I'm a Swedish airforce officer in the reserve. This video is one of the few I've seen that explains our mentality well. We have a tiny military budget and small population that needs to defend a large landmass. Thus we're forced to train "every soldier as a general" as we say here. Meaning everyone from the lowest level and up the ranks needs to be able to take strategic decitions and calculated risks. The JAS system is just one of many examples of that. When it gets real your team of a ground crew and a fighter, seven people in total, five of them conscripts might find themselves alone against a large enemy force with all communications cut off. So we need to train everyone in that team not only to do their task but to be able to take their own initiatives to do what ever unexpected things the situation on the battlefield demands. We don't have the people or the money to do it any other way. Perhaps smaller NATO countries can learn form this. Big NATO nations with lots of people and money should probably opt for more powerful and versitile systems.
I'm a Swede and have lived in Scotland for over 20 years and the Swedish mentality is exactly as what is done in the military. If you encounter a problem a Swede will try to solve the problem there and then. In the UK it's like, no, I can't do that as we need to ask our superior or teamleader for that. Same goes for work environment.
Thank you Jonas. I was in the US Air Force and with one little bomb our whole squadron would be taken out. That was in the 1980s. Now it is super more vulnerable with drones and maneuverable hypersonic missiles Dispersal is the only way to have a chance to survive and to be able to fight also. For my entire life I have been disappointed that no other Western powers are doing white the Swedish have always been doing since World War II ended. I know it’s not nice to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. You probably wouldn’t believe how stupid the higher level Officer core is in the US Air Force and the US military in general. They are career oriented and dogmatic. Very hard to find a Jimmy Dolittle or Billy Mitchell anymore. So sad to say.
@@steveperreira5850 Well in Finland we have a similar mode of operations to Sweden, and also the mentality is about what has been described here as well.
Better to do something every time on the incomplete data at hand and risk mistakes than to waste a single opportunity of causing decisive damage to the enemy and endanger other friendly units by inaction.
For a British person apart from the beauty of the airplane, the most impressive thing is that you have 800m of roads that don't have potholes or speed bumps.
Built in redundancy, add certain plastics to tarmac and the life of a road surface increases by many years, proven in INDIA. Why not in worldwide use, well if a road surface did not have to be resurfaced every few years then money would not flow to those building in the present failure rate of roads to make ridiculous profits, My road, a residential road, is treated every 5 years, there should be no need for this but cold winters help small cracks develop into potholes and need fixing. The quality of road infrastructure is really pathetic and should have been improved decades ago with the technological know-how we have had. The government should really get a handle on this and save themselves a ton of money, if local maintenance is not up to the job threaten to bring in outside maintenance, pay Indian crews to recover roads and get a 25-year guarantee of a limited amount of repairs needed compared to what is common now.
My country Brazil is one of the first global players to believe and develop a partnership with Saab, aiming at the buying, developing, searching and selling the whole platform as a solution for modern warfare. And the plane is simply gorgeous... Thanks Sweden, and greetings from Brazil ❤
@@phillipbanes5484 That's the type of comment that destroys the US's reputation around the world. Saab's partnership is with Brazilian company Embraer, you know, the third largest civil aircraft manufacturer in the world. The Brazilian production line was established on May 2023. No reason to get into the minutiae of transnational commerce just because you want to feel good about technology the US developed while it fomented coups by corrupt dictators who closed down universities and research centers in democracies like Brazil and 13 other countries during the Cold War.
I did my military service '74 and '75 in the Swedish airforce. The fighter then was J35F. We trained on how to relocate to bases using regular highways. Each base had a main runway and one or two secondary runways. The main runway was easy to spot when driving up and down the country. The road widened, and the trees on either side were cut back. There were no overhead power lines, and at each end were these parking lots (typically four at each end) for planes to stand by to be able to quickly take flight, should it be needed. The secondary runway(s) was much more difficult to spot as the idea was to remove any overhead lines and cut back the trees in case of a conflict. Refueling and rearmament happened a little further away, 500m or so from that main runway. From this location, access to the secondary runways was possible. As the ground crew, we had to meet the requirement to refuel (not only jet fuel but certain oils and oxygen), rearm, and a new pilot in 7 minutes. Lots of bloody knuckles. I don't think we ever got to the 7 minutes, but definitely to below 10 minutes.
When this war started I was at once convinced that Ukraine should get 30-40 Gripen, as I knew about the characteristics of Gripen from CZ (I lived there for longer time). Also we Germans should have 50-100 Gripens, which is easier to handle and more flexible than Eurofighter.
Until the 1980s, parts of the German Autobahn could be used in this manner. These emergency runways could even handle large transport planes. I am not sure if they could be easily reactivated today.
Excellent Storyline. I think a fifth grader can figure all this stuff out, but somehow the top brass of the US military is dumbfounded. These guys are a disgrace to the human race
Talking about culture. I am Swedish. I have been working both in the UK and in Germany (and obviously in Sweden) many months within different telecom businesses. The thing that struck me was how much the working culture differred, not between UK and Germany, but betwee these two and the Swedish working culture. And my experience resembles very much with what you discuss in this video. The thing that makes Swedish work culture stand out is the appreciation of individual enpowerment and distributed decision making. Let the people on the floor, that know the real business, make the decisiion. Do not force them to always ask a clueless higher management for approvals.
As a Swede that has worked with a multitude of international teams I totally agree!! A recepie for a total disaster is taking a lets say east Asian projectmanager style used to micromanage everything in order to get things done and put them in charge of a highly trained and skilled work force made up by Swedes. Total culture clash! But on the other hand a Swedish management style of collective desicionmaking and extreme trust that everyone do what the are supposed to after their best ability is a total disaster as well in a culture where the workers are used to micromanaging management, because the Swedish style will not see anything done, like at all. And that also comes down to risk managment and how failure is handled - just as is mentioned ib this video.
@@bsastarfire250👍 Actually, I'm not surprised. I've seen videos about how Swedish pilots have taken initiatives against "foreign aircrafts" (you know from where), just turned as they have told the superior and asked how to act when they reached that other aircraft. This is in a low micro environment, but I used to work for SJ, the Swedish State Railways, at the train service facilities just outside of Stockholm. In the late seventies there still was a little bit of the old "military thinking", a superior was a superior, and should be talked to, if there were any abnormalities, like late incoming trains etc, which it was all the time. Ten years later the working teams could discuss between each other how the best way to proceed, to change the order of which train what kind of job which team should work on to make it work out the fastest and smoothest way for everyone. The only thing of importance was that the job was done before departure time back to Stockholm Centralstation and in traffic again. An enormous change. There could be minor disputes between different teams with different tasks, but never anything serious. It just took some more creative thinking and perhaps replanning of the schedule for one or two teams, no big deal, just the work was done in time, or as close to as possible. No "interference" of the superiors for the different teams, we only told them how long they could expect to get it done, so they knew what to tell Stockholm Centralstation. That saved A LOT of time, I estimate between 15 minutes and up to an hour, and happier, at least less annoyed, travelers. Instead of 4 superiors making one decision each, that collide with at least one other, and they had to discuss, their decision made a catastrophe to another... And the personnel were just waiting, and couldn't start with something else, if they were ordered to go on the delayed train first... I, one of all the people who worked at SJ back then know why the trains were more often delayed than in time. Internal bureaucracy.
As an employee in Sweden, you are tested before employment with the aim of competence and initiative, taking responsibility. Therefore, it is assumed that you are able to achieve the goals that you have agreed with your manager. How you carry it out is up to your own ability to carry out the task to reach the goal. You are evaluated and rewarded/punished according to degree of goal fulfillment. Decentralized decision-making that suits us Swedes.
I am Swiss but lived in Sweden for several years, the work culture is kind similar, meaning that the opinion of the person on the ground floor actually counts. Live currently in the US where 80% the of the "workforce" consists of lazy morons with no education. Especially US males have more in common with monkeys than home sapiens.
In a former career (which I really miss by the way) I worked for a computer games company that also helped the military with training simulation, I got to meet and work with Swedish & Finnish airforce personnel, what struck me was how down to earth and practical there thought processes were but extremely in depth knowledge at the sam e time. I absolutely see how that came about now. I always thought the Uk should have bought in to the gripen programme as a hi low mix with typhoon, I think the range issues could be solved and the whole philosophy of operation would have suited our budget too.
Or simply a Swedish-model conscripted Home Guard with Grippen in the air, coastal patrol submarine squadrons (four squadrons, I think), and a security-aware ground force that is absolutely *loaded* with air-defense batteries and lorry-borne leg infantry. Oh, keep up the top-notch coastal patrol vessels and crews! Leave the Typhoons, Challengers, and long-endurance nuclear submarines to the "professionals." Small "Liberty" or "Jeep" carriers are harder to find and damn handy for Search-And-Rescue, as well as Anti-Submarine Warfare. Something with one or two submarine-size nuclear power plants, to reduce overall bunkerage costs, but breeder reactors to reduce reactor refueling and maintenance to *nothing.*
Swede here. I think you nailed the Swedish mentality and how the culture allows for a high level of trust and responsibility. I am very proud of our Gripen fighters, but the human side of the system/platform is a key to success. We use conscripts for servicing the aircraft on the ground and dispersed bases. And that’s the way it has been for ages, at least 50 years or so.
@@Simsydav You are correct , the politicans decided that the eternal peace was upon ous , until Russia invaded Crimea , conscription is back on the meny.
@@Simsydav Only for a few years. It was put on hold in 2010, but returned on a small scale in 2014, and since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine the ammount of conscripts trained yearly scalling up rapidly.
I only did my basic military training in Germany, but I think the swedish model is much more suited for the modern battlefield then the strict German one. I think especially in Ukraine we see that decentralized operation, improvisation and adaptation are the key elements of a modern battlefield.
Actually one of the things that has stood Ukraine in good stead is the excellent co-ordination between combat units, something which Russia has sorely lacked.
I have been recently been posting about this type dispurst tactics promoting the Gripen STOL advantage. I still have to review the comments here in order to not repeat what been stated already. My initial comment is the audience for Gripen should not be limited to NATO. The countries in NATO have funds and industries to choose as the please. More later ...
@@hb1338 The ratio was 7:1 before you wrote this, at a time when the Russians were outnumbered. That was according to the Pentagon in February. Now it's much worse obviously. These channels are trash. This one wastes time hooking people with rhetoric and pose.
I’m also a fan of the Grippen’s development framework, allowing teams of developers and mechanical engineers to scrum together at a scaled level that has allowed it to surpass Lockheed Martin’s SAFe model in terms of development outcomes. Harvard Business Review published a white paper on how SAAB organized their development teams and it’s no accident that the same mobile footprint of the aircraft is also reflected in SAAB’s organization.
As a brazillian Im particularly prideful that the wide display that got into the Gripen-E is brazillian made and was intended for our aircraft only, but Sweden liked it and decided to use it too themselves... it such a small detail... but it makes me happy. That's collaboration.
I cant confirm this , but I heard the swedes wanted redundacy as if you lose 1 screen , you can still operate. To which the brazilians pointed out , that the quailty of the screens and testing of them will prevent any such event from occuring , and also if the enemy would somehow take it out in action , odds are that the pilot already had a "major emotional event". Finally the swedish pilots input was that larger screen massivly helped , this should come as no surprise to gamers or people who work with multiple screens. So thank you Brazil :)
That is why SAAB is so willing to transfer technology to other competent air industries, the competence there will give will give valuable feedback making all involved stronger :)
You!re wrong. Gripen E are built in Sweden, dubbleseater type Gripen F are partly put together in Brazil. All SAAB Gripen for Swedish Airforce are made in Sweden.
@@dragononwall8733 Wat? I might be missing something here but, uh... The OP is specifically talking about the wide display in the Gripen E's cockpit, not the whole airplane.
I'll never understand how the random fact that somebody was born in the same country where some other people who he never met or had contact with did something of questionable importance can be the basis to provide him the right to feel proud. For what are you particularly prideful? For bearing the same nationality or passport? What is your achievement in this?
My father was an officer in the navy(helicopters), me I was an army officer. I have also talked to many from the airforce, and while this was a long time ago I believe the mentality still exists with a higher measure of safety. We train as if its war. We cant train in one way and then when/if the war comes its different, then you wont be prepared. I remember a Viggen pilot telling me that when they were practicing low level attack against Sovjet naval forces to prevent amphibious landing. The attack height approach was 10m above sea level going above mach 1. Now this was the 80s and things have changed and they dont do that anymore but the mentality within the armed forces still remains. We train as close to war like conditions as we possibly can, while being as safe as possible, and this is a judgement call within a security framework.
During the Cold War, about 550 Swedish fighter pilots died due to the doctrine to fly under war like conditions. Flying fast and low over both land and sea. They knew that they would have to be good as they and the Navy would be the ones first hit and needed to keep the Soviets invaders of for 3 days until the mobilization was complete and all ground troops where geared up and deployed. After 3 days they probably would all been killed. We all knew what lie ahead if the shit hit the fan, but the pilots paid the price in peacetime. Mad respect for our fighter pilots!
@@Hiznogood Doctrine was far from the only thing responsible for those deaths though. Yes it killed many pilots, but J29 "flygande tunnan" killed about 200 of those pilots, mainly due to technical issues (though not uncommon in early jet aircraft), but at the time it was seen as an acceptable cost of creating a larger air force. Fortunatly the technical reliability increased and the acceptance of such death tolls were reduced, to a current air force that only rarely have any deaths at all.
The decision making structure seemed painfully slow, and lacked initiative. It was as if they weren't training to fight at all. Recently we have seen some evidence that NATO trained foreign troops rapidly abandoned this structure. @@quasar6235
As a person that spent 22 years in the USAF as an aircraft maintainer, I see the Swedish model as achievable, but not so likely to happen. American units are very attached to the idea of operating from fixed facilities. One just has to see how the bases are constructed to realize this. Large amounts of facilities with hardened aircraft shelters, centralized supply and ammunition storage. We deployed often, but always to another fixed/prepared location. Yes, we practiced "hot pit" refueling and quick turns, but nothing like the Swedish way. There have been some experiments with ANG A-10 units operating using highways and C-130s landing on unprepared airstrips trying dispersal techniques, but these are few and far between. Maybe buried somewhere deep in the pentagon are some plans to do it all, it is not something leadership puts much effort to creating a culture of this. The only effort seems to be the US Marines that are planning something similar for a future battle in the Pacific. It is still in the "talking about it" stage and may lead to something like the Swedish way. The expression that generals are re-fighting the last war may be applicable here. They are using the blueprint from the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan to plan for a more dynamic war against a near peer adversary. I always enjoy your presentations, keep up the good work.
Amercian weapons are first class but some just are not suitable. For instance the F-16 can not be expects to operate of Runways in Ukraine. The F-16 is almost useless since it needs clean first class full length runways. The Grippen or STOVL F-35B might work but not much else. Runways withing range of Iskander and Kinzahl will soon be cratered.
I agree that America is unlikely to change. As an American, I think this is a mistake, but as was once famously stated, we tend to prepare to fight the last war, not the next war.
Great video, I'm from Britain, for a small country Sweden has developed some amazing military kit, gripen, Bofors cannon, and the submarines that repeatedly hit the US and other nations, undetected, in war games/ practice.
@@keithgarland3404 Yeah, the 40 mm Bofors was used by most countries during WW2. It was the second most used AA gun during the war (after the 20 mm Oerlikon), and an upgraded version is still used in some places today.
Excalibur artillery round CV90 Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle RB15 anti ship missile NLAW The fighter data link for the JA37 Viggen was the first real time fighter link in the world. Not until the F22 came online was there anything comparable
One thing that has nothing to do with the air force but which is interesting in Sweden is that many are trained to transition very easily from civilians to soldiers without thinking about it. Some things that are extremely big in Sweden are, hunting, orienteering, hiking, strategy games, cultivation for household use, etc. Many Swedes have these things as hobbies without really reflecting on the fact that they are also very good skills to have if you want to be a good soldier, or survive during war. .
My most comfortable clothes are my hunting outfits. We basically hunt all year round in forests and in the archipelago. My class 1 hunting rifle is in cal. .308win and may just as well be fed 7,62 NATO rounds. I have served in the Swedish Army in recon and still have my Russian Parlor (with all grades from private to General, with simple phrases, tactics etc).
The Swedish model is designed to suit Sweden, where "off grid" is built into pretty much all of their armed forces on the recognition that Russia would start out attempting to destroy big, fixed bases. Of course that doesn't work for many other nations but going by events in Ukraine, it could certainly be of use there.
and places like taiwan, Japan, Korea, Finland, Poland, the baltics, Ukraine, the philippines, vietnam etc. All countries that are bordering a big power should excpect that in the start of war. No matter what your air defence is capable of, a decent chunk of ballistic missiles and other types will slip through in the first strike.
Yes, the Grippen is the plane that Ukraine needs. The problem is not enough available at this time. When Ukraine wins this war, they should make a deal with Sweden (much as Brazil has done) to build them in Ukraine.
As time has gone on, Russia was not Sweden's enemy. Washington is your mortal enemy and always has been. The camouflage has come off and people are still having trouble taking in the fullness of depravity, sadism, and degeneracy that Washington embodies.
Turns out Russian long range fires with SSM and ASM weapons don't do well against US/NATO IADS. Sweden built their military based on the assumption the Russians are a competent military power.
The dispersed asset strategy was perfected with the JA 37 Viggen. Sweden is a pioneer in aircraft development and design. SAAB has always punched above its weight.
@@johnearle1 GM? Like they did with Holden in Australia? And now Saab is Chinese-owned, which has its own set of implications. Which is more problematic? Probably both, in different ways. Let's stop being so politically correct and globalistic.
@@jamjardj1974 We all do. But they didn't want to be owned by China and I can understand that considering the other operations of the mother company. One thing I liked was how GM told them to do something and they just didn't. No, we're not going to make a shitty car that won't last five years in our climate... That's some balls when your career depends on it.
@@michaelmay5453 One of the best examples of sticking to your convictions. There was an American driver who put a million miles on a SAAB 900 and brought it to his dealer who gave him a 9-3 and sent his car to the SAAB museum.
One important thing to note about Sweden is that our conscripts are very well trained and selected for their roles, the problem is rather the maintenance of their ability in civilian life. But during their time in service, they are well trained, indeed Swedish conscripts are often praised in international exercises, and I have heard so many stories from many different places of people saying: "You guys HAVE to be professional soldiers!!!" Conscript does not equal not well-trained, or even unmotivated, our conscripts are very thoroughly screened to make sure the right people get the right jobs, and unmotivated people are not getting particularly important positions.
I totally agree with you. I am Russian that have been living in the West for a long time. I served in Soviet Army a long time ago and I saw what was happening in Russian Army after 1991 as well. And in both USSR and Russian Federation 99% of conscripts were just a cattle. I was not exception. I am very smart, physically fit with god shooting skills. Do you know who was allocated to sargent positions ? Clinical idiots but which happened to be 190cm tall weighing 90kg with one skill they had to confront and suppress their own privates in barracks. You can imagine how "efficient" they would be in the battlefield. Look at war in Ukraine. They haven't came accross any single NATO soldier but they have effectively lost the war.
A reason Swedish conscripts can meet such high standards is conscription model itself. Conscription gives a wide pool of manpower to pull from. If every male and an increasing number of females have passed the conscription evaluation, you can fill posts with people qualified for the position they are to fill. We also use civilian skills in the military. I did a rehearsal with a military field hospital, and discovered that civilian nurses, doctors, and dentists were drafted to work in this exercise. This was not optional for them, it was a draft. Another example is Swedish UN expeditionary forces. Because Swedish soldiers are conscripts, they have a civilian profession and skills. One result of this is than a Swedish expeditionary force always has professional chefs. :) In many UN operations skills such as electrician and plumber are crucial, not only for the operation of the military base, but also to liaison with civilians in the area. Restoring electricity and water supply to a village you are guarding goes a long way towards building trust.
Yes, but there is actually a study that we did here in Sweden that shows that conscripts actually are even better! The reason why is because they are not there to gain money like a mercenary or to rob, kill, rape and torture people. But this is if you are defending your own homeland, like the Ukrainians are. Wagner or the russian army is not as motivated because non of them are defending their homeland. Wagner is there for the money, so they are not fully motivated. The russian army is there to carry out theft, rape, torture and genocide of the ukranians and even that is not as motivating compared to protecting your own homleand, your family and your loved ones. There is nothing more motivating for a human beeing than survival instict, and that will be at it's peek when defending your own homeland and life.
@@andreypetrov4868 Hello ex-russian citizen! A swede here! I have a question for you that you can anwer better than me. I'm just speculating, but my understanding is that most russians actually support Putin because they really believe the russian propaganda. They have been brainwashed for generations. Or else Putin wouldn't be able to have so much power as he currently got. That's my thinking. To me I would assume that most russians, the majority of them believe all the propaganda, that the west is evil, that they want to destroy Russia, etc. In your assessment, how many would you say support Putin? Because it must be over 50% of the people, right? Is it like 70% of russians that support him? What's your own guess? And it also seems to be more support among the older generation, while the younger generation is more inline with the west. They have Facebook, TikTok, they have western friends, etc. They regularly use the internet and seems to see through all the lies and propaganda. I think this could be what turns Russia around. What do you think about the younger generation? Is it true that they don't support Putin as much?
Many years ago I was in the Merchant Navy and back then the mentality you describe in the Swedish armed forces was the norm. Promotion was slow (you always had to be qualified one rank ahead in case someone was injured, so to be a third mate you needed your second mate's 'ticket'). Communications with shore were sporadic and the ships held a great deal of autonomy, requiring a high degree of professionalism from the ship's staff. These days the level of communication allows shore based personnel to essentially manage the actual ships, allowing the use of less well trained staff on board and restricting their initiative. Personally I would not like to work in the current system and I am grateful I caught the tail end of the former way of operating. In terms of the military I would suggest you are less likely to experience retention problems under the Swedish system, the responsibility is distributed and hence the authority has to be distributed and that means much greater job satisfaction.
