On 4/26/2025 at 10:20 AM, Cat Boy said:

 

 

On 5/9/2025 at 4:41 AM, Bkk Brian said:

 

 

4 minutes ago, Myran said:

People seem to be a bit confused regarding this, not the least thanks to the misinformation Cambodia is spreading.

 

According to Swedish law, Sweden is not allowed to sell weapons to countries currently in an armed conflict. Thailand is currently in an armed conflict, and Sweden can therefore not approve the purchase of new Gripen at this point. Once the armed conflict is over, Sweden can approve the purchase.

 

Sweden has not voiced any sort of criticism regarding how Thailand has used its Gripen planes. It's simply a matter of adhering to Swedish law. Sweden can, of course, choose not to sell more planes to Thailand if it's found out that Thailand has used them improperly, like attacking civilian targets, but there are no such indications as of now.

Ok, so does Sweden sell arms to Ukraine, Israel, or any other of a myriad of countries in conflict with themselves or other countries, states of areas?

3 hours ago, dyertribe said:

What sort of deal is this?  Sweden sells military hardware but the buyer isn’t allowed to use it?

I’d be buying from a different source. 

Agree. You either sell weapons or you don't. If the Swedish government interfers with the transaction for political advantage or to appease some of their local constituents, then they can kiss their weapons indusrty goodbye. Plenty of countries out there who will be more than willing to fill in the gap. 

2 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

 

 

Ok, so does Sweden sell arms to Ukraine, Israel, or any other of a myriad of countries in conflict with themselves or other actors?

Sweden has donated weapons and equipment to Ukraine, not sold it. And no, to my knowledge, Sweden has not sold arms to countries who are in active armed conflicts. Weapons purchased from Sweden before armed conflicts are of course being used by some countries, just like Thailand are currently.

21 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

What did the Swedish government expect when the aircraft are sold, even to their own Air Force? For them to be used as gate guards?

 

Shed loads of money to buy, maintain and fly them and they're supposed to sit around gathering dust?

Sweden's armed forces are an extension of the government.  Besides, Sweden is not an aggressor to any country. In fact, hasn't been in a war for over 200 years.

The export restrictions come in to play when the importing country is in active war situation, excluding the country's defense, as is the case of Ukraine.

 

The rules are not that much different from the US. Boeing or LM cannot just sell their military hardware to any country. It has to be approved by the US government. 

7 minutes ago, Myran said:

Sweden has donated weapons and equipment to Ukraine, not sold it. And no, to my knowledge, Sweden has not sold arms to countries who are in active armed conflicts. Weapons purchased from Sweden before armed conflicts are of course being used by some countries, just like Thailand are currently.

That seems to be a very fine distiction... Donated, sold, lease/lend, borrowed....

9 minutes ago, riverhigh said:

Agree. You either sell weapons or you don't. If the Swedish government interfers with the transaction for political advantage or to appease some of their local constituents, then they can kiss their weapons indusrty goodbye. Plenty of countries out there who will be more than willing to fill in the gap. 

So why did US refuse to sell F-35's to Thailand? Sweden's government simply follows the law of the country, as written.

 

Plenty of countries out there are forced to buy US hardware, because they are under the boot of the USA. Pax Americana rules OK! 

7 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

Sweden's armed forces are an extension of the government.  Besides, Sweden is not an aggressor to any country. In fact, hasn't been in a war for over 200 years.

The export restrictions come in to play when the importing country is in active war situation, excluding the country's defense, as is the case of Ukraine.

 

The rules are not that much different from the US. Boeing or LM cannot just sell their military hardware to any country. It has to be approved by the US government. 

...an active war situation, excluding the countries defense, isn't that the same as 'we won't supply anyone who invades someone else or is an aggressor to someone else.'...?

9 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

That seems to be a very fine distiction... Donated, sold, lease/lend, borrowed....

You're free to believe that. I'm simply explaining what's actually going on and why, so people don't fall for the Cambodian propaganda.

4 hours ago, dyertribe said:

What sort of deal is this?  Sweden sells military hardware but the buyer isn’t allowed to use it?

I’d be buying from a different source. 

using banned bombs

4 hours ago, dyertribe said:

What sort of deal is this?  Sweden sells military hardware but the buyer isn’t allowed to use it?

I’d be buying from a different source. 

