Air Force Likely To Opt For Swedish Jet Fighter

[chinthee]

What chemist misses in his analyse is that it's not really connected to reality.

Much like the socialist goverment has slaughtered the military organisation and spending during the last 20 years the 'wise' politicians post WW1 forsaw no threat (infact, the opposite) so they removed a lot of the organisation and manpower, that was lacking from the start. Having peace (at that time) for over 100 years leaves a mark... so when the WW2 came there was no organisation nor manpower to do anything.

It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you. And at the same time the Swedish military helped the allied with information and performed spionage-operations, especially since the German militarys misjudged the alligience from the Swedish military.

And post WW2 Sweden remaind on paper neutral, but in reality sent a multitude of spies into russia, while russia had spies and subs sent over to Sweden. Sweden also performed signal-surveilance with airplanes and other duties that was reported back to NATO-contacts. One hint of the level of cooperation was the '37-annex' in 1960 allowing the Swedish military access to advanced U.S. aeronautical technology and guarantee that the US would protect Sweden incase of Soviet invasion, while Sweden protected the US polaris submarines, deployed outside the west coast to map and spy on Soviet, against soviet anti-sub aircrafts.

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

So much attention so early in my ThaiVisa career. Where will this end ? Seriously, I appreciate your input . Well, I will try to elaborate on this, although it is only vaguely (if at all) Thai-related.

1) I am in no way claiming to be an expert in the field of fighter jets, but I know that the joint venture deal between SAAB and BAE Systems came into play pretty long AFTER the Gripen was developed and built on an industrial scale. That move was, among other reasons, made in order to obtain a more efficient sales (and further development) organization.

I did not claim that the Gripen is 70 % American built. What I said was that, according to a friend of mine who is working with Gripen at SAAB, 70 % of the parts (materials if you will) that make up the plane come from America. Now, that figure may have changed (perhaps due to the cooperation with BAE) since I last talked about this with my friend a few years ago, and in that case I apologize for being misleading. However, there have been many articles in Swedish newspapers for example over the years presenting the fact that a substantial proportion of Gripen's components (especially electronics) originate, in one way or the other, from the US. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. I still think the Gripen will be an excellent buy for Thailand .

2) About Swedish "neutrality"... Those of you that are not Swedish citizens might be surprised to hear that the debate over this in Sweden has been, shall we say... muffled, for many many years (lately, though, it has become more and more accepted to have different views). The topic was (and to a certain extent still is, especially when it comes to WWII and the subsequent Cold War) VERY sensitive in my native country, and anyone who dared to question the official "we are/were neutral and therefore better than them"-doctrine would immediately be ridiculed in one way or the other. As indicated above however, the debate climate has changed considerably for the better over the last two decades or so.

Anyway, TAWP thinks that my former "analysis" is not connected with reality. That is a matter of opinion in this case (I don't recall writing an "analysis", I just expressed some opinions connected with a few facts). Ok, I actually agree with a lot of the things you say, TAWP. As for WWII:

Quote: "It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you." Yes, but does that justify willingly supplying the Nazis with raw materials (especially metal ore from the north of Sweden) to keep their war machine running (we are talking about HUGE amounts of material here)? On your neighbour countries' (and other countries, naturally)expense? And let us not forget that the Swedish government made enormous profits out of this deal. Does that sound moral to you? To me it doesn't. Does your statement above justify letting the Germans use Sweden's railway system for troop transports (troops heading for parts of Norway, mostly)? Does it justify turning away some (but not all, granted) of the Norwegians trying to flee into Sweden for fear of upsetting the Nazis? You must of course be aware of the fact that a substantial proportion of the Swedish government (and the Swedish population) was pro-Hitler, and that anti-Nazi propaganda was verboten(!) in Swedish media during the first part of the war? And all of this under the mighty doctrine of "neutrality"? I would call it appeasement. Granted, the Swedish military resources were not great at the time, but they were certainly not non-existant. The Swedish Army has for a long time focused on guerilla warfare in the event of an enemy attack (after the first hectic days of the attack, that is). So, what we are talking about here is a matter of principles. Do you do your best to stop or slow down an evil aggressor (by ANY means), even if you know that you can probably not win, or do you put your hands up in the air and actually help said aggressor at the expense of your peaceful democratic neighbours? As for your statements about the Swedish government helping the allies with information, that might be true after the point when the British and Americans "convinced" Sweden to switch sides (appeasement again, but this time in a good way if you believe in democracy). At that point the brave Swedes had no problems with switching sides, since the war had started to turn sour for Adolf. Again, I see this as a matter of principles. The Swedish government didn't.