Really interesting that fast communication completely changed the autonomy level of the ships! Never thought of that as a "side-effect". Thanks, I learned something new :)
In a similar fashion commercial aviation has changed since the late 90s (when my career began) We had a lot more autonomy from our company back then. Now you can he over the ocean and use WiFi to contact home base (which is SOP now)
I think all militaries are struggling with retention for varied reasons. I agree, the Swedish mentality is fundamentally important in general. However, retention is a multifaceted issue. I know many military officers in the US left the military simply because they could make more money and have better work hour schedules in the private sector. Many also left because they disagreed with the way the Sec. of Defense was micromanaging military operations(Rumsfeld was infamous for this). Also, an important mention in the video is political cost cutting and cost management has gotten so exact there’s no flexibility, everything is done with cost as the absolute final decider, instead of one of many factors to manage. The Republicans forcing government shutdowns and blanket forced cost cutting is a prime example of how to screw your military and force them in this direction.
@@zulupox Modern navigation can be partially shore based. The shore can see a ship off course or moving into shallow or dangerous waters, altering the ship's bridge. This was possible when Costa Concordia hit rocks, but not in operation. The shore like to know that the ship is taking the most economical course, not veering off.
You are spot on about job satisfaction as a function of influence over how your work is done and organized. It's actually reported as much more important than your salary by Swedish people. I suspect that's true in most countries - but it requires that people have an attitude of willing to assume responsibility, and not just act on orders. This isn't the normal case in a lot of countries. And bosses have to accept that subordinates sometimes make the wrong calls. (As we all do!)
I have been following developments in military aircraft for over 50 years now and in that time I have only seen two fighter jets that have blown my mind. The first was the McDonnell F-15 and now the SAAB Gripen. Yes, there are other jets out there that are very, very good but sometimes you see a design that just looks right and the F-15 and Gripen both qualify.
@nick21614 The F22 is an incredible machine, but it has shortcomings, rang, cost of operation, and load out. Also, the cost to refresh. I don't think they'll refresh it.
Try to find the Grumman F-29. The disgraceful decisions Congress made had results so horrible that the United States Air Force started its own F-29 program to bury the fact that the Grumman internally-designed, built on spec, fighter, ever existed. Still unequalled to this day from about 1992.
@@davidgoodnow269 that's the one with the wings pointed forward, not mentioning other really relevant aspects of it, isn't it? I'll try to work out some research, but I'm pretty sure is that plane. What a pity it was to abandon such a promising project...
I worked in an aircraft overhaul facility that hired lots of ex canadian military aircraft maintenance personnel. It was crazy how limited their job scope was on average in the military. They had their one tiny area of expertise on the aircraft and that’s all they knew or had the confidence to do. When something as simple as a stripped screw went wrong with a job they absolutely could not proceed without having someone higher up giving them directions. It was the exact opposite of what I thought would be required from someone who might be needed to perform in a highly demanding war time scenario.
And the Czech have always been crafty people. And they have operated aircrafts that could handle rough contitions during the Soviet times. It wasn't to hard to get to grips with I guess :)
My father worked as a technical officer in the Swedish airforce for over thirty years, supervising conscripts in rearming and refueling fighters, he never complained of their performance, if someone was not up to the task, he just got another job.
*And THAT is another area where many other militaries could learn much from the Swedes* You only want willing, competent folk doing critically important tasks. Unfortunately, the mindset of many senior Officers elsewhere seems to be 'By Jingo we'll make them obey' 🙄 But then, those are the rubbish senior officers you don't want anywhere near the real action.
@@Farweasel It’s very interesting to hear my father talk of ”the good old days” during the cold war. It was very real, he had a pistol at home to protect us because he was considered key personel and a target of soviet assasins!
That is not the UK model, if someone is not up to the task they are left to do badly and cover it up so the higher-ups do not complain about the turnover of staff.
The Swedish defense model has long stood out even among its European counterparts. For no other reason even counting with a strong national defense industry, Brazil entered into a partnership with SAAB to replace all its fourth-generation aircraft for the Gripen E. Not counting the KC 390 that is replacing the Hercules. We are very proud to receive a Gripen E factory in Brazil, manufactured for the Brazilian reality. This partnership is already yielding many other businesses. Saab will use Embraer and its factory in São Paulo as a gateway for sales throughout Latin America. A pity that meanwhile in Europe, we see more and more the option for American aircraft.
Americans make the sales by hiring a lot of officers from foreign airforces: the Canadian contract went because the former chief of the defense staff (an air force general) was hired as a consultant by Lockheed. As was a Canadian colonel to be a test pilot. You just KNOW that there were no Americans who could have filled those posts. So, when the time came to make a decision, those two officers were used to lobby Canadian politicians, none of whom know the first thing about the military in general or aircraft in particular.
Cynicism is useful for explaining some facet of why the F-35 dominates sales, but let's not pretend like Gripen fulfills the same niche as F-35. This isn't the difference between a Honda or a Toyota. The capabilities offered by the F-35 to European nations and Canada are simply distinct
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin We can't afford to fly them, so we won't. It's a hangar Queen. (The Gripon flight time is, last time I checked, costed at about $8000 Cdn an hour. The F-35 is over 50 and that pig will end up costing over a billion dollars a plane for the projected life of the plane - which also won't be met.) the problems are still not fixed (necessary maintenance has gone up, not down. The Gripon has a 10 minute turn around. Go on, give me the time for the F-35.) and as the clip said that the F-35 was better for long range strikes, I have to ask why? The Gripon E has a slightly greater range and with smart weapons you no longer need to be able to carry 20 tons of ordinance. Even with the F-18 we can't afford the number of pilots needed... and yes, an experienced pilot is better than one who hasn't flown that much, while a plane that is in pieces in a climate controlled hangar . Traditionally, Americans have always said "Let's find out what our system can do, and make that the test that 'proves' its superiority." Thus Divads became the Sergeant York Helicopter gun because choppers don't dive on their target. They were darned if they were going to buy geopards - which are performing so well in Ukraine - but couldn't stop it from tracking its target and firing into the ground. The Sheridan tank kept killing its crews, among other problems... and yes, I was actually issued with an M-16: a piece of s*** when compared to our incredibly reliable Galils. But you are right, it's not comparing a Honda to a Toyota. It's comparing a Toyota (mine has 340,000 km and no major repairs) to some piece of Detroit iron that loses it's entire drive train at 70k. (Or in my neighbour's case, his Dodge pickup, which just required a new diesel engine, and even with him doing the work, it cost him as much as my entire 2007 Toyota did). Nobody has yet explained to me how we know what the F-35s capabilities are... or what we will require in say 20 years. An inexpensive but reliable platform for which we can afford new weapons systems is better than something that we can't.
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin Oh, yeah: and the F-35 can't turn or dogfight, is visible to long wave radar, so it really isn't stealth, and what do you do when the carbon skin starts breaking up?
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin Lets talk about reality, shall we? In the last 2 weeks, when Biden was in the Bay area (Oakland) and civil aviation was accordingly shut down, an F-35 was sent up to investigate and intimidate a single engine propeller driven private plane. Does anyone want to claim that there were no alternatives? Like the California Air National guard with its F-16s doesn't exist? As with the U.S.A., most if not all the "missions" that countries like Canada will send the F-35 on can be done with just about ANY aircraft... and the Gripon E has a higher non-afterburner speed, a greater range, is more maneuverable, can handle just about any short strip available, including highways, and can be updated almost at will... as well as being one bleep of a lot cheaper to fly, maintain, and purchase. Since our prime minister has stated that there is no way on God's Green Earth that Canada is ever going to spend the Nato required 2% on defense, it is safe to say that neither he nor anyone in the defense establishment anticipates a war. So why should we buy an aircraft about which we are open about saying that we will never need the claimed superiority of long range strikes and stealth? I repeat: they do not anticipate a war, so why pretend that there is something that the F-35 can do better if it will never be done?
The Swedes are highly skilled. Probably above anyone else. Their pilots are at a supreme level. I remember reading a published diary from a RAF pilot. They were visiting the Swedish air force,- to watch and learn other "ways to do it". The RAF pilots was given the passenger seats in dual seat Gripens. They were in disbelief,- a common "near death" experience. RAF had no training like it. Not even close. They thought of it as suicidal flying,- but they did it every day. Way beyond normal acceptable. Guys like Peter Linden,- a very skilled fighter pilot,- in his free time, he was a driver in the World Championship Road Racing tour. Racing against the best in the world. Just for fun. His real job was fighter pilot. Sweden knows what they are doing,- it's more a question if it's possible to upgrade NATO forces to the Swedish level.
to be fair, Peter Linden has more than one screw loose ... Did my conscription on the Gripen A/B on F7 when he was a pilot there... One funny thing is that pilots take a bicycle to the plane from the briefing room. Look hilarious when 5 pilots in full gear ride to the planes in a neat little row, helmets on.
@@GeezRvonFart I have never met Linden,- but I guess he is "something special". Probably a very high level of reflexes, "timing" and coordination,- as the highest level road racers are very special too. They do stuff impossible to normal people.
From what I've heard, Sweden is suffering from underpaying their pilots and since the 90's flight hours have been reduced. Also, the "war time flight training" has been changed for safety reasons. Hope the skill of the pilots haven't been affected too much!
@@backisgabbeYT The "war time flight training" was changed because of a well thought through calculation of risks and outcome. When both planes and pilots where much more abundant it was deemed affordable to lose 10 to 20 pilots per year, and maybe double that in planes. When the Swedish Airforce was at its largest it had approximately 1000 (one thousand) planes, and the procurement rate was WAY higher than today. So losing, say, 30 per year would was "okay". The peacetime loss of pilots all those pilots where of-course a tragedy. Today, the number of planes in the Swedish Airforce is maybe a tenth of that. And the investment in training a pilot is much larger. The Swedish Airforce did the assessment of risk and consequences of outcome and concluded that the cost of training like it did was no longer acceptable. And I really hope they also weighed in the tragedies of losing pilots. At the Airforce headquarters in Stockholm there is a wall of remembrance with the names of all pilots that perished. There's roughly 500 (five hundred) names. No names have been added for a long time. A total of 5 Gripens have been lost over 30 years or so (including two prototypes / test planes). No pilots perished. Swedish Airforce pilots still fly fast and low. But the limits have been nudged so that they now survive peacetime service. And the planes are fliwn to their lifetime limit. Anything else would be unacceptable. For the pilots and their families. For the airforce. For the Swedish taxpayers. In that order.
I'm American and I must say that this video was a real eye-opener for me. I have to say I really like the Swedish system, and the Gripen. I think the U.S. military could learn a lot from this and perhaps back away from an over-reliance on the best technologies that tend to be finicky and difficult to maintain. I would choose to have lots of relatively inexpensive to purchase, relatively inexpensive to maintain, low maintenance hours per flight hour Generation 4 and/or 4.5 aircraft rather than F-35s. And having at least some regular training in dispersed operations as well as an adjustment away from the fear of risk would be a good thing. I'm biased towards American warplane and I always have been. However, I recently ventured down the rabbit hole of modern European multi-role aircraft and it's been a fun time. Previous to that I would have instantly answered the F/A-18E single-seat Super Hornet when asked what my favorite modern warplane was, but now it's not so easy to say what the answer is. The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have complicated things.
As a swedish conscript squad leader I think I recall from training this is an old German doctrine. It is not about managing risk, it is about making the best decitions, and if the guys on the ground are aware enough of the overall tacical objectives we can better expolit local opportunitys than a general back at HQ just because we on the ground have the local awarness. But then to the cultural part, doing the right thing is really important to us swedes. We are in some ways similar to the Japanese with their honnor structure. So a conscript can be trusted to make his own decitions because you can trust the intentions of the conscript.
I disagree. Germany and Japan lost because their leaders made bad decisions. Their civilian population's as well as military personnel's honor and willingness to fight to the last breath is what made the war last for as long as it did.
I have no idea how to succinctly explain it because culture is very complicated, but "a conscript can be trusted to make his own decisions because you can trust the intentions of the conscript" doesn't mesh with what I know of Japanese culture. Things tend to be about not bothering or bringing shame to the people around you, not doing the honorable thing as an individual. I'd be curious if anyone can comment on JSDF views on command structure and initiative.
@@fernandocruz4877 Wrong, modern military doctrine evolved from the german Auftragstaktik(spelling) and combined arms is another development from the tactivs they used during ww2. The way the tactic works is you set a goal and time, then the next level down passes out targets and time to lower levels, and it keeps being sent down at times to squad levels, so now everyone has a rough idea from army group to squad level of what goal must be taken or achieved and roughly within what timeframe, and now these units are free to go about the task in the best way they can with their means and adapt to circumstances better and faster than the soviet or french doctrine which was rigid and more akin to set plans to be followed to the letter. I recommend reading about it, it is fascinating and will cure your ignorance.
I have to admit that the details of all this are beyond my knowledge or experience. However, what I can say is how impressive this level and depth of Swedish warrior culture is. Surely NATO countries can learn a lot from this. Thanks to Military Aviation channel for excellent content. Subscribed today!
I would like to point out that all swedish military equipment are designed with defence in mind. If you look at historical war machines like the S-tank, stealth corvettes and jas it makes perfect sence. Further more, with a limited economy and a small population it’s all about making the most out each piece of military equipment. The Gripen is made for intence combat with many sorties, this requires lots of available runways, quick reloads and off to the next sortie.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory USAF, RAF, and USMC have been doing dispersed operations with fighters, attack, and cargo aircraft for generations dating back to at least Korea. If you ever watched a REFORGER or TEAM SPIRIT Large Force Exercise in the 1980s, it would dwarf anything you see currently. They still do it with F-35s and A-10s.
I personaly love the Gripen, I think it is an asset to be able to operate from almost anywhere in the country and as a matter of fact almost anywhere in the world, efficiently and with a minimum of support.
A very interesting video on how the Swedish Airforce organization works, how responsibility is shared and risks are valued. I think this applies more widely to the nordic societies. We are taught from early on as kids to live independently, to think critically and find information on our own. This results to people who are relatively knowledgable, are able work and function independently, take calculated risks and at the same time make good decisions. Sometimes mistakes can happen, but we learn from them and don't get punished for them.
I often travel to Sweden and was very impressed by the amount of tasks taken on by an average Swede were other nationalities would be calling on an expert. From laying concrete or repairing houses to fixing machines or building a boat, it seems Swedes are capable of fulfilling a wide range of tasks themselves.
@@FFM0594i dont hire experts for things other than when it is recuired due to insurrance or very complicated things. I'm a girl and i built my own porch ,.changed the panels on house and painted it. Its like almost embarrassing if you dont have these skills to be a multifixer, we kids learn to fix things togheter with our parents at a young age We are expexted to help out, in my family anyway , and we dont get reprimanded if we get it wrong. Its just " that's a good lesson to learn from, now you know what not to do" I could never afford to hire expert to everything and besides its fun to learn new skills even if it isnt perfect , its a sense of pride figuring things out yourself.
One of the biggest challenges i encountered emigrating from Sweden in the early 90's to another western democracy was the level of risk avoidance i had to get used to in my adopted homeland. The level of risk avoidance throughout the system, from policy makers, to executives, to managers, even down to the implementation team, is very uncomfortable when risk acceptance and risk controls was very different in Sweden.
I concur. It comes down, as Chris mentioned in the last section, to culture. One does not change culture particularly rapidly. We see a living example of it with the current conflict in that the Russian ability to shift on the move just isn't there because it is not part of their military culture. The same can be said, though perhaps to a lesser or greater degree in specific instances, with other militaries around the world. The Swedish model is perhaps defined as being one of the most flexible sheerly because of the culture, specifically the one inculcated in their military, because they have little choice due to the small size of their military. But the big drawback, as Chris also pointed out, is the vulnerability of that system. The Swedish model has the same vulnerability that the German and Japanese air forces suffered during WWII, the ability to replace long-service personnel in the events of losses just isn't present. Attrition would be devastating to such a force in the face of a long term conflict.
@@grognard23 Considering the expected outcome when facing the full weight of the Soviet juggernaut I don't believe long term was the primary consideration. If there was still resistance beyond partisan activity after a month that would probably have been considered a success. The idea was to survive until Nato hopefully would decide to intervene. Whether the logic behind the overall defense policy made sense is another matter. I believe some study capped Swedish resistance against nuclear attacks at about 10. Exactly why the Soviets would decide to launch a conventional invasion of Sweden unless within the context of a wider war with Nato I can't say. But the Soviets did not invade so in the end it apparently worked.
@@Mosisli I fully agree that long term was not a consideration. I imagine they just wanted to, much like Switzerland, make themselves thorny enough to not be worth the bite, so to speak. The long term attrition issue would not have applied to them in case of a short war but, nevertheless, should they have been unsuccessfully invaded and been involved in a longer term conflict, it would rapidly have become an issue. Highly unlikely, of course, but still true should such a thing have occurred.
@@grognard23 Certainly in such a long term conflict it would likely have been very difficult for them to replace lost pilots. Though unless one also presumes Sweden like Japan and Germany would be able to replace lost aircraft the issue with capable new fighter lacking pilots might not apply to the same degree. I.e. "We have no more pilots but fortunately we also have no more aircraft."
@@Mosisli Valid point, that. Just depends on if it turns into a forever war with nuclear weapons always staying in the "threat" rather than their actual usage. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia..."
SAAB has been ahead of the curve for decades, and the JAS39 is their latest example. Edit: your presentation is excellent. Don't take my word for it, those replying are also impressive.
I think the most important thing to take note of is exactly how much the Swedish military in all respects has been able to do, with how little they've spent. Insane.
@@aliceberethart except in the late 1990ies and early 2000s when our politicians kidney punched the entire costal artillery branch out of existance, gutted strategic air defence, engineers, logistics, signals and artillery down to a single regiment each, gutted the navy down to two bases, got rid of all of the sea knight heavy transport helis, all but one of the field hospitals and destroyed or sold off all of the civil defense organisation and stockpiles, including almost 9 MILLION civilian pattern gas masks and 24h protection suits with a one year supply of CBRN filters, and it's nation wide dispersed one year supply of fuel, seeds, metals, medicine etc.
I think that this is catching up with them: F35 has 300.000 parts and is every two workdays one leave the assembly. They will not be able to cover the cost of the whole production chain; from development to manufacturing and planes will cost more then better US planes. There is nothing that can offset the scale of economy and of course the funds available.
@@panan7777 it doesn't matter that much, they just need buyers. The more purchases, the cheaper production becomes. That's exactly why the F-35 is so cheap now compared to before. If it were selling like the F-16 did, it would probably be about the same price or lower for a better jet in many respects.
In my opinion, Gripen would be an ideal choice for Ukraine. Even after the current war is over, Ukraine will need the capable air forces that can be dispersed and served locally to avoid a crippling attack from Russia.
You do realize that the war might be over or nearly over before Ukraine gets any non-Soviet jet aircraft? Don’t count on it this year. It would be a pleasant surprise to see either F-16 or Gripen operating in Ukraine in 2024.
@@MarcosElMalo2 It's fairly obvious that we need to arm Ukraine with the most modern weapons both now and after the war. No more hand me downs. $200 billion/year and 1% of western GDP is the bare minimum. Even after the war Ukraine will need to be armed with the most modern weapons and not hand me downs. We will see this through. Any amount of money is worth it to save Ukraine and damage and punish Russia. Long term we will make Russia use its oil and gas riches pay for this. The longer Russia fights the worse it will get.
I’ve seen many pictures of the Gripen but not thought much of it. Seeing how the design works within the constraints of the Swedish military was eye opening. I’m quite impressed by it now.
As a neutral country, Sweden designed their requirements against meeting a far superior opponent. That is very different situation that leads to different priorities. It was and may still be a very good idea for Sweden. It is likely a very good idea for Ukraine as well. However, NATO is instead expected to instead have superior air power, which leads to different priorities and requirements.
Agreed. Swedish neutrality is the key to understanding the Swedish mentality when it comes to defense strategy. This also means that they must change their mentality (and defense strategy) when they become a member of NATO. Another aspect is that the Swedish neutrality was based on the fact that the flanks were secured with Finland and Norway in the west, north and east. Only the threat from the south via Kaliningrad was realistic or if Finland was taken first (or at the same time).
@@Hvitserk67 I completly disagree , we are & will always remain within range of massive missile attacks , unlike US (which sets the standard in NATO) and it will not be benefical for any of ous if its all centralised and easily destroyed within the first hour of a future combat scenario. NATO would really benefit with more resiliance at least for those who share similar problems.
As a swede I think the SA has done good with the very small budget and population we have. Since the 90s the swedish army and all other branches of the military has been severely underfunded. As you mention in the video, there are things to learn from the SA. But I hope, if Turkey someday let us into NATO, we can learn even more form our allies and integrate better with them.
you think they done well? yet no fighter pilot has dropped a single bomb on Malmö? or any of your other invaded cities? in my humble opinion, you all lost it... in your heads and your country. Stockholm syndrome has infected you all.
Or just forget the awkward obligations of full NATO membership but drop the rigid global-neutrality doctrine. Pretty much every non-Turkish member of NATO (and many others besides) would be honored to ally with Sweden on a bilateral level. Rumor has it, the USA already does. Probably Finland too, etc. No Erdogan = no millstone around your neck.
As a swede, my take on this topic is the we're very pragmatic. We don't build hierarchies for its own sake. The whole swedish socity is IMHO very "flat". I did my military training in the airforce, 11 months as a ATC assistant. The enviroment, even in the 70's, was very relaxed. We were all considered as "equals" to our comanders. We had a job to do, as they had. This went all the way from the flight line up to the tower. What I understand of the defence force today is that focus is is to solve any problems, not adressing the hierarchy. Of course, there are units that are stricter then others. Some years later I endede up in the "military industrial complex, for 30+ years, working my way all the way from the factory floor up to the level below the top management. During these years I've met both the customers, i.e. "the guys in green", and the suppliers. When visiting abroad I was always stunned how hierarchies was very obvious. This was very obvious in countries like Germany, the UK and the US. When we had technical meetings with both "end users" and suppliers, we usud to bring in blue collers, that was the guys that had the knowledge about problems, to our meetings. Guests was a bit confused! Everyone is on a first name basis in Swedish companies from the CEO to the BC. This reform started 1967 when the new head of the National Swedish Board of Health, decleared the he was going to implement the second person singular "you" as adress.