Australia has a deal with the US to buy 3 nuclear submarines worth billions and a big chunk from our GDP in the AUKUS alliance. That was before Trump became president. Now under Trump the US wants to twist the deal so if China Invades Taiwan then the US has total control of those three submarines if needed in that potential war. It's like renting a car. You never actually own it but pay top dollar!

 

PS You cannot buy these subs from a different source as they are the best subs. If it was me I would tell the US to forget it. No deal.

This fighter jet is all hype.  Not sure why the Thais are so worried if the Coward Swedes are upset that the fighter was used in combat.  What the hell did they expect the Thais to do.  Have it sit on the tarmac and wait? 

 

Sweden is a country of cowards, they are last country to take advice on war or on how to use fighter jets.

4 hours ago, Peter Crow said:

De Gaulle [AH] embargoed all weapons deliveries after Israel defended itself in 1967.

And?  the IDF could give a rats ass, they got better US weapons and improve on those weapons and now  have one of the best military in the world, meanwhile France cannot defend itself from migrants.

31 minutes ago, SpaceKadet said:

So why did US refuse to sell F-35's to Thailand? Sweden's government simply follows the law of the country, as written.

 

Plenty of countries out there are forced to buy US hardware, because they are under the boot of the USA. Pax Americana rules OK! 

DOH!!!!  We Americans will never sell the F-35s to to countries that are close to Russia or China...OK.  Ask Turkey what happened to them when they wanted the F-35s.  Thailand is too close to China and there are no assurances that they can manage the high level security required to keep the F-35s from Chinese spies.

1 minute ago, Taboo2 said:

meanwhile France cannot defend itself from migrants

Now the problem isn't migrants, it is the US.. 

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Outstanding news. Any excuse to just say no to the US, their military industrial complex, and their overarching, highly arrogant hubris at this stage of the game is a great thing, and should be supported.

 

Smart. Very smart. Just say no to the circus goon who constantly overestimates not only his own importance, but the importance of America, which he is causing to decline by the day. 

????

 

What did the USA do to you Soyboy?

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Not only does an F-35 cost well over $100 million, but it's also exorbitant to maintain. 

 

The annual operating cost per F-35A is estimated to be around $7.1 million, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, although the Air Force initially projected a lower figure. 

 

Absolutely brilliant decision to just say no to that overpriced jet fighter, and subsequent dependence on the declining empire. 

No way was the US going to sell F35's to Thailand. Your anti American bashing is getting pretty pathetic.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Outstanding news. Any excuse to just say no to the US, their military industrial complex, and their overarching, highly arrogant hubris at this stage of the game is a great thing, and should be supported.

 

Smart. Very smart. Just say no to the circus goon who constantly overestimates not only his own importance, but the importance of America, which he is causing to decline by the day. 

What does the USA have to do with this article?  It seems Thais made a decision on the Grippen for practical reasons as they have already purchased some before.  We could care less if they want our F-16s...those fighter jets at Gen4 or earlier anyway.  We make a lot more money selling the F-35s, which Thailand will never get a chance to own.  Ever!

4 hours ago, dyertribe said:

What sort of deal is this?  Sweden sells military hardware but the buyer isn’t allowed to use it?

I’d be buying from a different source. 

 

Buy Sukhois. None of the Western drama.  And an advanced SU-35 would cost less than the overpriced Saab Gripens and offer superior range, payload, and super-maneuverability via thrust-vectoring engines.  But?  I guess if you want to make "Daddy" Trump happy and not become the focus of his ire.  I"m surprised they weren't forced to buy used F-16s at over-inflated costs. 
 

 

57 minutes ago, Myran said:

According to Swedish law, Sweden is not allowed to sell weapons to countries currently in an armed conflict. Thailand is currently in an armed conflict, and Sweden can therefore not approve the purchase of new Gripen at this point. Once the armed conflict is over, Sweden can approve the purchase.

 

Below is a link to the full text of Sweden's arms export control policy, as published by the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

 

https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/sweden_arms_export_control_report_2019_english.pdf

 

I can't see anything in it that says Sweden must not sell arms to countries engaged in an armed conflict. 

 

Its main provision states that: 

 

Quote

Under Section 1, second paragraph of the Military Equipment Act (1992:1300), military equipment may only be exported if there are security or defence policy reasons for doing so, and provided there is no conflict with Sweden’s international obligations or

Swedish foreign policy. Applications for licences are considered in accordance with the Swedish guidelines on exports of military equipment, the criteria in the EU Common Position on Arms Exports, and the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). 