The cold war: Well, after Sweden's flip-flopping during WWII the country decided it wanted to stay the course of "neutrality". TAWP claims that the Swedes, although officially neutral, in reality was on West's side, and I totally agree. The problem is/was that while Sweden expected the West (that is, NATO, and especially the US) to come and help us militarily in the event of a crisis, the Swedes didn't make (and still hasn't made) any commitment whatsoever to offer any military help in return, because, yes you guessed it, we were/are "neutral". So, while we have expected NATO to save our a$es, we would not return the favour if called upon. Yes, Sweden helped the West with some surveillance, but is that really enough in this case? I don't think so myself (again, a matter of principles). To conclude, the inofficial, military, version of Sweden's "neutrality" was not very neutral at all, but, as I see it, a coward's way of not making anybody angry.

As for the official, political side of Sweden's "neutrality", well, here even more shame surfaces. Sweden has for most of the 20:th century been run by the Social Democratics, which, in my view, at least up until a decade ago, could be considered as semi-communists. Anyway, in the name of the mighty Neutrality the socialists proclaimed after WWII that Sweden was embarking on a "third way" of politics, that is, a way somewhere between capitalism and communism (although democratic). I remember that in school I was taught that "capitalism and communism both have their upsides and downsides" and that which ideology you chose was merely a matter of taste. No talk about such things as democracy in this case; at least not in my school books in the seventies. So, officially, Sweden was "politically neutral", but actually criticising the US about virtually everything, while most of the criticising of the Soviets was pretty lame. Hence my question in my first post: How the he1l can you stay neutral between dictatorship and democracy? There are tons of things to say about this issue, like fore example Sweden's deportation of Baltic refugees back to the then Soviet occupied Baltic states, but I think I have written enough already .

End of rant, and apologies to the mods who naturally are encouraged to remove this post if they so wish.

Best regards

Damm, Chemist...Keep talking...

[calibanjr.]

Chemist, in my book, a post that is well-written is (almost) never too long, and you'd have to amp up the dyspepsia a LOT for that to qualify as a rant. Rock on! I still miss my Saab.

Edited July 6, 2007 by calibanjr.

[chemist]

Chemist, in my book, a post that is well-written is (almost) never too long, and you'd have to amp up the dyspepsia a LOT for that to qualify as a rant. Rock on! I still miss my Saab.

Thank you for your kind words, calibanjr . I understand that you miss your SAAB, as I have always liked SAABs myself (although I have never owned one). One thing is for sure, and that is that the SAABs are a lot more sanuk in every aspect than the hopelessly boring Volvos (a Swedish brand as well, as I'm sure you know).

Take care up there in Chiang Mai (see, now the thread is Thai-related again )

[larvidchr]

What chemist misses in his analyse is that it's not really connected to reality.

Much like the socialist goverment has slaughtered the military organisation and spending during the last 20 years the 'wise' politicians post WW1 forsaw no threat (infact, the opposite) so they removed a lot of the organisation and manpower, that was lacking from the start. Having peace (at that time) for over 100 years leaves a mark... so when the WW2 came there was no organisation nor manpower to do anything.