Or the opposition is able to ballistically missile you to death. Yes I know the real term, tactical ballistic missiles.... There are many times where dispersal training is of use. Not least of which would be if you have to operate in a localized manner, for example envision this, a large Asian nation decides to go after a smaller island nation. Initially we would be using all of our fleet power. But there will be a point when it would be apparent that it be better to operate off of an unsinkable carrier. This carrier though can still be made into a whole bunch of potholes. So we, the greatest Air Force in the world, three times over, would still find it useful to operate off of said unsinkable carrier in a dispersed manner... This particular scenario applies to many other islands near the Philippines, Korea, Japan, everything in between including said unsinkable carrier, and many other places in the world. You are absolutely right, as long as we're not fighting a peer or near peer nation within their own weapon system ranges
I kinda used to agree with that statement. But Ukraine has shown us otherwise. It is a fairly large country, one I would have expected to be able to keep "the rear" safe. But as we have seen, even bases deep inland are vulnerable to hypersonic ballistic missiles and drone swarms. Even with a good anti air defense, the airfield is just such an important target that an enemy will use whatever they can to take it out. Now, I think any bigger nations are best served by a mix of capabilities. For example F-35A's + some F-35B's for dispersed operations. Or other kind of combination. Smaller nations might not be able to afford to operate more than one multi role aircraft though.
Sweden has strategic depth with Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia as their geographic buffers to the East, and Norway to the North and West. Sweden's most vulnerable approach vector is actually from Kaliningrad towards Gotland. Their maritime force posture is very important, which makes a lightweight fighter with limited mission radius a bad platform for that environment.
@@LRRPFco52 But the Baltic sea isn't that big. Of course longer combat range is always beneficial, but that would mean a heavier and more expensive plane and therefore fewer planes which also wouldnt work as well for dispersement. Gripens range is adequate.
@@olebaltasar6263 If you launch from Ronneby, sure you might have adequate mission radius in a Gripen, lightly-loaded, with some station time to loiter in an Anti-Ship or Maritime Recce role. But since Sweden is talking dispersed basing, even if we remotely locate West into the Swedish interior and still stay in Southern Sweden, like out near Borås, now that mission radius just doubled. If we’re operating from more up north, that’s an additional 130nm we’ll need if flying an anti-ship mission profile down towards Kaliningrad. A Recce/anti-ship profile will have reduced employment options. It’s a lot to ask for such a small airframe with so little internal fuel and limited weapons-carrying capacity. Gripen mission radius diminishes dramatically when you load it with external stores due to empty weight, fuel fraction, parasitic drag, and weight of the weapons. If it has to dodge or avoid Russian Flankers and eventually the Su-57 in that area, it’s pretty screwed in terms of being able to get into a WEZ profile for Anti-Ship missiles, and still faces the high probability of being run-down while in Bingo fuel state. Not good.
The Swedish military is highly trained. Their technological status is world-leading. And in a country with a freedom-loving people, a country that has never been occupied, it will not be difficult to motivate the people to fight for their more than a thousand years of freedom and sovereignty.
I don’t know who if you live in Sweden or you make assumptions because Sweden has been a hell hole for the past 15 years full of gang violence and crime thanks to the bad handled immigration. We are at a point we’re I am literally the only Swedish kid in my own class in my own country how stupid is that.
This is the exact reason that i volounteered for Ukraine. Im going for a second tour shortly. People need to realise the dangers of communism, socialism and islam.
It has been occupied, just not in a long time. Sweden as we know it was forged in the war of liberation against the Danes in 1600s. DanskJÄVLAR! (Mostly joking, that was a very long time ago, and the Danes are essentially more family than neighbors).
Thank you for doing this look at a different way of approaching the problem. It would be interesting to get statistics on how many planes were destroyed on the ground in various conflicts. The Swedish solution makes a great deal of sense for them.
Not sure the USA remembers well but in 1941 a lot of US planes were lined up for security purposes, and a sneak attack pretty much wiped them out. GB has an interesting Regimental system, where old members meet with current members over dinner or whatever, and talk about old stories and old lessons. Kind of a "grape vine" of information dispersal.
In WW2? Lots. The Japanese wiped out British planes in Ceylon and Malaya on the ground. 200 British and American planes were wiped out mainly on the ground by the Germans in Operation Bodenplatte, on 1 Jan 1945. 800 Luftwaffe fighters attacked allied airfields. They lost up to 300 of their own fighters and over 200 pilots were killed or taken prisoner. Little loss of life on the Allied side. The Allies were were able to replenish their planes and ground equipment within days. After the raid the Luftwaffe was a spent force.
I've been at our military airforce base, and talked with the maitenence and the ground crew. I am Hungarian and we are operating a few of the Gripens for a while now. I've mostly told positives of it's ease of maitenence and operation. I see why gripen is not the solution for everything, but as a primary fighter I do not see any better option. If my contry successfully adopted it, I do not see any problem with others, apart from retraining and reorganising which is the way with most of the other jets too.
I think we just like to win over problems, especially so if the challenge is greater, because it just gives a greater satisfaction afterwards. If we look at a lot of the hardware made here, it's a surprising amount for such a small country but it shows that mentality a bit too. How to make things as good as possible within the constraints we have. It's fun and very rewarding, and seems to work. I did my military basic training 85-86, and later in life spent 6 years in the home guard, and all the time the mentality was always to make the individual capable to solve any situation, as if he/she would one day be the last person standing and still was expected to complete the assignment. We typically always knew the whole assignment as a squad, rather than an officer handing that information down to us as we go along. This way we could always continue even if that officer was no longer available to us. We know the objectives, etc, so when we're on our own we can still continue. This is also quite motivating, because you know what's going on, what the plan is, and you can carry on when things go wrong. I think all in all this is something Swedes just do, starting in life with a good education sets you up to handle whatever you want to do in life. You never have to feel afraid of challenges because you can, with the tools you've been given, figure out a solution to it and make it happen. Even our society is built to allow you to take risks, knowing that you're backed up. If you want to start a business, you can do so without fear of becoming homeless, I would say it's even quite encouraged to give it a try. The country benefits more if you succeed than it costs them if you fail. At the end I suppose it has to be said that Swedes are not meant to feel better than anyone else despite what your status in life is. You're meant to be humble to others, but at the same time others look at you and can see the effort you put into something that turned out well, and will let you know what a good job that was. There's so much to this really, but I feel, personally, that if I can't figure something out it's a really hard pill to swallow, almost shameful, given the tools I have available to make it happen. It's that weird situation where the harder something is to do, the more interested I become in solving it, and the better I feel when I work it out. And always do a good job, because if someone sees your shoddy work result, the shame would be tremendous.
Many think that the capability to use short runways is only have a defense porpuse. But you can set up forward bases close to the combat zone to give fast response with in hours. A plane rearming 10min from battle zone can deliver many CAS more than a plane than is 60min away.... In the battle of Britain the close access to an airfield was a game changer for UK.
Yeah, being able to take off and land in short distances is never a bad thing, nor is the capability to be flexible with logistics. Even if you don't intend to use those capabilities, they are good to have. The real question is how much of a trade-off is worth it for any given military.
This comment is not about an important part of this topic. I first saw the Gripen in about 1996 or 1997 (this is going HEAVY off memory from when I was very young, so if that's the wrong year, don't @ me). It was one of the little pamphlets that came in this subscription thing my dad was getting for me called Aircraft of the World. I immediately decided the Gripen was one of the coolest planes. I think that was mainly just because it looked so different from everything else, but I also knew that the Gripen was made by Saab, who made cars, and 6 year old me thought a car company that also made fighter jets was just the definition of cool. Growing up and learning more about the plane as an adult, I find that 6 year old me was right. This plane is just simply cool, and it's not bad to look at either, which is always a plus.
But it was the other way round. SAAB is an aircraft company that started to build cars. SAAB means Svenska aeroplan aktiebolaget founded in 1937. (Swedish aeroplane ltd) They started to design, and build, cars in 1947 to keep their engineers and workforce after ww2.
The fact that this jet has a similar performance to the F-16 at a third of the operational cost and supports modern tech and weapons says everything you need to know about it. Greetings from Greece.
I heard amazing stories that took me a while to digest. When the Swiss Airfoce was evaluating new planes, (that was likely twenty years ago), they had pilots from the USA and other countries flying their test planes in. We have our jet strips in mountain valleys. Every rookie jet pilot here is used to land and take off in narrow mountain valleys. Before I thought that US airfoce pilots were highly skilled and trained. It was a shock to me to hear that the USAF pilots regarded landing and taking off on our airforce strips as "suicidal". While I do not have a high regard for the Swiss Army in general, (I have experienced to many strange things during my service), I am always amazed by the skill of our jet pilots. How they fly extremely close and slow with a huge mountain wall beside them, how they slide down in very steep descends and they even keep close formations doing that. We can also speak of calculated risk here. I know that Scandinavian pilots are used to do things like that. The smaller the airforces, the better trained the pilots and ground crews seem to be.
"I have experienced to many strange things during my service" - come on, you can't just drop a curiosity magnet like that and not say anything further. share some of those strange experiences with us.
@@the80386 It is very simple: The absolute stupidity of rules and orders. One of many highlights was the control of the colors of the socks the soldiers were wearing, before going home for the weekend: Over a hundred soldiers had to lift their trousers and a sergeant did contol every single soldier to find out if their socks had acceptable colors. You had to buy the socks at home from your own money, they were not provided. There was so much bullshit going on that I changed from enthusiastic soldier to a guy who nearly got insane and fulll of hatred and despair seeing how unable and primitive many superiors were. It kind of felt like serving in an Army full of arrogant but absolutely demented Nazis. For years after my last Army service I even had nightmares: I had to stand on one leg and was ordered to shout glabubu for a hndered times and shit like that.
Finland uses the F-18 Hornet in similar fashion. During war they are operated both from bases as well as from dispersed road bases. The difference is that Gripen is purpose built for operating in such conditions and is better in it.
I disagree. I'd argue that the superior capability and reliability of the Hornet far outweighs the *_ridiculously inconsequential_* need for a few more easily available and cheap mechanics. People keep pretending that maybe one truck more of equipment and a mechanic or two more would be some ground-breaking savings for a Western nation's air force! Doesn't the Hornet even have the advantage of the tailhook thanks to its very robust design made to allow for aircraft carrier operations? I have observed Finland's Hornet highway operations live, but in those occasions they didn't use them and I can't remember if they had them at the ready in case of emergencies.
F18 would be better for dirty runways like in Ukraine tho, but ye there are not that many F18 close to the giant number of F16 there is around. The biggest challenge with F16 tho is all the maintenance it needs, 2hours for 1 jet flying 1hour.. However the support Ukraine gets from F16 countries like my own will do.
@@pistonburner6448 It's not about savings or availalibility of the mechanics. For Finland it's about securing the air force by not having them necessarily rely on bases, as the bases would be vulnerable to attacks and they surely are among the first targets in case of war. If there's many suitable places to operate just by using the existing roads, then the enemy is unable to destroy the means for Finland's (or Sweden's) air force to keep on operating.
@@FINNSTIGAT0R I replied to you about what you said about the differences between Hornet and Gripen. Re-read my reply. I didn't write anything about dispersed operations...besides, I almost certainly know more about Finland's dispersed operations than you do.
I’ve been interested in this topic since childhood. I think it would be very useful for the USMC to cross train with the Swedish Air Force in their dispersed operations model. The Marine Corps wants a model that enables them to operate their F-35B’s in austere environments such as in Pacific island hopping campaigns. The Marine Corps is going through a lot of force structure changes at this time. New hybrid tactics such as those that can be inspired by the Swedish model would be useful as the USMC continues it’s current transformation to an even more nimble expeditionary force.
The USMC and USAF have been doing these kinds of dispersed operations for real, for decades. RAF has as well. If I’ve been doing it institutionally since World War II and exceeded the mission requirements assigned to every squadron over those generations, why would I go ask someone who has never done it how to do it?
@@LRRPFco52 "why would I go ask someone who has never done it how to do it?" Because you might find new approaches that let you raise efficiency and/or lower the costs.
I admit to being fairly ignorant about Sweden prior to the covid pandemic. I became much more aware, and impressed, when I saw how they handled covid very competently when the rest of the world was going nuts and ignoring decades of science and accumulated wisdom on handling pandemics. I am now impressed also with how they manage their military. I think most countries could learn a few things from the Swedes, particularly the US where I live.
As a swede I think it's because in our culture we trust each other. We don't have strong hierarchies were you have to follow what one big boss wants to do. This is why our government didn't lock the whole country down. Because the government doesn't have the power to do so. There is no one in the swedish government that got absolute power or much extra power over any other person. If you look at China or Russia they are dictatorships and have absolute power. What one person at the top decides, that will be implemented and happen. Take Russia, one man at the top wanted to invade a country, that happened. Take China, one man at the top wanted to lock the whole country down because of Covid. That happened, and China had the thoughest lockdowns in the world because of this. The same is true for our compaines. Our bosses in Sweden don't have much power over their employees. This is why we have such a good work life balance, because we are pretty free to chose what we want to do at work. It's not our bosses who decide what to do, you decide yourself what you want to do. I work for a big swedish company as an IT - architect. During Covid I was allowed to work from home for 100% for two years. After Covid ended, we were allowed to work from home 50% of the time. So 50% at the office and 50% at home. We still have this schedule today and I think it's here to stay. At the same time, I have some french colleagues, but they don't have this rule, they were forced to go back to the office far earlier than I had to do. And today they must be in the office for 100% of the time, so they are not even allowed to work from home. So in Sweden we are much more free. And as I said, that is because we don't have strong hierarchies, we don't have bosses with a lot of power who can decide what they want us to do. We are not ruled like a bunch of minions.. ;) But this culture also creates a lot of innovation and promotes good ideas. This is why Sweden is a rich country and one of the strongest democracy's in the world. If not the strongest. And to just give you some proof that this model works. Just look at the Nobel prize that we hand out every year. We created that, and the reason why is because we have a really strong history of innovations, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc. So yes, if you don't have strong hierarchies, no bosses that tells you what to do, then you will be free to innovate. This is the swedish way of living and how our society is built. So it's not only reflected in our military, it's reflected in the government, in our companies, in the society as a whole. That's also why we pay high taxes, but our high taxes are actually spent very wizley and put to good use most of the time. But I think this has always existed in our culture. That is why the vikings were so successfull. And it's why we were a great empire at one point, even though we always have had a small population. We have always punched way above our weight militarily and when it comes to innovations. Our compaines punch above their weight today. It's just due to the cultural values that we hold, especially with the weak hierarchies mentality. That's what makes us efficient. If you are a boss in Sweden and try to flash your status or imply that you are valued more than others, then you will be put down so hard. That's the beauty in our culture! You should not think that you are better than anyone else. That's a core value that we have and follow. And if someone tries to deviate from that, then they will be punished by the masses. That's also why we have so strong trade unions/labour unions. But this also creates friendship. If everyone thinks they are equal and not worth more than others, then they are actually more likley to become friends. That will benefit teamwork, it will be more productive for society as a whole. That was a long explanation, but I hope you now understand why the swedish government didn't lock down. It's because they didn't have enough power to do so, because the people didn't want to do so. And in one of the strongest democracy's in the world, people have the power. Not a few powerfull people.
@@goldrush5764 The US was much like that until about 10 years ago. I am not sure how the woke/leftists gained so much influence so fast, but the US has been in a cultural free fall since then. I’m not sure when it will stop, but hopefully soon. Be cautious that the same doesn’t infect Sweden.
@@LTVoyager Well, we have had our problems too. Our problem has been our strong immigration of people from third world countries. The reason why we have had that problem is because we are nice people and wanted to help them. Therefore we took in a lot of people from the third world. However, they have caused so much problem with violence and crime. And they don't contribute to our society because they don't hold the same values as we do. But, we have woken up now and realized our misstakes so this will now be fixed. It used to be 10-20 years ago that we wanted to help them. But now the tide has turned a lot, so now our current government is putting up harsher sentences for crime. Removing welfare hand-outs and stuff. The simple reason for this is because most swedes have woken up and realized that we actually imported a bunch of criminals that wanted to take advantage of us. So we are currently moving in the right direction. However, we still want to help poor people in the world, but we realized that this can't be done through immigration to Sweden. It must be done through aid. So we will still do a lot of aid and stuff, but we won't bring them to Sweden because they are not compatible with living in a modern society.
@@LTVoyager But I can also say this. You have a problem in the US, and that is that you only have a two party system. For me, I just hate Trump. He has shown that he is almost a dictator and he also throws around a lot of conspiracy theories. In the beginning I supported Tump, but then he went totally off the rails and showed his true face. I also hate the fact that he doesn't support Ukraine. We swedes support Ukraine and will send military equipment for as long as it takes! No matter what! We are actually the country in the world who supports Ukraine the most if you ask people on the street. They did a poll in many western countries and we had the highest support of any country. 97% of swedes said that they supported Ukraine. I'm proud of that, and I see it as a strong support for democarcy. That's what it is. In the US I think it was a 70% support. Anyways, I didn't like Biden initially, but he has shown a very strong support for Ukraine. So in this regard I think he has passed with flying colors. So yes, initially I was not a democrate, and I'm not one now. But I'm not a republican either because I think they have totally gone mad and evil to be honest. The MAGA folks are just maniacs and they have hijacked the republican party. This was not what the republicans stod for, throughout history. So I'm very dissapointed about that. But yeah, I also think the leftist and woke people are maniacs as well. So for me, if I had to chose a side in american politics, I just can't! It's impossible because it's like choosing between cancer and heart disease. You don't want any of them. American politics is such a disaster right now. No common sense and just to radical on both sides. And that's the only thing you can choose from. It must suck so hard to be an american voter these days. Here in Sweden we have eight parties. All with different takes, from the whole spectrum. This is also why I think we are one of the strongest democracy's in the world. You have a lot more to chose from and that aligns more with your own views.
@@LTVoyager Sweden's far more left than the US. The Swedish right is to the left of the US left. We've had a stronger equality movement for longer, so while we do have wokeness and other extremists, there's also an overall higher social acceptance that moderates extremes on both sides. The main problem the US has had for a long time is the reliance on capitalism as a balancing structure, but while it works on some levels, it leads to the ones in power being large corporations, rather than the government or the people. But this is a bit more political and off topic.
Italy planned to gain a similar capability by employing the F-35B platform, to allow for dispersed operations at least with a small number of tactical aircraft, while most of the air force operates from proper airfields. I guess all is still in the making though. The F35B was somewhat designed to allow this philosophy with the Marine Corp's requirements, but in terms of logistics, manpower and infrastructure I seriously doubt it's as efficient as the Gripen.
The systems are a reflection of the tactical, operational and strategic requirements and mindset of the user. The Gripen like all Swedish airplanes reflect their requirements. NATO from the systems to culture are different. There is only so much that can be learned and applied without sufficient pressure to force a change. To paraphrase Michael Kofman, "In war, things are highly contextual." A good explainer Chris.
Your discussion about the dispersal of and training about risk assessment at all levels of the Swedish air force as opposed to doctrinal management of risk made me think about how the Russians do exactly the opposite. To the point that if your CO is killed or missing, your unit can barely function, if at all. This is a military that (at least until recent practical considerations started shifting them), still used Soviet lookup tables to determine how much food and ammunition to ship to a unit.
Sweden was the only country that didn't do lockdowns during Covid. Instead the government set out guidelines for how people should behave and people mostly followed the rules. In the end Sweden didn't have higher mortality rates than other countries. "Freedom with responsibility" is a Swedish axiom that may not work everywhere but it works in Sweden. There has been a strong push in the last 50 years to flatten organizations and give individuals more power to make decisions.
Sweden's mortality rate during COVID matched those of nations with higher population density and much larger population centres. It was objectively one of the worst responses to the pandemic out of all Western nations.
@@dumdumbinks274 Not really true. Norway was best in Europe with 635 deaths per million inhabitants. Sweden was 8th in Europe with 1849. Lower than France, Austria, Portugal, UK, Belgium, Italy and all of eastern Europe. If you factor in population age it looks even better. The reason Sweden is seen as high is in comparison with other Scandinavian countries. If you look at details then it's clear that Sweden failed primarily in 3 ways compared to them: - Early response (lacking protective gear and slow rollout) - Early handling of the elderly - Immigrant groups - where the rules either weren't understood or just not followed
Very informative, thanks. A follow-up video on Sweden's procurement process is warranted. It is entirely different (and arguably way more effective) than that of other Western countries. In a nutshell, as I understand it the military flows requirements to the FMV, which works with the contractors to deliver the weapons system. The weapons system isn't turned over to the military by the FMV and the contractor paid, until all the requirements are met. Keeps the military from tinkering with the design, and holds the contractor's feet to the fire as it were. Could solve a lot of problems if such a process were adopted by say....the U.S.
That was the model before cabinet Reinfeldt decided that FMV didn't need technical competence, as the industry already have engineers... and the military were to be the experts on what was needed.
I spent many days in Sennelager, near Paderborn, Germany in the 1990's in despersed locations with GR7s. No need for long runways and the Harriers hiden among the trees. Though the British have changed there mode of opperation since then.
Also Finland has defence forces based on conscript crew and here in Finland the training includes 5-11 months of specialized training for the tasks that every individual conscript crew member would work in actual war. Only the tasks that cannot be trained in 11 months will be filled with professional crew called "kantahenkilökunta" in Finnish.
The risk factor is interesting. It really is part of the Swedish armed forces across the board. Mission Command, trust the people closest to the action, trust the people given a task to perform it. It gives a massive tactical advantage and allows all branches, infantry, armor, jaeger, homeguard, navy and airforce the ability to respond to changes on the battlefield much faster than having to constantly wait for confirmation from above. In 2019 a swedish lieutenant noted that Swedish troops acting as Opfor to NATO (Norway, US snd UK) were much quicker to adapt and respond to changes on the battlefield and that he found NATO to appear sluggish.
On the topic of mission command there is a good read available titled "Trigger-Happy, Autonomous, and Disobedient: Nordbat 2 and Mission Command in Bosnia" available in the internet
You’re absolutely right. I was a Swedish army officer in the early 90’s and the “mission command” concept was very integral to all our training. What we are now seeing in Ukraine is exactly what we were training to face. There are a lot of benefits to having well informed and empowered soldiers that can take initiative and have decisive impact on combat outcomes. All branches of the Swedish military place a high value on “local knowledge” and they want their combatants to be familiar with the terrain, airspace or marine environment. Why put yourself at the disadvantage of not knowing the area you are going to operate in?