 

The document then goes on to say that:

 

Quote

... the democratic status of the recipient country should be a key condition in assessment of licence applications. The worse the democratic status, the less scope there is for licences to be granted. If serious and extensive violations of human rights or severe deficits in the recipient’s democratic status occur, this poses an obstacle to granting licences.

 

However once again, nothing in that constitutes an outright ban on selling arms to countries currently involved in military action, as far as I can tell.

 

And in fact, Sweden has previously sold arms to countries involved in wars, notably to the US during the Iraq War.

 

Sweden’s donations and exports of arms to Ukraine 2022–25: parliamentary decision making and oversight

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02606755.2025.2513181

 

Quote

... licenses for the exports of military equipment have been granted to states involved in armed conflicts before [...] a notable example here being the United States which, despite invading Iraq in March 2003, suffered no restrictions with regard to the exports of Swedish military equipment

 

1 minute ago, flexomike said:

No way was the US going to sell F35's to Thailand. Your anti American bashing is getting pretty pathetic.

Agree, not sure why they are hating on USA, when we had no skin in this game.  Thailand made their choice for fighter jets, and we moved on.  We still have a great relationship with Thailand going back at least 200 years.

28 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

...an active war situation, excluding the countries defense, isn't that the same as 'we won't supply anyone who invades someone else or is an aggressor to someone else.'...?

Your definitions don't necessarily follow the exporting country's intention. I didn't write the law. You have a problem with it, discuss it with the Swedish lawmakers.

 

Not much dissimilar to Germany refusing to sell their diesel engines to China for the Thai sub order. 

Switzerland has similar export laws for military hardware, and they manufacture a lot of it too.

6 minutes ago, Peter Crow said:

Now the problem isn't migrants, it is the US.. 

Take a trip to France lately....55555

 

7 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

DOH!!!!  We Americans will never sell the F-35s to to countries that are close to Russia or China...OK.  Ask Turkey what happened to them when they wanted the F-35s.  Thailand is too close to China and there are no assurances that they can manage the high level security required to keep the F-35s from Chinese spies.

Grow up and see the reality. Chinese engineers designed the F-35 for LM. Now, they are back in China making J-35. There are no secrets on the F-35, or F-22 for that matter, that Chinese are not aware of. You Americans <deleted> that one up very badly!

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Not only does an F-35 cost well over $100 million, but it's also exorbitant to maintain. 

 

The annual operating cost per F-35A is estimated to be around $7.1 million, according to the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, although the Air Force initially projected a lower figure. 

 

Absolutely brilliant decision to just say no to that overpriced jet fighter, and subsequent dependence on the declining empire. 

According to a Reuters article is seems as though Thailand is spending close to $140m / plane for the Gripens.  Ouch.  Seems as though Sweden found a soft-target to sell to.   ✈️ $$$ ฿฿฿ Cha-Ching!
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thai-air-force-wants-acquire-swedish-gripen-39-fighter-jets-2024-08-27/

4 hours ago, dyertribe said:

What sort of deal is this?  Sweden sells military hardware but the buyer isn’t allowed to use it?

That's why the report is cobblers and, as was stated, the "cancellation" unconfirmed.

1 hour ago, Scott Tracy said:

Shed loads of money to buy, maintain and fly them and they're supposed to sit around gathering dust?

...only according to the lying Cambodians.

1 hour ago, SpaceKadet said:

The export restrictions come in to play when the importing country is in active war situation,

Thailand is not "at war" with Cambodia.

1 hour ago, SpaceKadet said:

So why did US refuse to sell F-35's to Thailand?

The US cited Thailand's lack of sufficient infrastructure, training, and security measures to handle the advanced F-35 aircraft.

37 minutes ago, flexomike said:

No way was the US going to sell F35's to Thailand. Your anti American bashing is getting pretty pathetic.

You interpreted it as being anti-American, many would interpret it as simply stating the truth and seeing things for how they really are. Sorry your thin is so skin, that must be quite painful. 

41 minutes ago, Taboo2 said:

there are no assurances that they can manage the high level security required to keep the F-35s from Chinese spies.

You really think that China is not already aware of every square inch of the F-35s!?