It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you. And at the same time the Swedish military helped the allied with information and performed spionage-operations, especially since the German militarys misjudged the alligience from the Swedish military.

And post WW2 Sweden remaind on paper neutral, but in reality sent a multitude of spies into russia, while russia had spies and subs sent over to Sweden. Sweden also performed signal-surveilance with airplanes and other duties that was reported back to NATO-contacts. One hint of the level of cooperation was the '37-annex' in 1960 allowing the Swedish military access to advanced U.S. aeronautical technology and guarantee that the US would protect Sweden incase of Soviet invasion, while Sweden protected the US polaris submarines, deployed outside the west coast to map and spy on Soviet, against soviet anti-sub aircrafts.

And no, the Gripen isn't 70% american built, it's a joint venture between SAAB Military Systems and BAE Systems (former British Aerospace), under Saab-BAe Gripen AB. Only american is really optional tech and optional weapon-systems, especially in models upgraded to comply with NATO-standard to increase chance of sales to NATO countries (C and D variant).

So much attention so early in my ThaiVisa career. Where will this end ? Seriously, I appreciate your input . Well, I will try to elaborate on this, although it is only vaguely (if at all) Thai-related.

1) I am in no way claiming to be an expert in the field of fighter jets, but I know that the joint venture deal between SAAB and BAE Systems came into play pretty long AFTER the Gripen was developed and built on an industrial scale. That move was, among other reasons, made in order to obtain a more efficient sales (and further development) organization.

I did not claim that the Gripen is 70 % American built. What I said was that, according to a friend of mine who is working with Gripen at SAAB, 70 % of the parts (materials if you will) that make up the plane come from America. Now, that figure may have changed (perhaps due to the cooperation with BAE) since I last talked about this with my friend a few years ago, and in that case I apologize for being misleading. However, there have been many articles in Swedish newspapers for example over the years presenting the fact that a substantial proportion of Gripen's components (especially electronics) originate, in one way or the other, from the US. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. I still think the Gripen will be an excellent buy for Thailand .

2) About Swedish "neutrality"... Those of you that are not Swedish citizens might be surprised to hear that the debate over this in Sweden has been, shall we say... muffled, for many many years (lately, though, it has become more and more accepted to have different views). The topic was (and to a certain extent still is, especially when it comes to WWII and the subsequent Cold War) VERY sensitive in my native country, and anyone who dared to question the official "we are/were neutral and therefore better than them"-doctrine would immediately be ridiculed in one way or the other. As indicated above however, the debate climate has changed considerably for the better over the last two decades or so.

Anyway, TAWP thinks that my former "analysis" is not connected with reality. That is a matter of opinion in this case (I don't recall writing an "analysis", I just expressed some opinions connected with a few facts). Ok, I actually agree with a lot of the things you say, TAWP. As for WWII:

Quote: "It was either hand material over volontarly or have it taken from you." Yes, but does that justify willingly supplying the Nazis with raw materials (especially metal ore from the north of Sweden) to keep their war machine running (we are talking about HUGE amounts of material here)? On your neighbour countries' (and other countries, naturally)expense? And let us not forget that the Swedish government made enormous profits out of this deal. Does that sound moral to you? To me it doesn't. Does your statement above justify letting the Germans use Sweden's railway system for troop transports (troops heading for parts of Norway, mostly)? Does it justify turning away some (but not all, granted) of the Norwegians trying to flee into Sweden for fear of upsetting the Nazis? You must of course be aware of the fact that a substantial proportion of the Swedish government (and the Swedish population) was pro-Hitler, and that anti-Nazi propaganda was verboten(!) in Swedish media during the first part of the war? And all of this under the mighty doctrine of "neutrality"? I would call it appeasement. Granted, the Swedish military resources were not great at the time, but they were certainly not non-existant. The Swedish Army has for a long time focused on guerilla warfare in the event of an enemy attack (after the first hectic days of the attack, that is). So, what we are talking about here is a matter of principles. Do you do your best to stop or slow down an evil aggressor (by ANY means), even if you know that you can probably not win, or do you put your hands up in the air and actually help said aggressor at the expense of your peaceful democratic neighbours? As for your statements about the Swedish government helping the allies with information, that might be true after the point when the British and Americans "convinced" Sweden to switch sides (appeasement again, but this time in a good way if you believe in democracy). At that point the brave Swedes had no problems with switching sides, since the war had started to turn sour for Adolf. Again, I see this as a matter of principles. The Swedish government didn't.