There isn't anything unique about what's described in this video about calculated risks among NATO forces, who have generations of actual combat experience while Sweden has none. For example, it's commonplace for NATO air component forces to conduct hot re-arm, refueling, and even FARPs supported by transport aircraft on remote airstrips as part of Large Force Exercises and Warfighter Experiments with new platforms. On top of all that NATO air forces do this under NBC and base attack conditions, both in training and for real. USAF, USMC, and USN in Vietnam, REFORGERs, TEAM SPIRITs, BRIGHT STARs, RED FLAGs, ODS, Yugoslavia, OIF, OEF, OIR, and Atlantic Trident have been performing under these conditions at levels the Swedes will never experience. As to OPFOR: I've done OPFOR against all kinds of units. OPFOR is always more agile and Blue Forces will almost always seem sluggish because OPFOR is initiating contact and is left free to do what it wants to test Blue Forces. The only unit that impressed me was 2/75 Ranger Battalion, operating in Platoon or smaller elements. They crush OPFOR for sport, and would do the same to pretty much any other NATO force aside from Para Regiment and Royal Marines (their peers). I have also worked with Swedish military officers and enlisted in Estonia during Erna Raid. The Swedish officers like to talk around in circles about extraneous things without any sense of purpose, easily losing focus of the mission at-hand, because they've been so far removed from actual combat experience, creating a culture of military theory, not practice. When Swedish senior snipers were invited to attend FinnSniper, they showed up, started unpacking, saw the Finns, Germans, French, Danes, etc. getting prepared, then packed up their stuff saying the accommodations weren't up to their standards. These were better than most barracks I have seen in all my deployments across the world, ranging from all over the US, Germany and Korea, to Panama, and the Middle East. I think the Swedish Sniper instructors just realized they would be out-classed, had no chance of placing in the competition, and instead of using it as a training opportunity, quit and left back to Sweden. It was the most unprofessional thing I think I ever saw at such an event. That sums up Swedish military mindset.
@@LRRPFco52 Thats just a bunch of BS and you know it. Top Gun is essentially standard Swedish pilot training. And has been since the 50s. Swedish pilots regurarely flew at 600 knots at 10-20m off the ground back in the day for instance. US pilots floor level was 100m as standard. The US didnt adopt Mission Command until the 70s and Sweden had implemented it since 1945 more or less. In 2016 I believe it was, a US officer wrote an article on how the US has adopted mission command but not embraced it like Sweden. Sweden has trained with NATO on multiple occasions and performs extremely well on land, in the air and at sea. It is well documented. Mission Command is simply put something Sweden is good at. Its linked to the doctrine of Free War adopted in the 50s that every unit, no matter the branch, was expected to resort to guerilla warfare if required. Meaning each leader on even the lowest position was and is expected to act on initiative, gut feeling and be able to have feel for the larger battle. This is just something Sweden is good at. And something that will benefit NATO. The US is extremely good at logistics. The US is extremely good at air superiority. Sweden, on the other hand, has trained and equipped itself for 80 years for fighting a numerical superior enemy, meaning the Swedish armed forces has a deep culture of acting on opportunities on the battlefield and trusting the guy closest to the action to make the correct call.
The RAF. when we operated during the Cold War in W Germany operated the Harrier as a dispersed aircraft and we trained in the role 3 or 4 times a year with the 2 Harrier Squadron that were stationed there, we would deploy as a Squadron to sites away from base and operate from both unprepared and road sites. We also practiced our War role of moving as an Operational Turn a Round (OTR) team to another site after being compromised where the Maintenance and Operations Team would meet an aircraft that would be re tasked in the air to come to our location where the team would carry out the OTR. I know from talking with former Harrier force people that it is something that will be needed in any further conflicts within Europe. The Swedish Air Force with Grippen are showing they are capable of such a role which would be a huge asset to any battle field commander to have Air power close to the battle area that can be adapted to a role that is required ie;- from Photo Recce to close air support to fighter protection
This. We've done dispersed operations. We've done it for decades. With airframes not specialised for it. I don't get the headline on this video at all. NATO trains this method of operations.
As a Canadian , i was very dissapointed that our Gov did not go with this plane. Or for any other military vehicle from Sweden. I think the vast majority of Swedish combat vehicles, would fit well into the Canadian Armed forces.
It would make sense. Canada has lots of land to defend with a low population density and a great deal of political pressure not to spend excessively on defence.
Gripen is a good Addition for Bundeswehr. It is a good teretorial dispursed defence Fighter. Also because of its lo costs per flying hours and high readyness. Gripeb could be the f16 for Germany equivalent for the US. Eurofighter is the main stay and gripen whidens the abilitys and lower the overall costs. In the Part of teretorial defence we had Autobahn airfields. Whith Gripen this might evan be easyer. To regayn this capability.
I'd disagree. The Gripen "dispersed" strategy is OK for a country on a budget which can't afford to build airbases that can defend themselves but Germany with its partner the US has built Ramstein which must be ringed with SAM defense, radar in depth, satellite surveillance and that's besides the aircraft stationed at the base which are far superior to the Gripen. Germany's strategy is to build and operate the best with no compromise and defend the heck out of what are very obvious targets. The Gripen's philosophy is different, planning for acceptable losses by making aircraft ground locations less predictable and hopefully hidden well enough and mobile to reduce their exposure. Countries that are rich enough to afford the best or have partners who can afford the very best are betting that their best is better than any adversary's best. Countries which can't afford the best find other ways to operate like hat Sweden's model tries to do. You can imagine how much defense a Gripen has on the ground if it's located. Absolutely nothing that is likely effective.
I also disagree , not from a arrogant perspective but economical one. Only the US can afford the keep the ammunition required to defend a massive airbase like Ramstein from incoming waves of cruise missiles for more then a few hours , or worse. Secondly Germany is in the heart of Europe , you have others inbetween you and any potential advesary , with that privilege alone you can ignore dispersion , with nothing between ous and Kaliningrad we most do everything to mitigate losses. Since we dont have industrial capacity nor the training facilities to mass produce aircrafts or pilots we cannot afford to skip dispersion , Germany being in NATO could replace all losses if one base should be unfortunate enough and hit with cruise missiles , you could even transfer aircraft to other nations airfields , so if you zoom out , being in NATO you already have a form of dispersion , although a bit more sluggish.
@@matso3856 The lack of ability of Europe to hurt Russia is the main failing. (Along with pitifull defense budgets). 600 Storm Shadow,/Scalp and Taurus? They will barely scratch Russia. The key requirement is Nuclear Certification to deliver the B61N and while the Panavia Tornado, F-16, F-35 can do that the Gripen, Eurofighter can not. I can see the B61N as being to vulnerable and a rocket may be needed in future when it becomes neccesary to break treaties. We just witnessed Russia make threats against the tiny Baltic States, Finland, Sweden, Germany and of course Ukraine.
I was in the airforce 97-98 when Gripen came to F14, the groundcrew worked really hard when they trained, practiced all the time, was great to see them in action :)
I mean, Sweden itself had to re-learn it recently after 15 or so years of neglect. Still, yes, the hardware was still there and the instituational knowledge still existed.
@@meanmanturbo Yes but the tech to do this was availible and the aircraft built for this. But a valid point is that it is not enough to have aircraft and tech supoort for this it still needs to be implemented and regularly trained even when we knew how to do it.
The UK did have the ability for dispersed squadrons in isolated harrier replenishment in the cold war. It's something we should revisit, but I don't think it would work with the F-35.
@atlet1 I haven't heard anything about Saab ever leaving the program, maybe you have a source I haven't found, but SAAB has taken a smaller role in development, but I understood it as a temporary stance.
I think on the subject of flexibility and dispersal, that NATO could learn a thing or two from Sweden. Also as seen in the Ukraines necessity to decentralize their forces to fight on extended and fluid multiple fronts. My own experience in the Army taught , as a leader, the importance of adapting , improvising and assessing a quick moving situation to keep my team in the fight and avoid the possibility of flanking maneuvers that could place us in an untenable situation. I am well versed in the militaries mountain of rules regs and sops. Some are a necessity other create an inflexible machine which bogs down in its own paperwork.
I recall many years ago, reading an analysis on Swedish military thinking with a case study on the Swedish contribution to the UNPKF in Kosovo. They drove senior commanders off the wall by short-circuiting and bypassing normal command structures in order to complete tasks that they considered vital for their mission, and ended up saving a lot of lives in the process when they refused to relent on things like letting politics get in the way of the mission of protecting refugees, to the point of ignoring UN RoE and opening fire to defend medical convoys. It made for very interesting reading.
Also worth noting that the Gripen has measurably lower max gross than the F-16 and the like despite having a similar empty weight. This means shorter range and smaller ordinance loads. For Sweden this is fine, since they're aiming at conducting short range strikes against an advancing enemy already inside their territory as well as short range defensive counter air, but most NATO forces have to be geared towards longer range interdiction strikes and capable of offensive as well as defensive counter air.
F16 does have a very good weight to performance, but that is not everything that counts. There are reason why the gripen is heavier. Its much sturdier, it have a shorter turnaround time and its less maintenance intensive. f16 is more like a F1 car, gripen is more like a rally car. While f16 for sure can outperform gripen in a climb, or other stats, that might not be the most important inn an actual war.
@@matsv201 I mean roughly speaking yes, although I wouldn't press that analogy too far. In terms of survivability to enemy fire they're gonna be similar cause airplanes are all pretty squishy unless they're the A-10. Gripen pays a punch of performance penalties but it can handle things like small arms fire and the stresses of landing on short runways (which reduce the max gross even further). Bottom line is the obvious, if you have a functional airbase to operate form the F-16 is better by quite a margin, if you don't the Gripen is the only thing can even show up to the fight in the first place.
This is kind of old. Maybe the first versions of Gripen was using this doctrine. But it’s changed already in the C/D versions and expanded further in the E/F which is now delivered to Swedish and Brazilian air forces.
About Swedish mind set as regards wider knowledge and more responsibility on ”lower hierarchy level”: One of several good examples in different trades, is the type of work nurses are allowed to do. In Sweden nurses have much more delegated responsibility and do things that in other countries require a medic/physician! This is the Swedish way and probably a reason for how such a small country can be so competitive in both sports, inventions, business and military. Kind regards Anders Sweden
@@BPo75 I have both Finnish and Swedish friends working as nurses in Norway. In this trade it differs. Nurses in Finland and Norway don’t have the same wide spanning responsibility as they do in Sweden. In other areas I would agree with you
Excellent video! 👍🏻👌🏻👏🏻 Where I used to live in Sweden (Östersund), we the air force (F4) and the army (I5 & A4) and there were many times when we acted as the enemy for our F4 fellas when they were out and about back in the 80's, great times and great memories!
Our recon platoon infiltrated the air base, using real guns but fake ammunition. The defenders had real guard dogs with real teeth. Our recon platoon did a quick reverse advance flying over the fence..
I like that you discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel structure. The number one complaint you will hear in the USAF from officers is that by the time you learn how to do your job well you are moved somewhere else and you are back trying to learn how to do your job again. However as you said if your squadron is relying on a person whos been in for 20 years to keep the squadrons knowledge and expertise, when they leave that squadrons capability will take a massive hit. I have to say i am more of a fan of the swedish system. Let people become experts in their field, if they want to pursue higher leadership and cross unit experience let them pursue it but having it be the mandatory way the force operates is detrimental to tactical level effectiveness.
Fascinating. Would love to see more detail and depth on this subject. The Russian situation shows that everything is different now and the Swedes have lots to teach us as do the Baltic countries. I am Canadian and our armed forces are pathetic. No slur intended to the individual sailor, airman or infantryman. It is just everything else. What the Swedes have achieved with their small population size is very very impressive.. They have lots to teach us.
Israeli Airforce veteran here. Situation in Israel is quite similar in many respects. Mentality is very similar in the sense of individual independence. Fighter Jets are American but Israel has a lot of large highways and we are a small country so in case of need planes may be operated from multiple improvised runways and the IAF is practicing that. Pilots normally serves for four years after the basic course and then 1 day a week for the next 30 years or so. Some stays and becomes higher commanders. The rest usually study some more a d becomes part of the high-tech or defense industries while continuing to serve weekly as pilots. When war breaks (like now) everyone is recruited and you have a longterm 24x7 airforce capability that can overwhelm even an airforce with many more airplanes.
I am retired military, and I like the idea. NATO should embrace the Swedish model and the Gripen There is definitely a niche for this aircraft and its logistics. NATO ought to have Gripen units in each member country
Irish perspective here. Sweden is neutral and there must be some expectation that when attacked, there may be nobody coming to help. Sweden is on its own. Ireland would be in the same position. Any small neutral state must (or should!) have the same concerns and the Swedish model could work in other neutral states. Especially countries with much larger neighbours and a history of invasion.
@@lutherblissett9070 Actually we have agreements with the Baltic states since many years and recently USA as well. Baltic countries had planes to come to Swedish airspace, to signal Swedish support while Russia acting aggressive close to our boarders. USA had military ships in Stockholm recently. So no, Sweden will not be on it's own. A common missunderstanding is that Sweden removed it's defence. All these years Sweden had a civil-military defence. By the way, I am an ex-employee at the Swedish Defence Material Administration. My job was to create procurement requirements for legislation and information security. It was a temporary job for only five months in 2013. Today I work with SEO and affiliate marketing. But at least I am not a person that just have opinions in a comment section. I know a little from a professional standpoint.
Great video, I love learning about military equipment and tactics of other countries. The Gripen seems excellent for Swedens needs, and perhaps a few other countries needs. And while air operations for the US are quite centralized, due to the large number of various actors (planes, missiles, ships, artillery) this is needed at that level to keep coordinated operations in sync. US Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen (especially the first two) are quite adept at adapting and over coming adversity in the absence of higher command orders. Soldiers are briefed on the overall mission and are capable and willing to achieve mission goals even in the loss of immediate leadership, like your Gipen teams. When the US goes on the offensive, its done with overwhelming force, different ideology, different needs. Keep up the great videos, I'll be sure to check out more.
Great video and though provoking as well! On one hand I find the Swedish system appealing, where it heavily emphasizes flexibility in decision making down to the lowest level possible in order to counter what is commonly known as friction or the fog of war. It seems the SWAF trains pilots and ground crews to be capable of operating with limited information of the broader operational environment. I sometimes feel that NATO forces have become so reliant on superb situational awareness via a plethora of off board sensors and datalinks, heavily standardized procedures and tactics, that NATO forces may be: A. vulnerable for an unforeseen shutdown of either datalinks or off board sensors and B. rather predictable in their overall tactical behavior and hence vulnerable again. (Having said that, I recognize both the F-35 and Gripen try to remedy that by providing excellent on board sensor integration.) Another aspect I like is the expeditionary nature of operating from dispersed bases with minimal crew requirements and even being able to have conscripts service (not maintain or repair I imagine) the fighters, but the latter I guess is very culture dependent. On the other hand I think most allied pilots won't like having to spend so many years in the same squadron or wing I imagine. Seems pretty boring after a while imho. I don't know if the SWAF has crew/pilot retention issues, but if it does, this might be a contributing factor. If I were a young pilot, I'd like to see how other units operate within the same air force or abroad and I'd like to fly something else than Gripen, just to learn and broaden my horizons. Either way, the Swedish model certainly is not a one size fits all. Too many NATO air forces wouldn't be able to reistate conscription, let alone that they would be able to entrust multi million Euro jets to the hands of conscripts. Nor does operating from dispersed bases sound feasible, with most NATO-jets being quite vulnerable to FOD, requiring longer runways or having so much specialized tools, support equipment or even specially air conditioned shelters to function properly. That certainly makes them very vulnerable in this age of UAVs and long range cruise missiles, but I do not see how NATO air forces could remedy that in the short term. Especially since that would also require having to recruit more personnel I imagine, something most European air forces are having trouble in realizing, if only for budgetary reasons. It's certainly worth considering how this vulnerability can be mitigated though. Possibly by prepositioning secret underground stocks of supplies at points near pieces of highway that are suitable. And possibly also by relying less on lean logistics (or just in time management) and maintaining considerable amounts of reserves, both in terms of supplies and personnel. And possibly by experimenting and learning as trials go along. It's just a thought.
"I don't know if the SWAF has crew/pilot retention issues, but if it does, this might be a contributing factor." They do, and this is only one of the reasons. Unfortunately.
@@gunnarmonell7253 That really is too bad to hear. But, not unique to the Flugvapnet I'm afraid: NATO wide recruitment is lagging behind and forces of all branches struggle to retain skilled and experienced personnel. As far as I understand, wages aren't what they used to be plus long and irregular hours, months long deployments away from family, political controversy seeping through within the ranks, etc. are probably other contributing factors.
As l understand the history, the Gripen was designed with the Soviets in mind (quick dispersal, low budget, and shared training): stealth just doesn't fit with a fixed frame and NATO may not immediately appreciate the uniqueness of this weapon system … however, as Russia transforms and eastern Europe adjusts, regional fighters will have an important niche to fill (tactical) while NATO remains structured more for strategic exercises. I think the Gripen is here to stay!
Ex Swedish AF (Tactical Road Air Base Weather Service) here. Thanks for your great videos! FYI, the pronunciation of "Gripen" in Swedish is very similar the way you would pronounce the word in German. "Griipen", not "Grippen". Keep up your fantastic work!! 👍
And if you don't want to mispronounce it, no one minds if you call it "the Griffon". Well, no Swede would mind. We often call it that when speaking English.
All I gotta say is I'm proud to be of Swedish decent. One thing I love how Sweden uses their public highway system as take off and landing strips for military aircraft. Please I must say don't forget stealth that the 35 has. Also complete integration from gound base to drone to infantry to SAM batteries. Ect. Stealth definitely has a big effect on BVR air combat..
First of all thank you for deep and down to point analysis. You made two points 1. The bunch of design decisions have been made to make Gripen easy to maintain by small highly trained teams. 2. The size of maintaining team mandates the level of training and that hard to achieve in most air forces. I don't think that n.2 is a show stopper. From my experience there are well established business procedures, when we replace a highly trained critical person with several less skilled people with overlapping responsibilities. It will come at price of increase maintains complexity and cost, but it still should be below most othe western fighters, given n.1.
The five-conscript team with their supervising aircraft tech can replace the jet engine in a 39 Griffin in well under an hour, the plane was designed with unheard of serviceability in mind.
I dunno if it's possible but it would be interesting to do an episode on Taiwan's F-CK-1. This was a domestically produced jet they designed after the US declined to sell them F-16s and F-20s to replace their F-5s in the 80s and 90s. So they built a domestic jet, albeit with US engines and a lot of other US technology.
@@Ghatbkk The Taiwanese have a very interesting way of doing military procurement. Typically they'll buy a small amount of US kit but at the same time negotiate a tech transfer agreement so they can build domestic stuff which is 80% as good but much cheaper. Of course critical components are imported from the US because it would be cost prohibitive to develop domestic versions. E.g. they import Patriot missiles but they've also got domestic Sky Bow missiles where they got a 85% tech transfer from Raytheon for Sky Bow 1 and then went off on their own for subsequent missiles. Probably the US gets access to any technology they develop.
@@user-qf6yt3id3w Taiwan doesn't have the industrial capacity to develop critical aerospace systems for fighter aircraft, and neither does Sweden. This is why both nations fly with US-built fighter engines.
Love the Gripen and the Swedish defence. l wish my country had an airforce good as Sweden. Plus Sweden is the home of my all time favourite tennis player Stefan Edberg ⛳
As a finn i think Gripen would have been the better option for us compared to the f 35. We all know where the threat is coming from anyway and Finland being so close to Russia gives us minimal response time if they were to attack. Russia knows where our planes are and our runways. Like they did in ukraine they would use overwhelming missile attacks to destroy most of this on the ground. If an attack actually happened as i see it it would be better for the Finnish air forces to jump over to Sweden's territory and disperse there. This would increase the response Time for further incoming strikes. Service and maintenance would be easier since the sweeds have the same plane. And global eye surveying the skies over sweden would provide valuable information for both countries Air defence. Norway having gen5 fighters i understand. They have allmost unlimited budget if they want to and having their planes behind both Sweden and Finland does give them the ability to actually use these planes for what it's intended for without having them blown up on the ground.
The plane choice was mostly political as far as I understand it. Finland doesn't need to buy Swedish cooperation (we're already two of the closest countries worldwide), but appeasing the US was seen as more important. As far as Gripen goes, Finland is by far the most suitable country other than Sweden for it, since you've got a very similar mentality on that front.
I'm a Swedish airforce officer in the reserve. This video is one of the few I've seen that explains our mentality well. We have a tiny military budget and small population that needs to defend a large landmass. Thus we're forced to train "every soldier as a general" as we say here. Meaning everyone from the lowest level and up the ranks needs to be able to take strategic decitions and calculated risks. The JAS system is just one of many examples of that. When it gets real your team of a ground crew and a fighter, seven people in total, five of them conscripts might find themselves alone against a large enemy force with all communications cut off. So we need to train everyone in that team not only to do their task but to be able to take their own initiatives to do what ever unexpected things the situation on the battlefield demands. We don't have the people or the money to do it any other way. Perhaps smaller NATO countries can learn form this. Big NATO nations with lots of people and money should probably opt for more powerful and versitile systems.
I'm a Swede and have lived in Scotland for over 20 years and the Swedish mentality is exactly as what is done in the military. If you encounter a problem a Swede will try to solve the problem there and then. In the UK it's like, no, I can't do that as we need to ask our superior or teamleader for that. Same goes for work environment.
Yes sir, that is the way it should be...
Thank you Jonas. I was in the US Air Force and with one little bomb our whole squadron would be taken out. That was in the 1980s. Now it is super more vulnerable with drones and maneuverable hypersonic missiles
Dispersal is the only way to have a chance to survive and to be able to fight also. For my entire life I have been disappointed that no other Western powers are doing white the Swedish have always been doing since World War II ended.
I know it’s not nice to say, but I’m going to say it anyway. You probably wouldn’t believe how stupid the higher level Officer core is in the US Air Force and the US military in general. They are career oriented and dogmatic. Very hard to find a Jimmy Dolittle or Billy Mitchell anymore. So sad to say.
@@steveperreira5850 Well in Finland we have a similar mode of operations to Sweden, and also the mentality is about what has been described here as well.
Better to do something every time on the incomplete data at hand and risk mistakes than to waste a single opportunity of causing decisive damage to the enemy and endanger other friendly units by inaction.
For a British person apart from the beauty of the airplane, the most impressive thing is that you have 800m of roads that don't have potholes or speed bumps.
