?

 

[Gripenator]

There is no doubt Germany is the dominant Baltic Power-the rusting remnants of the Baltic Fleet lie at anchor across from Helsingborg

Germany is the major Baltic power by virtue of having the power projection capabilities (F125s, U212s and shore based EF-2000s) to enforce the directives of NATO in the Baltic. Our Försvarsmakten has continuously suffered budget cuts despite ever increasing mission requirements. In order to prop up that welfare state of ours the Government spends US$5.65bn on defense (1.5% of GDP) while the NATO minimum is 3% of GDP. So Sweden is reduced to having a semi credible self defense force, ableit a highly mobile one with equipment such as the JAS-39A, Visby corvettes etc. clearly unsuited for power projection overseas having short ranges and insufficient magazine capacity. It’s true that Sweden takes defense seriously, but not seriously enough-its time someone woke up and saw the resurgent Russian Bear and the cash they are throwing at their navy.