The cold war: Well, after Sweden's flip-flopping during WWII the country decided it wanted to stay the course of "neutrality". TAWP claims that the Swedes, although officially neutral, in reality was on West's side, and I totally agree. The problem is/was that while Sweden expected the West (that is, NATO, and especially the US) to come and help us militarily in the event of a crisis, the Swedes didn't make (and still hasn't made) any commitment whatsoever to offer any military help in return, because, yes you guessed it, we were/are "neutral". So, while we have expected NATO to save our a$es, we would not return the favour if called upon. Yes, Sweden helped the West with some surveillance, but is that really enough in this case? I don't think so myself (again, a matter of principles). To conclude, the inofficial, military, version of Sweden's "neutrality" was not very neutral at all, but, as I see it, a coward's way of not making anybody angry.

As for the official, political side of Sweden's "neutrality", well, here even more shame surfaces. Sweden has for most of the 20:th century been run by the Social Democratics, which, in my view, at least up until a decade ago, could be considered as semi-communists. Anyway, in the name of the mighty Neutrality the socialists proclaimed after WWII that Sweden was embarking on a "third way" of politics, that is, a way somewhere between capitalism and communism (although democratic). I remember that in school I was taught that "capitalism and communism both have their upsides and downsides" and that which ideology you chose was merely a matter of taste. No talk about such things as democracy in this case; at least not in my school books in the seventies. So, officially, Sweden was "politically neutral", but actually criticising the US about virtually everything, while most of the criticising of the Soviets was pretty lame. Hence my question in my first post: How the he1l can you stay neutral between dictatorship and democracy? There are tons of things to say about this issue, like fore example Sweden's deportation of Baltic refugees back to the then Soviet occupied Baltic states, but I think I have written enough already .

End of rant, and apologies to the mods who naturally are encouraged to remove this post if they so wish.

Best regards

Damm, Chemist...Keep talking...

Welcome chemist, yes very good posts,----for a Swede

Kind regards

Edited July 6, 2007 by larvidchr

[mogoso]

F-22 Raptor Fly away unit cost is about US$ 120m

And only close NATO allies (plus possibly Japan and Australia) would ever be allowed those.

There are really large fighters also. I watch the fly outta Lockheed where they are being built, and they always fly with an escort jet. The escort jet (F-16) looks to be half the size of the F-22 (which is a delta wing configuration) Really large fighter jet, must carry alot of firepower.

[jetjock]

There are really large fighters also. I watch the fly outta Lockheed where they are being built, and they always fly with an escort jet. The escort jet (F-16) looks to be half the size of the F-22 (which is a delta wing configuration) Really large fighter jet, must carry alot of firepower.

The F-22 Raptor is about the same physical size as an F-15 but slightly heavier. The F-16 is roughly 1/2 the weight of an F-22 and has a 12' shorter wingspan and is 13' shorter in length. I agree with 'mogoso' that the silhoutte in the sky makes the F-22 with its delta wing appear twice as large as the F-16.

I have seen the F-22 perform several times and it is the most impressive fighter I have ever seen. It has a high speed turning radius and climb angle that is spectacular thanks to its two P&W Pitch 'Thrust' Vectoring Turbofan Engines. Suggest if you ever have a chance to go to an airshow in your area and watch the F-22 perform, it will be well worth your time.