Built in redundancy, add certain plastics to tarmac and the life of a road surface increases by many years, proven in INDIA. Why not in worldwide use, well if a road surface did not have to be resurfaced every few years then money would not flow to those building in the present failure rate of roads to make ridiculous profits, My road, a residential road, is treated every 5 years, there should be no need for this but cold winters help small cracks develop into potholes and need fixing. The quality of road infrastructure is really pathetic and should have been improved decades ago with the technological know-how we have had.
The government should really get a handle on this and save themselves a ton of money, if local maintenance is not up to the job threaten to bring in outside maintenance, pay Indian crews to recover roads and get a 25-year guarantee of a limited amount of repairs needed compared to what is common now.
Or double parked
As an American, I second that!
only on the right sides of a road in Sweden
Not anymore unfortunately. Turns out tax and progressive tax is crucial for function in society.
My country Brazil is one of the first global players to believe and develop a partnership with Saab, aiming at the buying, developing, searching and selling the whole platform as a solution for modern warfare.
And the plane is simply gorgeous...
Thanks Sweden, and greetings from Brazil ❤
@@phillipbanes5484and perhaps a large part of these American pieces are Korean or Taiwanese
Average american thinking the world must be grateful for its existance
@@phillipbanes5484 That's the type of comment that destroys the US's reputation around the world. Saab's partnership is with Brazilian company Embraer, you know, the third largest civil aircraft manufacturer in the world. The Brazilian production line was established on May 2023. No reason to get into the minutiae of transnational commerce just because you want to feel good about technology the US developed while it fomented coups by corrupt dictators who closed down universities and research centers in democracies like Brazil and 13 other countries during the Cold War.
why are u so insecure? haha thats sad@@phillipbanes5484
Only the engine :/@@phillipbanes5484
I did my military service '74 and '75 in the Swedish airforce. The fighter then was J35F. We trained on how to relocate to bases using regular highways. Each base had a main runway and one or two secondary runways. The main runway was easy to spot when driving up and down the country. The road widened, and the trees on either side were cut back. There were no overhead power lines, and at each end were these parking lots (typically four at each end) for planes to stand by to be able to quickly take flight, should it be needed. The secondary runway(s) was much more difficult to spot as the idea was to remove any overhead lines and cut back the trees in case of a conflict. Refueling and rearmament happened a little further away, 500m or so from that main runway. From this location, access to the secondary runways was possible. As the ground crew, we had to meet the requirement to refuel (not only jet fuel but certain oils and oxygen), rearm, and a new pilot in 7 minutes. Lots of bloody knuckles. I don't think we ever got to the 7 minutes, but definitely to below 10 minutes.
When this war started I was at once convinced that Ukraine should get 30-40 Gripen, as I knew about the characteristics of Gripen from CZ (I lived there for longer time).
Also we Germans should have 50-100 Gripens, which is easier to handle and more flexible than Eurofighter.
Sounds like exciting times well spent.! Thank you for sharing with us...
Until the 1980s, parts of the German Autobahn could be used in this manner. These emergency runways could even handle large transport planes. I am not sure if they could be easily reactivated today.
Excellent Storyline. I think a fifth grader can figure all this stuff out, but somehow the top brass of the US military is dumbfounded. These guys are a disgrace to the human race
@@kralikkral5560 The Typhoon outperforms the Gripen in every relevant metric for Germany.
Talking about culture. I am Swedish. I have been working both in the UK and in Germany (and obviously in Sweden) many months within different telecom businesses. The thing that struck me was how much the working culture differred, not between UK and Germany, but betwee these two and the Swedish working culture. And my experience resembles very much with what you discuss in this video. The thing that makes Swedish work culture stand out is the appreciation of individual enpowerment and distributed decision making. Let the people on the floor, that know the real business, make the decisiion. Do not force them to always ask a clueless higher management for approvals.
As a Swede that has worked with a multitude of international teams I totally agree!!
A recepie for a total disaster is taking a lets say east Asian projectmanager style used to micromanage everything in order to get things done and put them in charge of a highly trained and skilled work force made up by Swedes. Total culture clash!
But on the other hand a Swedish management style of collective desicionmaking and extreme trust that everyone do what the are supposed to after their best ability is a total disaster as well in a culture where the workers are used to micromanaging management, because the Swedish style will not see anything done, like at all. And that also comes down to risk managment and how failure is handled - just as is mentioned ib this video.
I went to a lecture years ago about different cultures of project management . The Swedish culture was identified as most productive.
@@bsastarfire250👍 Actually, I'm not surprised.
I've seen videos about how Swedish pilots have taken initiatives against "foreign aircrafts" (you know from where), just turned as they have told the superior and asked how to act when they reached that other aircraft.
This is in a low micro environment, but I used to work for SJ, the Swedish State Railways, at the train service facilities just outside of Stockholm. In the late seventies there still was a little bit of the old "military thinking", a superior was a superior, and should be talked to, if there were any abnormalities, like late incoming trains etc, which it was all the time.
Ten years later the working teams could discuss between each other how the best way to proceed, to change the order of which train what kind of job which team should work on to make it work out the fastest and smoothest way for everyone. The only thing of importance was that the job was done before departure time back to Stockholm Centralstation and in traffic again. An enormous change. There could be minor disputes between different teams with different tasks, but never anything serious. It just took some more creative thinking and perhaps replanning of the schedule for one or two teams, no big deal, just the work was done in time, or as close to as possible.
No "interference" of the superiors for the different teams, we only told them how long they could expect to get it done, so they knew what to tell Stockholm Centralstation. That saved A LOT of time, I estimate between 15 minutes and up to an hour, and happier, at least less annoyed, travelers.
Instead of 4 superiors making one decision each, that collide with at least one other, and they had to discuss, their decision made a catastrophe to another... And the personnel were just waiting, and couldn't start with something else, if they were ordered to go on the delayed train first...
I, one of all the people who worked at SJ back then know why the trains were more often delayed than in time.
Internal bureaucracy.
As an employee in Sweden, you are tested before employment with the aim of competence and initiative, taking responsibility. Therefore, it is assumed that you are able to achieve the goals that you have agreed with your manager. How you carry it out is up to your own ability to carry out the task to reach the goal. You are evaluated and rewarded/punished according to degree of goal fulfillment. Decentralized decision-making that suits us Swedes.
I am Swiss but lived in Sweden for several years, the work culture is kind similar, meaning that the opinion of the person on the ground floor actually counts. Live currently in the US where 80% the of the "workforce" consists of lazy morons with no education. Especially US males have more in common with monkeys than home sapiens.
In a former career (which I really miss by the way) I worked for a computer games company that also helped the military with training simulation, I got to meet and work with Swedish & Finnish airforce personnel, what struck me was how down to earth and practical there thought processes were but extremely in depth knowledge at the sam e time. I absolutely see how that came about now.
I always thought the Uk should have bought in to the gripen programme as a hi low mix with typhoon, I think the range issues could be solved and the whole philosophy of operation would have suited our budget too.
Top examples of small populations with top-notch education levels. I agree.
Or simply a Swedish-model conscripted Home Guard with Grippen in the air, coastal patrol submarine squadrons (four squadrons, I think), and a security-aware ground force that is absolutely *loaded* with air-defense batteries and lorry-borne leg infantry.
Oh, keep up the top-notch coastal patrol vessels and crews!
Leave the Typhoons, Challengers, and long-endurance nuclear submarines to the "professionals."
Small "Liberty" or "Jeep" carriers are harder to find and damn handy for Search-And-Rescue, as well as Anti-Submarine Warfare. Something with one or two submarine-size nuclear power plants, to reduce overall bunkerage costs, but breeder reactors to reduce reactor refueling and maintenance to *nothing.*
Swede here. I think you nailed the Swedish mentality and how the culture allows for a high level of trust and responsibility. I am very proud of our Gripen fighters, but the human side of the system/platform is a key to success. We use conscripts for servicing the aircraft on the ground and dispersed bases. And that’s the way it has been for ages, at least 50 years or so.
I thought Sweden stopped conscription?
@@Simsydav You are correct , the politicans decided that the eternal peace was upon ous , until Russia invaded Crimea , conscription is back on the meny.
@@Simsydav Only for a few years. It was put on hold in 2010, but returned on a small scale in 2014, and since the 2022 invasion of Ukraine the ammount of conscripts trained yearly scalling up rapidly.
@@RaXXha What about the Swedish Bikini team? Big fan from way back. They all had killer bomb 💣 bombs.
@@heywoodjablowme8120 That had nothing to do with Sweden, it was a bunch of american and canadian models with made up "swedish sounding" names. xD
I only did my basic military training in Germany, but I think the swedish model is much more suited for the modern battlefield then the strict German one. I think especially in Ukraine we see that decentralized operation, improvisation and adaptation are the key elements of a modern battlefield.
Actually one of the things that has stood Ukraine in good stead is the excellent co-ordination between combat units, something which Russia has sorely lacked.
I have been recently been posting about this type dispurst tactics promoting the Gripen STOL advantage. I still have to review the comments here in order to not repeat what been stated already. My initial comment is the audience for Gripen should not be limited to NATO. The countries in NATO have funds and industries to choose as the please. More later ...
When i went to fight in Ukraine, its very apparent that Swedish military is a different beast. No one else is rather have by my side.
@@hb1338 The ratio was 7:1 before you wrote this, at a time when the Russians were outnumbered. That was according to the Pentagon in February. Now it's much worse obviously. These channels are trash. This one wastes time hooking people with rhetoric and pose.
@@aachoocrony5754 What are you talking about here?
I’m also a fan of the Grippen’s development framework, allowing teams of developers and mechanical engineers to scrum together at a scaled level that has allowed it to surpass Lockheed Martin’s SAFe model in terms of development outcomes. Harvard Business Review published a white paper on how SAAB organized their development teams and it’s no accident that the same mobile footprint of the aircraft is also reflected in SAAB’s organization.
As a brazillian Im particularly prideful that the wide display that got into the Gripen-E is brazillian made and was intended for our aircraft only, but Sweden liked it and decided to use it too themselves... it such a small detail... but it makes me happy. That's collaboration.
I cant confirm this , but I heard the swedes wanted redundacy as if you lose 1 screen , you can still operate. To which the brazilians pointed out , that the quailty of the screens and testing of them will prevent any such event from occuring , and also if the enemy would somehow take it out in action , odds are that the pilot already had a "major emotional event". Finally the swedish pilots input was that larger screen massivly helped , this should come as no surprise to gamers or people who work with multiple screens.
So thank you Brazil :)
That is why SAAB is so willing to transfer technology to other competent air industries, the competence there will give will give valuable feedback making all involved stronger :)
You!re wrong.
Gripen E are built in Sweden, dubbleseater type Gripen F are partly put together in Brazil.
All SAAB Gripen for Swedish Airforce are made in Sweden.
@@dragononwall8733 Wat?
I might be missing something here but, uh...
The OP is specifically talking about the wide display in the Gripen E's cockpit, not the whole airplane.
I'll never understand how the random fact that somebody was born in the same country where some other people who he never met or had contact with did something of questionable importance can be the basis to provide him the right to feel proud. For what are you particularly prideful? For bearing the same nationality or passport? What is your achievement in this?
My father was an officer in the navy(helicopters), me I was an army officer. I have also talked to many from the airforce, and while this was a long time ago I believe the mentality still exists with a higher measure of safety. We train as if its war. We cant train in one way and then when/if the war comes its different, then you wont be prepared. I remember a Viggen pilot telling me that when they were practicing low level attack against Sovjet naval forces to prevent amphibious landing. The attack height approach was 10m above sea level going above mach 1. Now this was the 80s and things have changed and they dont do that anymore but the mentality within the armed forces still remains. We train as close to war like conditions as we possibly can, while being as safe as possible, and this is a judgement call within a security framework.
The Canadian CF-104 pilots used to do that in Germany. They were manned cruise missiles before the cruise missiles were deployed to replace them.
During the Cold War, about 550 Swedish fighter pilots died due to the doctrine to fly under war like conditions. Flying fast and low over both land and sea. They knew that they would have to be good as they and the Navy would be the ones first hit and needed to keep the Soviets invaders of for 3 days until the mobilization was complete and all ground troops where geared up and deployed. After 3 days they probably would all been killed.
We all knew what lie ahead if the shit hit the fan, but the pilots paid the price in peacetime. Mad respect for our fighter pilots!
I remember my dad saying the same thing he was a kustjägare.
@@Hiznogood Doctrine was far from the only thing responsible for those deaths though. Yes it killed many pilots, but J29 "flygande tunnan" killed about 200 of those pilots, mainly due to technical issues (though not uncommon in early jet aircraft), but at the time it was seen as an acceptable cost of creating a larger air force. Fortunatly the technical reliability increased and the acceptance of such death tolls were reduced, to a current air force that only rarely have any deaths at all.
@@Sam_Guevenne The attack divers were the best of the best, part of the Kustjägar units.
I was a SAAB37 Viggen pilot for about a decade and I recognize the mentality described in this video. Working with the US for example was a real pain.
Why
The decision making structure seemed painfully slow, and lacked initiative. It was as if they weren't training to fight at all.
Recently we have seen some evidence that NATO trained foreign troops rapidly abandoned this structure. @@quasar6235
@@quasar6235he’s got a bad inferiority complex, typical Swedish problem tbh
@@quasar6235maybe because of the american engine and all the telemetry it involves, including kill switch from the pentagon
As a person that spent 22 years in the USAF as an aircraft maintainer, I see the Swedish model as achievable, but not so likely to happen. American units are very attached to the idea of operating from fixed facilities. One just has to see how the bases are constructed to realize this. Large amounts of facilities with hardened aircraft shelters, centralized supply and ammunition storage. We deployed often, but always to another fixed/prepared location. Yes, we practiced "hot pit" refueling and quick turns, but nothing like the Swedish way. There have been some experiments with ANG A-10 units operating using highways and C-130s landing on unprepared airstrips trying dispersal techniques, but these are few and far between. Maybe buried somewhere deep in the pentagon are some plans to do it all, it is not something leadership puts much effort to creating a culture of this. The only effort seems to be the US Marines that are planning something similar for a future battle in the Pacific. It is still in the "talking about it" stage and may lead to something like the Swedish way. The expression that generals are re-fighting the last war may be applicable here. They are using the blueprint from the Gulf Wars and Afghanistan to plan for a more dynamic war against a near peer adversary. I always enjoy your presentations, keep up the good work.
Does it hurt is that the newest aircraft are so expensive to maintain? I think it does. Is it true that F-35 can be jammed electronically?
I always thought Viggen would be perfect as a cactus Air Force plane for the USMC
Amercian weapons are first class but some just are not suitable. For instance the F-16 can not be expects to operate of Runways in Ukraine. The F-16 is almost useless since it needs clean first class full length runways. The Grippen or STOVL F-35B might work but not much else. Runways withing range of Iskander and Kinzahl will soon be cratered.
@@williamzk9083 How about 20x A-10's and 15 Grippens? It seems the Ukrainians are anxious to get all of NATO armaments but it strikes of hasty hunger.
I agree that America is unlikely to change. As an American, I think this is a mistake, but as was once famously stated, we tend to prepare to fight the last war, not the next war.
Great video, I'm from Britain, for a small country Sweden has developed some amazing military kit, gripen, Bofors cannon, and the submarines that repeatedly hit the US and other nations, undetected, in war games/ practice.
@Mikael Wallin no l didn't know about the nlaw Bofors, I was referring to the Bofors cannon used during ww2, and also manufactured in America.
@@keithgarland3404 Yeah, the 40 mm Bofors was used by most countries during WW2. It was the second most used AA gun during the war (after the 20 mm Oerlikon), and an upgraded version is still used in some places today.
Archer? CV90?
Excalibur artillery round
CV90
Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle
RB15 anti ship missile
NLAW
The fighter data link for the JA37 Viggen was the first real time fighter link in the world. Not until the F22 came online was there anything comparable
Truly, Sweden doesn't need NATO. NATO needs Sweden.
One thing that has nothing to do with the air force but which is interesting in Sweden is that many are trained to transition very easily from civilians to soldiers without thinking about it.
Some things that are extremely big in Sweden are, hunting, orienteering, hiking, strategy games, cultivation for household use, etc. Many Swedes have these things as hobbies without really reflecting on the fact that they are also very good skills to have if you want to be a good soldier, or survive during war. .
My windsurf and innebandy skills will stand strong against the russki!
My most comfortable clothes are my hunting outfits. We basically hunt all year round in forests and in the archipelago. My class 1 hunting rifle is in cal. .308win and may just as well be fed 7,62 NATO rounds. I have served in the Swedish Army in recon and still have my Russian Parlor (with all grades from private to General, with simple phrases, tactics etc).
😄@@niclaskarlin
@@niclaskarlinseeing the state of the Russian army that might actually be true.
@@niclaskarlin I’m not sure about floor hockey, but windsurfing certainly can be a useful skill in wartime.
The Swedish model is designed to suit Sweden, where "off grid" is built into pretty much all of their armed forces on the recognition that Russia would start out attempting to destroy big, fixed bases.
Of course that doesn't work for many other nations but going by events in Ukraine, it could certainly be of use there.
and places like taiwan, Japan, Korea, Finland, Poland, the baltics, Ukraine, the philippines, vietnam etc. All countries that are bordering a big power should excpect that in the start of war. No matter what your air defence is capable of, a decent chunk of ballistic missiles and other types will slip through in the first strike.
Yes, the Grippen is the plane that Ukraine needs. The problem is not enough available at this time. When Ukraine wins this war, they should make a deal with Sweden (much as Brazil has done) to build them in Ukraine.
As time has gone on, Russia was not Sweden's enemy. Washington is your mortal enemy and always has been. The camouflage has come off and people are still having trouble taking in the fullness of depravity, sadism, and degeneracy that Washington embodies.
Turns out Russian long range fires with SSM and ASM weapons don't do well against US/NATO IADS. Sweden built their military based on the assumption the Russians are a competent military power.
@@LRRPFco52 we didn't have US/NATO IADS at the time
The dispersed asset strategy was perfected with the JA 37 Viggen. Sweden is a pioneer in aircraft development and design. SAAB has always punched above its weight.
I miss their cars though.
@@jamjardj1974 It was a crying shame. GM just eviscerated SAAB like the aliens in Independence Day. The 900 convertible was a thing of beauty.
@@johnearle1 GM? Like they did with Holden in Australia? And now Saab is Chinese-owned, which has its own set of implications. Which is more problematic? Probably both, in different ways. Let's stop being so politically correct and globalistic.
@@jamjardj1974 We all do. But they didn't want to be owned by China and I can understand that considering the other operations of the mother company.
One thing I liked was how GM told them to do something and they just didn't. No, we're not going to make a shitty car that won't last five years in our climate... That's some balls when your career depends on it.
@@michaelmay5453 One of the best examples of sticking to your convictions. There was an American driver who put a million miles on a SAAB 900 and brought it to his dealer who gave him a 9-3 and sent his car to the SAAB museum.
One important thing to note about Sweden is that our conscripts are very well trained and selected for their roles, the problem is rather the maintenance of their ability in civilian life. But during their time in service, they are well trained, indeed Swedish conscripts are often praised in international exercises, and I have heard so many stories from many different places of people saying: "You guys HAVE to be professional soldiers!!!" Conscript does not equal not well-trained, or even unmotivated, our conscripts are very thoroughly screened to make sure the right people get the right jobs, and unmotivated people are not getting particularly important positions.
I totally agree with you. I am Russian that have been living in the West for a long time. I served in Soviet Army a long time ago and I saw what was happening in Russian Army after 1991 as well. And in both USSR and Russian Federation 99% of conscripts were just a cattle. I was not exception. I am very smart, physically fit with god shooting skills. Do you know who was allocated to sargent positions ? Clinical idiots but which happened to be 190cm tall weighing 90kg with one skill they had to confront and suppress their own privates in barracks. You can imagine how "efficient" they would be in the battlefield. Look at war in Ukraine. They haven't came accross any single NATO soldier but they have effectively lost the war.
A reason Swedish conscripts can meet such high standards is conscription model itself. Conscription gives a wide pool of manpower to pull from. If every male and an increasing number of females have passed the conscription evaluation, you can fill posts with people qualified for the position they are to fill. We also use civilian skills in the military. I did a rehearsal with a military field hospital, and discovered that civilian nurses, doctors, and dentists were drafted to work in this exercise. This was not optional for them, it was a draft. Another example is Swedish UN expeditionary forces. Because Swedish soldiers are conscripts, they have a civilian profession and skills. One result of this is than a Swedish expeditionary force always has professional chefs. :) In many UN operations skills such as electrician and plumber are crucial, not only for the operation of the military base, but also to liaison with civilians in the area. Restoring electricity and water supply to a village you are guarding goes a long way towards building trust.
Yes, but there is actually a study that we did here in Sweden that shows that conscripts actually are even better! The reason why is because they are not there to gain money like a mercenary or to rob, kill, rape and torture people.
But this is if you are defending your own homeland, like the Ukrainians are. Wagner or the russian army is not as motivated because non of them are defending their homeland. Wagner is there for the money, so they are not fully motivated. The russian army is there to carry out theft, rape, torture and genocide of the ukranians and even that is not as motivating compared to protecting your own homleand, your family and your loved ones.
There is nothing more motivating for a human beeing than survival instict, and that will be at it's peek when defending your own homeland and life.
@@andreypetrov4868 Hello ex-russian citizen! A swede here!
I have a question for you that you can anwer better than me. I'm just speculating, but my understanding is that most russians actually support Putin because they really believe the russian propaganda. They have been brainwashed for generations. Or else Putin wouldn't be able to have so much power as he currently got. That's my thinking. To me I would assume that most russians, the majority of them believe all the propaganda, that the west is evil, that they want to destroy Russia, etc.
In your assessment, how many would you say support Putin? Because it must be over 50% of the people, right? Is it like 70% of russians that support him? What's your own guess?
And it also seems to be more support among the older generation, while the younger generation is more inline with the west. They have Facebook, TikTok, they have western friends, etc. They regularly use the internet and seems to see through all the lies and propaganda. I think this could be what turns Russia around. What do you think about the younger generation? Is it true that they don't support Putin as much?
Swedes military is woke trash and advertises on television for vvomen, discriminates men who suit the roll the best.
Many years ago I was in the Merchant Navy and back then the mentality you describe in the Swedish armed forces was the norm. Promotion was slow (you always had to be qualified one rank ahead in case someone was injured, so to be a third mate you needed your second mate's 'ticket'). Communications with shore were sporadic and the ships held a great deal of autonomy, requiring a high degree of professionalism from the ship's staff. These days the level of communication allows shore based personnel to essentially manage the actual ships, allowing the use of less well trained staff on board and restricting their initiative. Personally I would not like to work in the current system and I am grateful I caught the tail end of the former way of operating. In terms of the military I would suggest you are less likely to experience retention problems under the Swedish system, the responsibility is distributed and hence the authority has to be distributed and that means much greater job satisfaction.
Really interesting that fast communication completely changed the autonomy level of the ships! Never thought of that as a "side-effect". Thanks, I learned something new :)
In a similar fashion commercial aviation has changed since the late 90s (when my career began)
We had a lot more autonomy from our company back then.
Now you can he over the ocean and use WiFi to contact home base (which is SOP now)
I think all militaries are struggling with retention for varied reasons. I agree, the Swedish mentality is fundamentally important in general. However, retention is a multifaceted issue. I know many military officers in the US left the military simply because they could make more money and have better work hour schedules in the private sector. Many also left because they disagreed with the way the Sec. of Defense was micromanaging military operations(Rumsfeld was infamous for this). Also, an important mention in the video is political cost cutting and cost management has gotten so exact there’s no flexibility, everything is done with cost as the absolute final decider, instead of one of many factors to manage. The Republicans forcing government shutdowns and blanket forced cost cutting is a prime example of how to screw your military and force them in this direction.
@@zulupox
Modern navigation can be partially shore based. The shore can see a ship off course or moving into shallow or dangerous waters, altering the ship's bridge. This was possible when Costa Concordia hit rocks, but not in operation.
The shore like to know that the ship is taking the most economical course, not veering off.
You are spot on about job satisfaction as a function of influence over how your work is done and organized. It's actually reported as much more important than your salary by Swedish people. I suspect that's true in most countries - but it requires that people have an attitude of willing to assume responsibility, and not just act on orders. This isn't the normal case in a lot of countries. And bosses have to accept that subordinates sometimes make the wrong calls. (As we all do!)
I have been following developments in military aircraft for over 50 years now and in that time I have only seen two fighter jets that have blown my mind. The first was the McDonnell F-15 and now the SAAB Gripen. Yes, there are other jets out there that are very, very good but sometimes you see a design that just looks right and the F-15 and Gripen both qualify.
Laughs in F-22
I agree. It took a while but I knew the F15 was a cut above the rest. I wanted to believe it was F22 and I always gravitate towards this gripen
@nick21614 The F22 is an incredible machine, but it has shortcomings, rang, cost of operation, and load out. Also, the cost to refresh. I don't think they'll refresh it.
Try to find the Grumman F-29. The disgraceful decisions Congress made had results so horrible that the United States Air Force started its own F-29 program to bury the fact that the Grumman internally-designed, built on spec, fighter, ever existed. Still unequalled to this day from about 1992.
@@davidgoodnow269 that's the one with the wings pointed forward, not mentioning other really relevant aspects of it, isn't it? I'll try to work out some research, but I'm pretty sure is that plane. What a pity it was to abandon such a promising project...
I worked in an aircraft overhaul facility that hired lots of ex canadian military aircraft maintenance personnel. It was crazy how limited their job scope was on average in the military. They had their one tiny area of expertise on the aircraft and that’s all they knew or had the confidence to do. When something as simple as a stripped screw went wrong with a job they absolutely could not proceed without having someone higher up giving them directions. It was the exact opposite of what I thought would be required from someone who might be needed to perform in a highly demanding war time scenario.
miliatry is anothe buracracy its role is to be busy do big pr and get paid just like every institution
The Czech air force:
1) uses the Gripen
2) regularly trains dispersed operations
3) still has plenty of dispersal fields
4) is in NATO
Who trained you to do this?
And the Czech have always been crafty people. And they have operated aircrafts that could handle rough contitions during the Soviet times. It wasn't to hard to get to grips with I guess :)
Got bullied into buying f-35s...
@@jonasgroundstroem1064 We've been doing that since the 1950s...
@@dash9655 - F35 has a different role than a Grippen, there is a need for both in modern warfare.
My father worked as a technical officer in the Swedish airforce for over thirty years, supervising conscripts in rearming and refueling fighters, he never complained of their performance, if someone was not up to the task, he just got another job.
Thank you for your fathers contribution to our safety and for making us proud to be Swedes.
*And THAT is another area where many other militaries could learn much from the Swedes*
You only want willing, competent folk doing critically important tasks.
Unfortunately, the mindset of many senior Officers elsewhere seems to be 'By Jingo we'll make them obey' 🙄
But then, those are the rubbish senior officers you don't want anywhere near the real action.
@@Farweasel It’s very interesting to hear my father talk of ”the good old days” during the cold war. It was very real, he had a pistol at home to protect us because he was considered key personel and a target of soviet assasins!
Blokira
That is not the UK model, if someone is not up to the task they are left to do badly and cover it up so the higher-ups do not complain about the turnover of staff.
The Swedish defense model has long stood out even among its European counterparts. For no other reason even counting with a strong national defense industry, Brazil entered into a partnership with SAAB to replace all its fourth-generation aircraft for the Gripen E. Not counting the KC 390 that is replacing the Hercules. We are very proud to receive a Gripen E factory in Brazil, manufactured for the Brazilian reality. This partnership is already yielding many other businesses. Saab will use Embraer and its factory in São Paulo as a gateway for sales throughout Latin America. A pity that meanwhile in Europe, we see more and more the option for American aircraft.
Americans make the sales by hiring a lot of officers from foreign airforces: the Canadian contract went because the former chief of the defense staff (an air force general) was hired as a consultant by Lockheed. As was a Canadian colonel to be a test pilot. You just KNOW that there were no Americans who could have filled those posts. So, when the time came to make a decision, those two officers were used to lobby Canadian politicians, none of whom know the first thing about the military in general or aircraft in particular.
Cynicism is useful for explaining some facet of why the F-35 dominates sales, but let's not pretend like Gripen fulfills the same niche as F-35. This isn't the difference between a Honda or a Toyota. The capabilities offered by the F-35 to European nations and Canada are simply distinct
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin We can't afford to fly them, so we won't. It's a hangar Queen. (The Gripon flight time is, last time I checked, costed at about $8000 Cdn an hour. The F-35 is over 50 and that pig will end up costing over a billion dollars a plane for the projected life of the plane - which also won't be met.) the problems are still not fixed (necessary maintenance has gone up, not down. The Gripon has a 10 minute turn around. Go on, give me the time for the F-35.) and as the clip said that the F-35 was better for long range strikes, I have to ask why?
The Gripon E has a slightly greater range and with smart weapons you no longer need to be able to carry 20 tons of ordinance. Even with the F-18 we can't afford the number of pilots needed... and yes, an experienced pilot is better than one who hasn't flown that much, while a plane that is in pieces in a climate controlled hangar .
Traditionally, Americans have always said "Let's find out what our system can do, and make that the test that 'proves' its superiority." Thus Divads became the Sergeant York Helicopter gun because choppers don't dive on their target. They were darned if they were going to buy geopards - which are performing so well in Ukraine - but couldn't stop it from tracking its target and firing into the ground. The Sheridan tank kept killing its crews, among other problems... and yes, I was actually issued with an M-16: a piece of s*** when compared to our incredibly reliable Galils.
But you are right, it's not comparing a Honda to a Toyota. It's comparing a Toyota (mine has 340,000 km and no major repairs) to some piece of Detroit iron that loses it's entire drive train at 70k. (Or in my neighbour's case, his Dodge pickup, which just required a new diesel engine, and even with him doing the work, it cost him as much as my entire 2007 Toyota did).
Nobody has yet explained to me how we know what the F-35s capabilities are... or what we will require in say 20 years. An inexpensive but reliable platform for which we can afford new weapons systems is better than something that we can't.
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin Oh, yeah: and the F-35 can't turn or dogfight, is visible to long wave radar, so it really isn't stealth, and what do you do when the carbon skin starts breaking up?
@@RatherCrunchyMuffin Lets talk about reality, shall we? In the last 2 weeks, when Biden was in the Bay area (Oakland) and civil aviation was accordingly shut down, an F-35 was sent up to investigate and intimidate a single engine propeller driven private plane.
Does anyone want to claim that there were no alternatives? Like the California Air National guard with its F-16s doesn't exist?
As with the U.S.A., most if not all the "missions" that countries like Canada will send the F-35 on can be done with just about ANY aircraft... and the Gripon E has a higher non-afterburner speed, a greater range, is more maneuverable, can handle just about any short strip available, including highways, and can be updated almost at will... as well as being one bleep of a lot cheaper to fly, maintain, and purchase. Since our prime minister has stated that there is no way on God's Green Earth that Canada is ever going to spend the Nato required 2% on defense, it is safe to say that neither he nor anyone in the defense establishment anticipates a war. So why should we buy an aircraft about which we are open about saying that we will never need the claimed superiority of long range strikes and stealth? I repeat: they do not anticipate a war, so why pretend that there is something that the F-35 can do better if it will never be done?
I'm a native Swede and airforce nerd. Good episode. You struck home with a lot of your takes
The Swedes are highly skilled. Probably above anyone else. Their pilots are at a supreme level.
I remember reading a published diary from a RAF pilot. They were visiting the Swedish air force,- to watch and learn other "ways to do it".
The RAF pilots was given the passenger seats in dual seat Gripens. They were in disbelief,- a common "near death" experience.
RAF had no training like it. Not even close. They thought of it as suicidal flying,- but they did it every day. Way beyond normal acceptable.
Guys like Peter Linden,- a very skilled fighter pilot,- in his free time, he was a driver in the World Championship Road Racing tour. Racing against the best in the world. Just for fun. His real job was fighter pilot.
Sweden knows what they are doing,- it's more a question if it's possible to upgrade NATO forces to the Swedish level.
to be fair, Peter Linden has more than one screw loose ...
Did my conscription on the Gripen A/B on F7 when he was a pilot there...
One funny thing is that pilots take a bicycle to the plane from the briefing room. Look hilarious when 5 pilots in full gear ride to the planes in a neat little row, helmets on.
@@GeezRvonFart I have never met Linden,- but I guess he is "something special". Probably a very high level of reflexes, "timing" and coordination,- as the highest level road racers are very special too. They do stuff impossible to normal people.
From what I've heard, Sweden is suffering from underpaying their pilots and since the 90's flight hours have been reduced. Also, the "war time flight training" has been changed for safety reasons. Hope the skill of the pilots haven't been affected too much!
@@backisgabbeYT The "war time flight training" was changed because of a well thought through calculation of risks and outcome. When both planes and pilots where much more abundant it was deemed affordable to lose 10 to 20 pilots per year, and maybe double that in planes. When the Swedish Airforce was at its largest it had approximately 1000 (one thousand) planes, and the procurement rate was WAY higher than today. So losing, say, 30 per year would was "okay". The peacetime loss of pilots all those pilots where of-course a tragedy.
Today, the number of planes in the Swedish Airforce is maybe a tenth of that. And the investment in training a pilot is much larger. The Swedish Airforce did the assessment of risk and consequences of outcome and concluded that the cost of training like it did was no longer acceptable.
And I really hope they also weighed in the tragedies of losing pilots.
At the Airforce headquarters in Stockholm there is a wall of remembrance with the names of all pilots that perished. There's roughly 500 (five hundred) names. No names have been added for a long time. A total of 5 Gripens have been lost over 30 years or so (including two prototypes / test planes). No pilots perished.
Swedish Airforce pilots still fly fast and low. But the limits have been nudged so that they now survive peacetime service. And the planes are fliwn to their lifetime limit. Anything else would be unacceptable. For the pilots and their families. For the airforce. For the Swedish taxpayers. In that order.
@davebowman6497 indeed, the Swedish flight manual is written in blood as they say.
I'm American and I must say that this video was a real eye-opener for me. I have to say I really like the Swedish system, and the Gripen. I think the U.S. military could learn a lot from this and perhaps back away from an over-reliance on the best technologies that tend to be finicky and difficult to maintain. I would choose to have lots of relatively inexpensive to purchase, relatively inexpensive to maintain, low maintenance hours per flight hour Generation 4 and/or 4.5 aircraft rather than F-35s. And having at least some regular training in dispersed operations as well as an adjustment away from the fear of risk would be a good thing.
I'm biased towards American warplane and I always have been. However, I recently ventured down the rabbit hole of modern European multi-role aircraft and it's been a fun time. Previous to that I would have instantly answered the F/A-18E single-seat Super Hornet when asked what my favorite modern warplane was, but now it's not so easy to say what the answer is. The Gripen, Rafale, and Typhoon have complicated things.
And I here I though Pierre Sprey died.
Thankfully the American military is full of people a lot smarter than you
As a swedish conscript squad leader I think I recall from training this is an old German doctrine. It is not about managing risk, it is about making the best decitions, and if the guys on the ground are aware enough of the overall tacical objectives we can better expolit local opportunitys than a general back at HQ just because we on the ground have the local awarness.
But then to the cultural part, doing the right thing is really important to us swedes. We are in some ways similar to the Japanese with their honnor structure. So a conscript can be trusted to make his own decitions because you can trust the intentions of the conscript.
That's why the germans and japanese lost. What a doctrine?
@@fernandocruz4877 seriously? Thats the best you have?
I disagree. Germany and Japan lost because their leaders made bad decisions. Their civilian population's as well as military personnel's honor and willingness to fight to the last breath is what made the war last for as long as it did.
I have no idea how to succinctly explain it because culture is very complicated, but "a conscript can be trusted to make his own decisions because you can trust the intentions of the conscript" doesn't mesh with what I know of Japanese culture. Things tend to be about not bothering or bringing shame to the people around you, not doing the honorable thing as an individual.
I'd be curious if anyone can comment on JSDF views on command structure and initiative.
@@fernandocruz4877 Wrong, modern military doctrine evolved from the german Auftragstaktik(spelling) and combined arms is another development from the tactivs they used during ww2. The way the tactic works is you set a goal and time, then the next level down passes out targets and time to lower levels, and it keeps being sent down at times to squad levels, so now everyone has a rough idea from army group to squad level of what goal must be taken or achieved and roughly within what timeframe, and now these units are free to go about the task in the best way they can with their means and adapt to circumstances better and faster than the soviet or french doctrine which was rigid and more akin to set plans to be followed to the letter.
I recommend reading about it, it is fascinating and will cure your ignorance.
As a Swede, This is one of the reasons why I love our military along with the STRV 103
I have to admit that the details of all this are beyond my knowledge or experience. However, what I can say is how impressive this level and depth of Swedish warrior culture is. Surely NATO countries can learn a lot from this.
Thanks to Military Aviation channel for excellent content. Subscribed today!
I would like to point out that all swedish military equipment are designed with defence in mind. If you look at historical war machines like the S-tank, stealth corvettes and jas it makes perfect sence. Further more, with a limited economy and a small population it’s all about making the most out each piece of military equipment. The Gripen is made for intence combat with many sorties, this requires lots of available runways, quick reloads and off to the next sortie.
What would be the alternative, in your opinion, if military equipement is not designed with defence in mind.
@@hurri7720 An American here.
I believe he means in the initial hours/days of conflict.
After that it's defend AND attack !
As to your note about the "A-10"; we do practice "Dispersal Basing" with the A-10 here in Michigan. Especially around the Grayling & Alpena areas.
Yup, also saw some news about this with the A-10s stationed in ROK.
@@MilitaryAviationHistory USAF, RAF, and USMC have been doing dispersed operations with fighters, attack, and cargo aircraft for generations dating back to at least Korea. If you ever watched a REFORGER or TEAM SPIRIT Large Force Exercise in the 1980s, it would dwarf anything you see currently. They still do it with F-35s and A-10s.
I personaly love the Gripen, I think it is an asset to be able to operate from almost anywhere in the country and as a matter of fact almost anywhere in the world, efficiently and with a minimum of support.
And yet almost no one wants it
A very interesting video on how the Swedish Airforce organization works, how responsibility is shared and risks are valued.
I think this applies more widely to the nordic societies. We are taught from early on as kids to live independently, to think critically and find information on our own. This results to people who are relatively knowledgable, are able work and function independently, take calculated risks and at the same time make good decisions.
Sometimes mistakes can happen, but we learn from them and don't get punished for them.
I often travel to Sweden and was very impressed by the amount of tasks taken on by an average Swede were other nationalities would be calling on an expert. From laying concrete or repairing houses to fixing machines or building a boat, it seems Swedes are capable of fulfilling a wide range of tasks themselves.
@@FFM0594i dont hire experts for things other than when it is recuired due to insurrance or very complicated things. I'm a girl and i built my own porch ,.changed the panels on house and painted it. Its like almost embarrassing if you dont have these skills to be a multifixer, we kids learn to fix things togheter with our parents at a young age We are expexted to help out, in my family anyway , and we dont get reprimanded if we get it wrong. Its just " that's a good lesson to learn from, now you know what not to do"
I could never afford to hire expert to everything and besides its fun to learn new skills even if it isnt perfect , its a sense of pride figuring things out yourself.
One of the biggest challenges i encountered emigrating from Sweden in the early 90's to another western democracy was the level of risk avoidance i had to get used to in my adopted homeland. The level of risk avoidance throughout the system, from policy makers, to executives, to managers, even down to the implementation team, is very uncomfortable when risk acceptance and risk controls was very different in Sweden.
I concur. It comes down, as Chris mentioned in the last section, to culture. One does not change culture particularly rapidly. We see a living example of it with the current conflict in that the Russian ability to shift on the move just isn't there because it is not part of their military culture. The same can be said, though perhaps to a lesser or greater degree in specific instances, with other militaries around the world. The Swedish model is perhaps defined as being one of the most flexible sheerly because of the culture, specifically the one inculcated in their military, because they have little choice due to the small size of their military. But the big drawback, as Chris also pointed out, is the vulnerability of that system. The Swedish model has the same vulnerability that the German and Japanese air forces suffered during WWII, the ability to replace long-service personnel in the events of losses just isn't present. Attrition would be devastating to such a force in the face of a long term conflict.
@@grognard23 Considering the expected outcome when facing the full weight of the Soviet juggernaut I don't believe long term was the primary consideration. If there was still resistance beyond partisan activity after a month that would probably have been considered a success. The idea was to survive until Nato hopefully would decide to intervene. Whether the logic behind the overall defense policy made sense is another matter. I believe some study capped Swedish resistance against nuclear attacks at about 10. Exactly why the Soviets would decide to launch a conventional invasion of Sweden unless within the context of a wider war with Nato I can't say. But the Soviets did not invade so in the end it apparently worked.
@@Mosisli I fully agree that long term was not a consideration. I imagine they just wanted to, much like Switzerland, make themselves thorny enough to not be worth the bite, so to speak. The long term attrition issue would not have applied to them in case of a short war but, nevertheless, should they have been unsuccessfully invaded and been involved in a longer term conflict, it would rapidly have become an issue. Highly unlikely, of course, but still true should such a thing have occurred.
@@grognard23 Certainly in such a long term conflict it would likely have been very difficult for them to replace lost pilots.
Though unless one also presumes Sweden like Japan and Germany would be able to replace lost aircraft the issue with capable new fighter lacking pilots might not apply to the same degree. I.e. "We have no more pilots but fortunately we also have no more aircraft."
@@Mosisli Valid point, that. Just depends on if it turns into a forever war with nuclear weapons always staying in the "threat" rather than their actual usage. "Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia..."
SAAB has been ahead of the curve for decades, and the JAS39 is their latest example.
Edit: your presentation is excellent. Don't take my word for it, those replying are also impressive.
I think the most important thing to take note of is exactly how much the Swedish military in all respects has been able to do, with how little they've spent.
Insane.
@@aliceberethart except in the late 1990ies and early 2000s when our politicians kidney punched the entire costal artillery branch out of existance, gutted strategic air defence, engineers, logistics, signals and artillery down to a single regiment each, gutted the navy down to two bases, got rid of all of the sea knight heavy transport helis, all but one of the field hospitals and destroyed or sold off all of the civil defense organisation and stockpiles, including almost 9 MILLION civilian pattern gas masks and 24h protection suits with a one year supply of CBRN filters, and it's nation wide dispersed one year supply of fuel, seeds, metals, medicine etc.
I think that this is catching up with them: F35 has 300.000 parts and is every two workdays one leave the assembly. They will not be able to cover the cost of the whole production chain; from development to manufacturing and planes will cost more then better US planes. There is nothing that can offset the scale of economy and of course the funds available.
@@panan7777 it doesn't matter that much, they just need buyers. The more purchases, the cheaper production becomes. That's exactly why the F-35 is so cheap now compared to before. If it were selling like the F-16 did, it would probably be about the same price or lower for a better jet in many respects.
While the US is headed the other direction. Google: Most hated man in the pentagon - 60 Minutes
Nonsense: more like GENIUS! 😎
In my opinion, Gripen would be an ideal choice for Ukraine. Even after the current war is over, Ukraine will need the capable air forces that can be dispersed and served locally to avoid a crippling attack from Russia.
You do realize that the war might be over or nearly over before Ukraine gets any non-Soviet jet aircraft? Don’t count on it this year. It would be a pleasant surprise to see either F-16 or Gripen operating in Ukraine in 2024.
Yes but if Gripen is so good why did the US lobby so hard to convince/pressure/ threat other countries to buy the F-35, which is supposedly better?
@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 Because it is American. US government has a duty to promote US suppliers.
@@MarcosElMalo2 It's fairly obvious that we need to arm Ukraine with the most modern weapons both now and after the war. No more hand me downs. $200 billion/year and 1% of western GDP is the bare minimum. Even after the war Ukraine will need to be armed with the most modern weapons and not hand me downs. We will see this through. Any amount of money is worth it to save Ukraine and damage and punish Russia. Long term we will make Russia use its oil and gas riches pay for this. The longer Russia fights the worse it will get.
Maybe a good strategy even all along the Russian border - Baltic's, Ukraine, Poland, etc
I’ve seen many pictures of the Gripen but not thought much of it. Seeing how the design works within the constraints of the Swedish military was eye opening. I’m quite impressed by it now.
As a neutral country, Sweden designed their requirements against meeting a far superior opponent. That is very different situation that leads to different priorities. It was and may still be a very good idea for Sweden. It is likely a very good idea for Ukraine as well. However, NATO is instead expected to instead have superior air power, which leads to different priorities and requirements.
Agreed. Swedish neutrality is the key to understanding the Swedish mentality when it comes to defense strategy. This also means that they must change their mentality (and defense strategy) when they become a member of NATO. Another aspect is that the Swedish neutrality was based on the fact that the flanks were secured with Finland and Norway in the west, north and east. Only the threat from the south via Kaliningrad was realistic or if Finland was taken first (or at the same time).
@@Hvitserk67 I completly disagree , we are & will always remain within range of massive missile attacks , unlike US (which sets the standard in NATO) and it will not be benefical for any of ous if its all centralised and easily destroyed within the first hour of a future combat scenario. NATO would really benefit with more resiliance at least for those who share similar problems.
@@matso3856So why join NATO?
Not anymore. Sweden joined the Nazis of Nato.
@@fredmdbud So that "we" can retaliate if someone strikes ous. Its the same reasons why you get insurance on your stuff.
As a swede I think the SA has done good with the very small budget and population we have.
Since the 90s the swedish army and all other branches of the military has been severely underfunded.
As you mention in the video, there are things to learn from the SA. But I hope, if Turkey someday let us into NATO, we can learn even more form our allies and integrate better with them.
you think they done well? yet no fighter pilot has dropped a single bomb on Malmö? or any of your other invaded cities?
in my humble opinion, you all lost it... in your heads and your country. Stockholm syndrome has infected you all.
Or just forget the awkward obligations of full NATO membership but drop the rigid global-neutrality doctrine. Pretty much every non-Turkish member of NATO (and many others besides) would be honored to ally with Sweden on a bilateral level. Rumor has it, the USA already does. Probably Finland too, etc. No Erdogan = no millstone around your neck.
Lets create a new aliance without Turkey and Hungary!
Well, welcome to the club!🫶🇸🇪
As a swede, my take on this topic is the we're very pragmatic. We don't build hierarchies for its own sake. The whole swedish socity is IMHO very "flat".
I did my military training in the airforce, 11 months as a ATC assistant. The enviroment, even in the 70's, was very relaxed. We were all considered as "equals" to our comanders. We had a job to do, as they had. This went all the way from the flight line up to the tower.
What I understand of the defence force today is that focus is is to solve any problems, not adressing the
hierarchy. Of course, there are units that are stricter then others.
Some years later I endede up in the "military industrial complex, for 30+ years, working my way all the way from the factory floor up to the level below the top management. During these years I've met both the customers, i.e. "the guys in green", and the suppliers. When visiting abroad I was always stunned how hierarchies was very obvious. This was very obvious in countries like Germany, the UK and the US.
When we had technical meetings with both "end users" and suppliers, we usud to bring in blue collers, that was the guys that had the knowledge about problems, to our meetings. Guests was a bit confused!
Everyone is on a first name basis in Swedish companies from the CEO to the BC. This reform started 1967 when the new head of the National Swedish Board of Health, decleared the he was going to implement the second person singular "you" as adress.
I think dispersed operations make the most sense when the expected adversary is adjacent to your borders and/or there is little strategic depth.
Or the opposition is able to ballistically missile you to death. Yes I know the real term, tactical ballistic missiles.... There are many times where dispersal training is of use. Not least of which would be if you have to operate in a localized manner, for example envision this, a large Asian nation decides to go after a smaller island nation. Initially we would be using all of our fleet power. But there will be a point when it would be apparent that it be better to operate off of an unsinkable carrier. This carrier though can still be made into a whole bunch of potholes. So we, the greatest Air Force in the world, three times over, would still find it useful to operate off of said unsinkable carrier in a dispersed manner... This particular scenario applies to many other islands near the Philippines, Korea, Japan, everything in between including said unsinkable carrier, and many other places in the world. You are absolutely right, as long as we're not fighting a peer or near peer nation within their own weapon system ranges
I kinda used to agree with that statement. But Ukraine has shown us otherwise. It is a fairly large country, one I would have expected to be able to keep "the rear" safe. But as we have seen, even bases deep inland are vulnerable to hypersonic ballistic missiles and drone swarms. Even with a good anti air defense, the airfield is just such an important target that an enemy will use whatever they can to take it out.
Now, I think any bigger nations are best served by a mix of capabilities. For example F-35A's + some F-35B's for dispersed operations. Or other kind of combination. Smaller nations might not be able to afford to operate more than one multi role aircraft though.
Sweden has strategic depth with Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia as their geographic buffers to the East, and Norway to the North and West.
Sweden's most vulnerable approach vector is actually from Kaliningrad towards Gotland.
Their maritime force posture is very important, which makes a lightweight fighter with limited mission radius a bad platform for that environment.
@@LRRPFco52 But the Baltic sea isn't that big. Of course longer combat range is always beneficial, but that would mean a heavier and more expensive plane and therefore fewer planes which also wouldnt work as well for dispersement. Gripens range is adequate.
@@olebaltasar6263 If you launch from Ronneby, sure you might have adequate mission radius in a Gripen, lightly-loaded, with some station time to loiter in an Anti-Ship or Maritime Recce role. But since Sweden is talking dispersed basing, even if we remotely locate West into the Swedish interior and still stay in Southern Sweden, like out near Borås, now that mission radius just doubled.
If we’re operating from more up north, that’s an additional 130nm we’ll need if flying an anti-ship mission profile down towards Kaliningrad. A Recce/anti-ship profile will have reduced employment options.
It’s a lot to ask for such a small airframe with so little internal fuel and limited weapons-carrying capacity. Gripen mission radius diminishes dramatically when you load it with external stores due to empty weight, fuel fraction, parasitic drag, and weight of the weapons.
If it has to dodge or avoid Russian Flankers and eventually the Su-57 in that area, it’s pretty screwed in terms of being able to get into a WEZ profile for Anti-Ship missiles, and still faces the high probability of being run-down while in Bingo fuel state. Not good.
Excellent content as always!
Thanks, Jens!
@@MilitaryAviationHistory mein freund, you think the wehrmacht should have gotten the gripen?
The Swedish military is highly trained. Their technological status is world-leading. And in a country with a freedom-loving people, a country that has never been occupied, it will not be difficult to motivate the people to fight for their more than a thousand years of freedom and sovereignty.
Our moral is being destroyed by destroying our culture and pride of our nation.
I don’t know who if you live in Sweden or you make assumptions because Sweden has been a hell hole for the past 15 years full of gang violence and crime thanks to the bad handled immigration. We are at a point we’re I am literally the only Swedish kid in my own class in my own country how stupid is that.
This is the exact reason that i volounteered for Ukraine. Im going for a second tour shortly. People need to realise the dangers of communism, socialism and islam.
It has been occupied, just not in a long time. Sweden as we know it was forged in the war of liberation against the Danes in 1600s.
DanskJÄVLAR! (Mostly joking, that was a very long time ago, and the Danes are essentially more family than neighbors).
???
Thank you for doing this look at a different way of approaching the problem. It would be interesting to get statistics on how many planes were destroyed on the ground in various conflicts. The Swedish solution makes a great deal of sense for them.
Not sure the USA remembers well but in 1941 a lot of US planes were lined up for security purposes, and a sneak attack pretty much wiped them out.
GB has an interesting Regimental system, where old members meet with current members over dinner or whatever, and talk about old stories and old lessons. Kind of a "grape vine" of information dispersal.
@@garywheeler7039 That was Pearl Harbor - a case where paranoia worked against them (35% of Hawaii was ethnic Japanese).
In WW2? Lots. The Japanese wiped out British planes in Ceylon and Malaya on the ground.
200 British and American planes were wiped out mainly on the ground by the Germans in Operation Bodenplatte, on 1 Jan 1945. 800 Luftwaffe fighters attacked allied airfields. They lost up to 300 of their own fighters and over 200 pilots were killed or taken prisoner. Little loss of life on the Allied side.
The Allies were were able to replenish their planes and ground equipment within days. After the raid the Luftwaffe was a spent force.
Israel knocked out the Egyptian air force on the ground on June 5, 1967, and that certainly had an impact on how the war ended
Amazing video. I never thought of the different quality of initiative needed for that kind of operational scheme.
Ive always been impressed with the intelligence and efficiency of the Swedes, Gripen, CV series of vehicles just to name a couple. Bofors etc etc
I've been at our military airforce base, and talked with the maitenence and the ground crew. I am Hungarian and we are operating a few of the Gripens for a while now. I've mostly told positives of it's ease of maitenence and operation. I see why gripen is not the solution for everything, but as a primary fighter I do not see any better option. If my contry successfully adopted it, I do not see any problem with others, apart from retraining and reorganising which is the way with most of the other jets too.
Excellent analysis of the subject! Thanks for a very informative video.
Yes, I second this )
I think we just like to win over problems, especially so if the challenge is greater, because it just gives a greater satisfaction afterwards. If we look at a lot of the hardware made here, it's a surprising amount for such a small country but it shows that mentality a bit too. How to make things as good as possible within the constraints we have. It's fun and very rewarding, and seems to work.
I did my military basic training 85-86, and later in life spent 6 years in the home guard, and all the time the mentality was always to make the individual capable to solve any situation, as if he/she would one day be the last person standing and still was expected to complete the assignment. We typically always knew the whole assignment as a squad, rather than an officer handing that information down to us as we go along. This way we could always continue even if that officer was no longer available to us. We know the objectives, etc, so when we're on our own we can still continue. This is also quite motivating, because you know what's going on, what the plan is, and you can carry on when things go wrong.
I think all in all this is something Swedes just do, starting in life with a good education sets you up to handle whatever you want to do in life. You never have to feel afraid of challenges because you can, with the tools you've been given, figure out a solution to it and make it happen. Even our society is built to allow you to take risks, knowing that you're backed up. If you want to start a business, you can do so without fear of becoming homeless, I would say it's even quite encouraged to give it a try. The country benefits more if you succeed than it costs them if you fail.
At the end I suppose it has to be said that Swedes are not meant to feel better than anyone else despite what your status in life is. You're meant to be humble to others, but at the same time others look at you and can see the effort you put into something that turned out well, and will let you know what a good job that was. There's so much to this really, but I feel, personally, that if I can't figure something out it's a really hard pill to swallow, almost shameful, given the tools I have available to make it happen. It's that weird situation where the harder something is to do, the more interested I become in solving it, and the better I feel when I work it out.
And always do a good job, because if someone sees your shoddy work result, the shame would be tremendous.
Many think that the capability to use short runways is only have a defense porpuse. But you can set up forward bases close to the combat zone to give fast response with in hours. A plane rearming 10min from battle zone can deliver many CAS more than a plane than is 60min away....
In the battle of Britain the close access to an airfield was a game changer for UK.
Yeah, being able to take off and land in short distances is never a bad thing, nor is the capability to be flexible with logistics. Even if you don't intend to use those capabilities, they are good to have.
The real question is how much of a trade-off is worth it for any given military.
This comment is not about an important part of this topic.
I first saw the Gripen in about 1996 or 1997 (this is going HEAVY off memory from when I was very young, so if that's the wrong year, don't @ me). It was one of the little pamphlets that came in this subscription thing my dad was getting for me called Aircraft of the World. I immediately decided the Gripen was one of the coolest planes. I think that was mainly just because it looked so different from everything else, but I also knew that the Gripen was made by Saab, who made cars, and 6 year old me thought a car company that also made fighter jets was just the definition of cool. Growing up and learning more about the plane as an adult, I find that 6 year old me was right. This plane is just simply cool, and it's not bad to look at either, which is always a plus.
But it was the other way round. SAAB is an aircraft company that started to build cars. SAAB means Svenska aeroplan aktiebolaget founded in 1937. (Swedish aeroplane ltd) They started to design, and build, cars in 1947 to keep their engineers and workforce after ww2.
@darkiee69 Yeah but when I was 6 years old, I didn't know that.
The fact that this jet has a similar performance to the F-16 at a third of the operational cost and supports modern tech and weapons says everything you need to know about it. Greetings from Greece.
I heard amazing stories that took me a while to digest. When the Swiss Airfoce was evaluating new planes, (that was likely twenty years ago), they had pilots from the USA and other countries flying their test planes in. We have our jet strips in mountain valleys. Every rookie jet pilot here is used to land and take off in narrow mountain valleys.
Before I thought that US airfoce pilots were highly skilled and trained. It was a shock to me to hear that the USAF pilots regarded landing and taking off on our airforce strips as "suicidal".
While I do not have a high regard for the Swiss Army in general, (I have experienced to many strange things during my service), I am always amazed by the skill of our jet pilots. How they fly extremely close and slow with a huge mountain wall beside them, how they slide down in very steep descends and they even keep close formations doing that. We can also speak of calculated risk here.
I know that Scandinavian pilots are used to do things like that. The smaller the airforces, the better trained the pilots and ground crews seem to be.
"I have experienced to many strange things during my service" - come on, you can't just drop a curiosity magnet like that and not say anything further. share some of those strange experiences with us.
@@the80386 It is very simple: The absolute stupidity of rules and orders.
One of many highlights was the control of the colors of the socks the soldiers were wearing, before going home for the weekend: Over a hundred soldiers had to lift their trousers and a sergeant did contol every single soldier to find out if their socks had acceptable colors. You had to buy the socks at home from your own money, they were not provided.
There was so much bullshit going on that I changed from enthusiastic soldier to a guy who nearly got insane and fulll of hatred and despair seeing how unable and primitive many superiors were. It kind of felt like serving in an Army full of arrogant but absolutely demented Nazis.
For years after my last Army service I even had nightmares: I had to stand on one leg and was ordered to shout glabubu for a hndered times and shit like that.
Finland uses the F-18 Hornet in similar fashion. During war they are operated both from bases as well as from dispersed road bases. The difference is that Gripen is purpose built for operating in such conditions and is better in it.
I disagree. I'd argue that the superior capability and reliability of the Hornet far outweighs the *_ridiculously inconsequential_* need for a few more easily available and cheap mechanics.
People keep pretending that maybe one truck more of equipment and a mechanic or two more would be some ground-breaking savings for a Western nation's air force!
Doesn't the Hornet even have the advantage of the tailhook thanks to its very robust design made to allow for aircraft carrier operations? I have observed Finland's Hornet highway operations live, but in those occasions they didn't use them and I can't remember if they had them at the ready in case of emergencies.
F18 would be better for dirty runways like in Ukraine tho, but ye there are not that many F18 close to the giant number of F16 there is around. The biggest challenge with F16 tho is all the maintenance it needs, 2hours for 1 jet flying 1hour.. However the support Ukraine gets from F16 countries like my own will do.
@@pistonburner6448
It's not about savings or availalibility of the mechanics. For Finland it's about securing the air force by not having them necessarily rely on bases, as the bases would be vulnerable to attacks and they surely are among the first targets in case of war. If there's many suitable places to operate just by using the existing roads, then the enemy is unable to destroy the means for Finland's (or Sweden's) air force to keep on operating.
@@FINNSTIGAT0R I replied to you about what you said about the differences between Hornet and Gripen. Re-read my reply.
I didn't write anything about dispersed operations...besides, I almost certainly know more about Finland's dispersed operations than you do.
@@FINNSTIGAT0R I have no idea who you are answering to. You for sure are not replying to anything I wrote.
That was fascinating. Made me think of my father, long departed. He was a career military pilot, and he’d have loved it.
I’ve been interested in this topic since childhood. I think it would be very useful for the USMC to cross train with the Swedish Air Force in their dispersed operations model. The Marine Corps wants a model that enables them to operate their F-35B’s in austere environments such as in Pacific island hopping campaigns. The Marine Corps is going through a lot of force structure changes at this time. New hybrid tactics such as those that can be inspired by the Swedish model would be useful as the USMC continues it’s current transformation to an even more nimble expeditionary force.
The USMC and USAF have been doing these kinds of dispersed operations for real, for decades. RAF has as well. If I’ve been doing it institutionally since World War II and exceeded the mission requirements assigned to every squadron over those generations, why would I go ask someone who has never done it how to do it?
The new direction of USMC is resembling the former Swedish coastal defense brigades
@@LRRPFco52 "why would I go ask someone who has never done it how to do it?"
Because you might find new approaches that let you raise efficiency and/or lower the costs.
USA has aircraft carriers and doesn't need bases.
I admit to being fairly ignorant about Sweden prior to the covid pandemic. I became much more aware, and impressed, when I saw how they handled covid very competently when the rest of the world was going nuts and ignoring decades of science and accumulated wisdom on handling pandemics. I am now impressed also with how they manage their military. I think most countries could learn a few things from the Swedes, particularly the US where I live.
As a swede I think it's because in our culture we trust each other. We don't have strong hierarchies were you have to follow what one big boss wants to do. This is why our government didn't lock the whole country down. Because the government doesn't have the power to do so. There is no one in the swedish government that got absolute power or much extra power over any other person.
If you look at China or Russia they are dictatorships and have absolute power. What one person at the top decides, that will be implemented and happen.
Take Russia, one man at the top wanted to invade a country, that happened. Take China, one man at the top wanted to lock the whole country down because of Covid. That happened, and China had the thoughest lockdowns in the world because of this.
The same is true for our compaines. Our bosses in Sweden don't have much power over their employees. This is why we have such a good work life balance, because we are pretty free to chose what we want to do at work. It's not our bosses who decide what to do, you decide yourself what you want to do.
I work for a big swedish company as an IT - architect. During Covid I was allowed to work from home for 100% for two years. After Covid ended, we were allowed to work from home 50% of the time. So 50% at the office and 50% at home. We still have this schedule today and I think it's here to stay.
At the same time, I have some french colleagues, but they don't have this rule, they were forced to go back to the office far earlier than I had to do. And today they must be in the office for 100% of the time, so they are not even allowed to work from home.
So in Sweden we are much more free. And as I said, that is because we don't have strong hierarchies, we don't have bosses with a lot of power who can decide what they want us to do. We are not ruled like a bunch of minions.. ;)
But this culture also creates a lot of innovation and promotes good ideas. This is why Sweden is a rich country and one of the strongest democracy's in the world. If not the strongest.
And to just give you some proof that this model works. Just look at the Nobel prize that we hand out every year. We created that, and the reason why is because we have a really strong history of innovations, inventors, entrepreneurs, etc.
So yes, if you don't have strong hierarchies, no bosses that tells you what to do, then you will be free to innovate. This is the swedish way of living and how our society is built. So it's not only reflected in our military, it's reflected in the government, in our companies, in the society as a whole. That's also why we pay high taxes, but our high taxes are actually spent very wizley and put to good use most of the time.
But I think this has always existed in our culture. That is why the vikings were so successfull. And it's why we were a great empire at one point, even though we always have had a small population. We have always punched way above our weight militarily and when it comes to innovations. Our compaines punch above their weight today. It's just due to the cultural values that we hold, especially with the weak hierarchies mentality. That's what makes us efficient.
If you are a boss in Sweden and try to flash your status or imply that you are valued more than others, then you will be put down so hard. That's the beauty in our culture! You should not think that you are better than anyone else. That's a core value that we have and follow. And if someone tries to deviate from that, then they will be punished by the masses. That's also why we have so strong trade unions/labour unions.
But this also creates friendship. If everyone thinks they are equal and not worth more than others, then they are actually more likley to become friends. That will benefit teamwork, it will be more productive for society as a whole.
That was a long explanation, but I hope you now understand why the swedish government didn't lock down. It's because they didn't have enough power to do so, because the people didn't want to do so. And in one of the strongest democracy's in the world, people have the power. Not a few powerfull people.
@@goldrush5764 The US was much like that until about 10 years ago. I am not sure how the woke/leftists gained so much influence so fast, but the US has been in a cultural free fall since then. I’m not sure when it will stop, but hopefully soon. Be cautious that the same doesn’t infect Sweden.
@@LTVoyager Well, we have had our problems too. Our problem has been our strong immigration of people from third world countries.
The reason why we have had that problem is because we are nice people and wanted to help them. Therefore we took in a lot of people from the third world.
However, they have caused so much problem with violence and crime. And they don't contribute to our society because they don't hold the same values as we do.
But, we have woken up now and realized our misstakes so this will now be fixed.
It used to be 10-20 years ago that we wanted to help them. But now the tide has turned a lot, so now our current government is putting up harsher sentences for crime. Removing welfare hand-outs and stuff.
The simple reason for this is because most swedes have woken up and realized that we actually imported a bunch of criminals that wanted to take advantage of us.
So we are currently moving in the right direction.
However, we still want to help poor people in the world, but we realized that this can't be done through immigration to Sweden.
It must be done through aid. So we will still do a lot of aid and stuff, but we won't bring them to Sweden because they are not compatible with living in a modern society.
@@LTVoyager But I can also say this. You have a problem in the US, and that is that you only have a two party system.
For me, I just hate Trump. He has shown that he is almost a dictator and he also throws around a lot of conspiracy theories.
In the beginning I supported Tump, but then he went totally off the rails and showed his true face.
I also hate the fact that he doesn't support Ukraine. We swedes support Ukraine and will send military equipment for as long as it takes! No matter what!
We are actually the country in the world who supports Ukraine the most if you ask people on the street. They did a poll in many western countries and we had the highest support of any country.
97% of swedes said that they supported Ukraine. I'm proud of that, and I see it as a strong support for democarcy. That's what it is.
In the US I think it was a 70% support.
Anyways, I didn't like Biden initially, but he has shown a very strong support for Ukraine. So in this regard I think he has passed with flying colors.
So yes, initially I was not a democrate, and I'm not one now. But I'm not a republican either because I think they have totally gone mad and evil to be honest.
The MAGA folks are just maniacs and they have hijacked the republican party. This was not what the republicans stod for, throughout history. So I'm very dissapointed about that.
But yeah, I also think the leftist and woke people are maniacs as well.
So for me, if I had to chose a side in american politics, I just can't!
It's impossible because it's like choosing between cancer and heart disease. You don't want any of them.
American politics is such a disaster right now. No common sense and just to radical on both sides. And that's the only thing you can choose from. It must suck so hard to be an american voter these days.
Here in Sweden we have eight parties. All with different takes, from the whole spectrum. This is also why I think we are one of the strongest democracy's in the world. You have a lot more to chose from and that aligns more with your own views.
@@LTVoyager Sweden's far more left than the US. The Swedish right is to the left of the US left. We've had a stronger equality movement for longer, so while we do have wokeness and other extremists, there's also an overall higher social acceptance that moderates extremes on both sides.
The main problem the US has had for a long time is the reliance on capitalism as a balancing structure, but while it works on some levels, it leads to the ones in power being large corporations, rather than the government or the people.
But this is a bit more political and off topic.
Italy planned to gain a similar capability by employing the F-35B platform, to allow for dispersed operations at least with a small number of tactical aircraft, while most of the air force operates from proper airfields.
I guess all is still in the making though. The F35B was somewhat designed to allow this philosophy with the Marine Corp's requirements, but in terms of logistics, manpower and infrastructure I seriously doubt it's as efficient as the Gripen.
The systems are a reflection of the tactical, operational and strategic requirements and mindset of the user. The Gripen like all Swedish airplanes reflect their requirements. NATO from the systems to culture are different. There is only so much that can be learned and applied without sufficient pressure to force a change.
To paraphrase Michael Kofman, "In war, things are highly contextual."
A good explainer Chris.
Your discussion about the dispersal of and training about risk assessment at all levels of the Swedish air force as opposed to doctrinal management of risk made me think about how the Russians do exactly the opposite. To the point that if your CO is killed or missing, your unit can barely function, if at all. This is a military that (at least until recent practical considerations started shifting them), still used Soviet lookup tables to determine how much food and ammunition to ship to a unit.
Yeah, and the way the Russian logistics works in Ukraine, it seems the food and ammunition shipments follow a classic Sovjet 5-year plan.
Sweden was the only country that didn't do lockdowns during Covid. Instead the government set out guidelines for how people should behave and people mostly followed the rules. In the end Sweden didn't have higher mortality rates than other countries.
"Freedom with responsibility" is a Swedish axiom that may not work everywhere but it works in Sweden. There has been a strong push in the last 50 years to flatten organizations and give individuals more power to make decisions.
Sweden's mortality rate during COVID matched those of nations with higher population density and much larger population centres. It was objectively one of the worst responses to the pandemic out of all Western nations.
@@dumdumbinks274 Not really true.
Norway was best in Europe with 635 deaths per million inhabitants. Sweden was 8th in Europe with 1849. Lower than France, Austria, Portugal, UK, Belgium, Italy and all of eastern Europe. If you factor in population age it looks even better.
The reason Sweden is seen as high is in comparison with other Scandinavian countries. If you look at details then it's clear that Sweden failed primarily in 3 ways compared to them:
- Early response (lacking protective gear and slow rollout)
- Early handling of the elderly
- Immigrant groups - where the rules either weren't understood or just not followed
Very informative, thanks. A follow-up video on Sweden's procurement process is warranted. It is entirely different (and arguably way more effective) than that of other Western countries. In a nutshell, as I understand it the military flows requirements to the FMV, which works with the contractors to deliver the weapons system. The weapons system isn't turned over to the military by the FMV and the contractor paid, until all the requirements are met. Keeps the military from tinkering with the design, and holds the contractor's feet to the fire as it were. Could solve a lot of problems if such a process were adopted by say....the U.S.
There are multiple variants depending on what system we're talking about , but basicly yes.
That was the model before cabinet Reinfeldt decided that FMV didn't need technical competence, as the industry already have engineers... and the military were to be the experts on what was needed.
@@BPo75Seems like FMV is reganing much of it's old role now though.. 🤔 But it will take time to get to where it was, obviously..
I spent many days in Sennelager, near Paderborn, Germany in the 1990's in despersed locations with GR7s. No need for long runways and the Harriers hiden among the trees. Though the British have changed there mode of opperation since then.
Also Finland has defence forces based on conscript crew and here in Finland the training includes 5-11 months of specialized training for the tasks that every individual conscript crew member would work in actual war.
Only the tasks that cannot be trained in 11 months will be filled with professional crew called "kantahenkilökunta" in Finnish.
Professor Justin Bronk has some excellent analysis on Ward Carrol's TH-cam channel as well, very informative. 👍
Anything recent?
The risk factor is interesting. It really is part of the Swedish armed forces across the board. Mission Command, trust the people closest to the action, trust the people given a task to perform it. It gives a massive tactical advantage and allows all branches, infantry, armor, jaeger, homeguard, navy and airforce the ability to respond to changes on the battlefield much faster than having to constantly wait for confirmation from above.
In 2019 a swedish lieutenant noted that Swedish troops acting as Opfor to NATO (Norway, US snd UK) were much quicker to adapt and respond to changes on the battlefield and that he found NATO to appear sluggish.
On the topic of mission command there is a good read available titled "Trigger-Happy, Autonomous, and Disobedient: Nordbat 2 and Mission Command in Bosnia" available in the internet
You’re absolutely right. I was a Swedish army officer in the early 90’s and the “mission command” concept was very integral to all our training. What we are now seeing in Ukraine is exactly what we were training to face. There are a lot of benefits to having well informed and empowered soldiers that can take initiative and have decisive impact on combat outcomes. All branches of the Swedish military place a high value on “local knowledge” and they want their combatants to be familiar with the terrain, airspace or marine environment. Why put yourself at the disadvantage of not knowing the area you are going to operate in?
There isn't anything unique about what's described in this video about calculated risks among NATO forces, who have generations of actual combat experience while Sweden has none.
For example, it's commonplace for NATO air component forces to conduct hot re-arm, refueling, and even FARPs supported by transport aircraft on remote airstrips as part of Large Force Exercises and Warfighter Experiments with new platforms.
On top of all that NATO air forces do this under NBC and base attack conditions, both in training and for real.
USAF, USMC, and USN in Vietnam, REFORGERs, TEAM SPIRITs, BRIGHT STARs, RED FLAGs, ODS, Yugoslavia, OIF, OEF, OIR, and Atlantic Trident have been performing under these conditions at levels the Swedes will never experience.
As to OPFOR: I've done OPFOR against all kinds of units. OPFOR is always more agile and Blue Forces will almost always seem sluggish because OPFOR is initiating contact and is left free to do what it wants to test Blue Forces.
The only unit that impressed me was 2/75 Ranger Battalion, operating in Platoon or smaller elements. They crush OPFOR for sport, and would do the same to pretty much any other NATO force aside from Para Regiment and Royal Marines (their peers).
I have also worked with Swedish military officers and enlisted in Estonia during Erna Raid.
The Swedish officers like to talk around in circles about extraneous things without any sense of purpose, easily losing focus of the mission at-hand, because they've been so far removed from actual combat experience, creating a culture of military theory, not practice.
When Swedish senior snipers were invited to attend FinnSniper, they showed up, started unpacking, saw the Finns, Germans, French, Danes, etc. getting prepared, then packed up their stuff saying the accommodations weren't up to their standards.
These were better than most barracks I have seen in all my deployments across the world, ranging from all over the US, Germany and Korea, to Panama, and the Middle East.
I think the Swedish Sniper instructors just realized they would be out-classed, had no chance of placing in the competition, and instead of using it as a training opportunity, quit and left back to Sweden. It was the most unprofessional thing I think I ever saw at such an event. That sums up Swedish military mindset.
@@lgrw660factory This is basic MDMP in NATO, nothing unique.
@@LRRPFco52
Thats just a bunch of BS and you know it.
Top Gun is essentially standard Swedish pilot training. And has been since the 50s. Swedish pilots regurarely flew at 600 knots at 10-20m off the ground back in the day for instance. US pilots floor level was 100m as standard.
The US didnt adopt Mission Command until the 70s and Sweden had implemented it since 1945 more or less. In 2016 I believe it was, a US officer wrote an article on how the US has adopted mission command but not embraced it like Sweden.
Sweden has trained with NATO on multiple occasions and performs extremely well on land, in the air and at sea. It is well documented.
Mission Command is simply put something Sweden is good at. Its linked to the doctrine of Free War adopted in the 50s that every unit, no matter the branch, was expected to resort to guerilla warfare if required. Meaning each leader on even the lowest position was and is expected to act on initiative, gut feeling and be able to have feel for the larger battle.
This is just something Sweden is good at. And something that will benefit NATO. The US is extremely good at logistics. The US is extremely good at air superiority. Sweden, on the other hand, has trained and equipped itself for 80 years for fighting a numerical superior enemy, meaning the Swedish armed forces has a deep culture of acting on opportunities on the battlefield and trusting the guy closest to the action to make the correct call.
The RAF. when we operated during the Cold War in W Germany operated the Harrier as a dispersed aircraft and we trained in the role 3 or 4 times a year with the 2 Harrier Squadron that were stationed there, we would deploy as a Squadron to sites away from base and operate from both unprepared and road sites. We also practiced our War role of moving as an Operational Turn a Round (OTR) team to another site after being compromised where the Maintenance and Operations Team would meet an aircraft that would be re tasked in the air to come to our location where the team would carry out the OTR. I know from talking with former Harrier force people that it is something that will be needed in any further conflicts within Europe. The Swedish Air Force with Grippen are showing they are capable of such a role which would be a huge asset to any battle field commander to have Air power close to the battle area that can be adapted to a role that is required ie;- from Photo Recce to close air support to fighter protection
This. We've done dispersed operations. We've done it for decades. With airframes not specialised for it. I don't get the headline on this video at all. NATO trains this method of operations.
As a Canadian , i was very dissapointed that our Gov did not go with this plane. Or for any other military vehicle from Sweden. I think the vast majority of Swedish combat vehicles, would fit well into the Canadian Armed forces.
It would make sense. Canada has lots of land to defend with a low population density and a great deal of political pressure not to spend excessively on defence.
Thankfully even the Canadian military is smarter than you
Gripen is a good Addition for Bundeswehr. It is a good teretorial dispursed defence Fighter. Also because of its lo costs per flying hours and high readyness. Gripeb could be the f16 for Germany equivalent for the US. Eurofighter is the main stay and gripen whidens the abilitys and lower the overall costs.
In the Part of teretorial defence we had Autobahn airfields. Whith Gripen this might evan be easyer. To regayn this capability.
I'd disagree. The Gripen "dispersed" strategy is OK for a country on a budget which can't afford to build airbases that can defend themselves but Germany with its partner the US has built Ramstein which must be ringed with SAM defense, radar in depth, satellite surveillance and that's besides the aircraft stationed at the base which are far superior to the Gripen. Germany's strategy is to build and operate the best with no compromise and defend the heck out of what are very obvious targets. The Gripen's philosophy is different, planning for acceptable losses by making aircraft ground locations less predictable and hopefully hidden well enough and mobile to reduce their exposure. Countries that are rich enough to afford the best or have partners who can afford the very best are betting that their best is better than any adversary's best. Countries which can't afford the best find other ways to operate like hat Sweden's model tries to do. You can imagine how much defense a Gripen has on the ground if it's located. Absolutely nothing that is likely effective.
I also disagree , not from a arrogant perspective but economical one. Only the US can afford the keep the ammunition required to defend a massive airbase like Ramstein from incoming waves of cruise missiles for more then a few hours , or worse. Secondly Germany is in the heart of Europe , you have others inbetween you and any potential advesary , with that privilege alone you can ignore dispersion , with nothing between ous and Kaliningrad we most do everything to mitigate losses. Since we dont have industrial capacity nor the training facilities to mass produce aircrafts or pilots we cannot afford to skip dispersion , Germany being in NATO could replace all losses if one base should be unfortunate enough and hit with cruise missiles , you could even transfer aircraft to other nations airfields , so if you zoom out , being in NATO you already have a form of dispersion , although a bit more sluggish.
@@matso3856 The lack of ability of Europe to hurt Russia is the main failing. (Along with pitifull defense budgets). 600 Storm Shadow,/Scalp and Taurus? They will barely scratch Russia. The key requirement is Nuclear Certification to deliver the B61N and while the Panavia Tornado, F-16, F-35 can do that the Gripen, Eurofighter can not. I can see the B61N as being to vulnerable and a rocket may be needed in future when it becomes neccesary to break treaties. We just witnessed Russia make threats against the tiny Baltic States, Finland, Sweden, Germany and of course Ukraine.
I was in the airforce 97-98 when Gripen came to F14, the groundcrew worked really hard when they trained, practiced all the time, was great to see them in action :)
what does "came to F14" mean.
@@richardmeyeroff7397 F14 is one of the airbases here :)
@@jsv1891aik Thank You
@@richardmeyeroff7397F14 is the squadron organisation, not the air base.
I mean, Sweden itself had to re-learn it recently after 15 or so years of neglect. Still, yes, the hardware was still there and the instituational knowledge still existed.
Not really.
@@ja37d-34 Was a big thing just a few years ago that they started practicing vägbas again
@@meanmanturbo Yes but the tech to do this was availible and the aircraft built for this. But a valid point is that it is not enough to have aircraft and tech supoort for this it still needs to be implemented and regularly trained even when we knew how to do it.
Luckily our airforce basically survived this downsizing.
The maybe biggest problem today are under paid Gripen pilots.
@@rudolfabelin383 its more important to import and feed terrorists from desert countries for our politicians
Whenever Justin Bronk is on it's gonna be good!
I think Sweden and Finland have taken the most logical and sensible approach for the defense of their territories.👍
Militarily maybe. Not demographically.
In this day and age Militarily is more important, especially in that region!@@moltderenou
The UK did have the ability for dispersed squadrons in isolated harrier replenishment in the cold war. It's something we should revisit, but I don't think it would work with the F-35.
F-35 would probably not work, as you propose. Big logistical footprint, very hot exhaust and obstacles from unprapared runway flying in the air.
Saab is part of the BAe Tempest program, it will most likely have road base capability :)
@@backisgabbeYT when did SAAB joined, after leaving?
@atlet1 I haven't heard anything about Saab ever leaving the program, maybe you have a source I haven't found, but SAAB has taken a smaller role in development, but I understood it as a temporary stance.
@@backisgabbeYT I think they have withdrawn at this point.
I think on the subject of flexibility and dispersal, that NATO could learn a thing or two from Sweden. Also as seen in the Ukraines necessity to decentralize their forces to fight on extended and fluid multiple fronts. My own experience in the Army taught , as a leader, the importance of adapting , improvising and assessing a quick moving situation to keep my team in the fight and avoid the possibility of flanking maneuvers that could place us in an untenable situation. I am well versed in the militaries mountain of rules regs and sops. Some are a necessity other create an inflexible machine which bogs down in its own paperwork.
I recall many years ago, reading an analysis on Swedish military thinking with a case study on the Swedish contribution to the UNPKF in Kosovo. They drove senior commanders off the wall by short-circuiting and bypassing normal command structures in order to complete tasks that they considered vital for their mission, and ended up saving a lot of lives in the process when they refused to relent on things like letting politics get in the way of the mission of protecting refugees, to the point of ignoring UN RoE and opening fire to defend medical convoys. It made for very interesting reading.
Also worth noting that the Gripen has measurably lower max gross than the F-16 and the like despite having a similar empty weight. This means shorter range and smaller ordinance loads. For Sweden this is fine, since they're aiming at conducting short range strikes against an advancing enemy already inside their territory as well as short range defensive counter air, but most NATO forces have to be geared towards longer range interdiction strikes and capable of offensive as well as defensive counter air.
F16 does have a very good weight to performance, but that is not everything that counts. There are reason why the gripen is heavier. Its much sturdier, it have a shorter turnaround time and its less maintenance intensive.
f16 is more like a F1 car, gripen is more like a rally car.
While f16 for sure can outperform gripen in a climb, or other stats, that might not be the most important inn an actual war.
@@matsv201 I mean roughly speaking yes, although I wouldn't press that analogy too far. In terms of survivability to enemy fire they're gonna be similar cause airplanes are all pretty squishy unless they're the A-10. Gripen pays a punch of performance penalties but it can handle things like small arms fire and the stresses of landing on short runways (which reduce the max gross even further). Bottom line is the obvious, if you have a functional airbase to operate form the F-16 is better by quite a margin, if you don't the Gripen is the only thing can even show up to the fight in the first place.
This is kind of old. Maybe the first versions of Gripen was using this doctrine. But it’s changed already in the C/D versions and expanded further in the E/F which is now delivered to Swedish and Brazilian air forces.
@@EricaCalman weren't A10s shot down in the Iraq war?
F-16C empty is like 50% heavier than an empty JAS-39C
About Swedish mind set as regards wider knowledge and more responsibility on ”lower hierarchy level”:
One of several good examples in different trades, is the type of work nurses are allowed to do. In Sweden nurses have much more delegated responsibility and do things that in other countries require a medic/physician!
This is the Swedish way and probably a reason for how such a small country can be so competitive in both sports, inventions, business and military.
Kind regards
Anders
Sweden
I'd say it's a Nordic mentality really, as the same thing is prevalent in Finland, Norway and Denmark (my knowledge of Iceland is sadly limited).
@@BPo75 I have both Finnish and Swedish friends working as nurses in Norway. In this trade it differs. Nurses in Finland and Norway don’t have the same wide spanning responsibility as they do in Sweden. In other areas I would agree with you
Thanks!
Excellent video! 👍🏻👌🏻👏🏻
Where I used to live in Sweden (Östersund), we the air force (F4) and the army (I5 & A4) and there were many times when we acted as the enemy for our F4 fellas when they were out and about back in the 80's, great times and great memories!
Our recon platoon infiltrated the air base, using real guns but fake ammunition. The defenders had real guard dogs with real teeth. Our recon platoon did a quick reverse advance flying over the fence..
@@mattiasdahlstrom2024 :-D More dogs in the militaries .... ;-)
This is an excellent illustration, at a high level, of a particular knife probably not fitting into different sheaths.
great video love from a 19 year old gripen aircraft technician in the swedish air force
I like that you discussed the strengths and weaknesses of their personnel structure. The number one complaint you will hear in the USAF from officers is that by the time you learn how to do your job well you are moved somewhere else and you are back trying to learn how to do your job again. However as you said if your squadron is relying on a person whos been in for 20 years to keep the squadrons knowledge and expertise, when they leave that squadrons capability will take a massive hit. I have to say i am more of a fan of the swedish system. Let people become experts in their field, if they want to pursue higher leadership and cross unit experience let them pursue it but having it be the mandatory way the force operates is detrimental to tactical level effectiveness.
Fascinating. Would love to see more detail and depth on this subject. The Russian situation shows that everything is different now and the Swedes have lots to teach us as do the Baltic countries. I am Canadian and our armed forces are pathetic. No slur intended to the individual sailor, airman or infantryman. It is just everything else. What the Swedes have achieved with their small population size is very very impressive.. They have lots to teach us.
Israeli Airforce veteran here. Situation in Israel is quite similar in many respects. Mentality is very similar in the sense of individual independence.
Fighter Jets are American but Israel has a lot of large highways and we are a small country so in case of need planes may be operated from multiple improvised runways and the IAF is practicing that.
Pilots normally serves for four years after the basic course and then 1 day a week for the next 30 years or so. Some stays and becomes higher commanders. The rest usually study some more a d becomes part of the high-tech or defense industries while continuing to serve weekly as pilots. When war breaks (like now) everyone is recruited and you have a longterm 24x7 airforce capability that can overwhelm even an airforce with many more airplanes.
I am retired military, and I like the idea. NATO should embrace the Swedish model and the Gripen There is definitely a niche for this aircraft and its logistics. NATO ought to have Gripen units in each member country
And how do you imagine NATO could invade other countries if it did that?
Why ? Which member countries of NATO need the dispersed operational capability that Sweden does ? Finland.
@@hb1338 Actually, it's rather clever not to put all your eggs in one basket.
Irish perspective here. Sweden is neutral and there must be some expectation that when attacked, there may be nobody coming to help. Sweden is on its own. Ireland would be in the same position. Any small neutral state must (or should!) have the same concerns and the Swedish model could work in other neutral states. Especially countries with much larger neighbours and a history of invasion.
Britain has defence agreements with both Sweden and Ireland.
*Grin.*
@@lutherblissett9070 Actually we have agreements with the Baltic states since many years and recently USA as well. Baltic countries had planes to come to Swedish airspace, to signal Swedish support while Russia acting aggressive close to our boarders. USA had military ships in Stockholm recently. So no, Sweden will not be on it's own. A common missunderstanding is that Sweden removed it's defence. All these years Sweden had a civil-military defence. By the way, I am an ex-employee at the Swedish Defence Material Administration. My job was to create procurement requirements for legislation and information security. It was a temporary job for only five months in 2013. Today I work with SEO and affiliate marketing. But at least I am not a person that just have opinions in a comment section. I know a little from a professional standpoint.
Great video, I love learning about military equipment and tactics of other countries. The Gripen seems excellent for Swedens needs, and perhaps a few other countries needs. And while air operations for the US are quite centralized, due to the large number of various actors (planes, missiles, ships, artillery) this is needed at that level to keep coordinated operations in sync. US Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen (especially the first two) are quite adept at adapting and over coming adversity in the absence of higher command orders. Soldiers are briefed on the overall mission and are capable and willing to achieve mission goals even in the loss of immediate leadership, like your Gipen teams. When the US goes on the offensive, its done with overwhelming force, different ideology, different needs. Keep up the great videos, I'll be sure to check out more.
Great video and though provoking as well!
On one hand I find the Swedish system appealing, where it heavily emphasizes flexibility in decision making down to the lowest level possible in order to counter what is commonly known as friction or the fog of war. It seems the SWAF trains pilots and ground crews to be capable of operating with limited information of the broader operational environment. I sometimes feel that NATO forces have become so reliant on superb situational awareness via a plethora of off board sensors and datalinks, heavily standardized procedures and tactics, that NATO forces may be: A. vulnerable for an unforeseen shutdown of either datalinks or off board sensors and B. rather predictable in their overall tactical behavior and hence vulnerable again. (Having said that, I recognize both the F-35 and Gripen try to remedy that by providing excellent on board sensor integration.)
Another aspect I like is the expeditionary nature of operating from dispersed bases with minimal crew requirements and even being able to have conscripts service (not maintain or repair I imagine) the fighters, but the latter I guess is very culture dependent.
On the other hand I think most allied pilots won't like having to spend so many years in the same squadron or wing I imagine. Seems pretty boring after a while imho. I don't know if the SWAF has crew/pilot retention issues, but if it does, this might be a contributing factor. If I were a young pilot, I'd like to see how other units operate within the same air force or abroad and I'd like to fly something else than Gripen, just to learn and broaden my horizons.
Either way, the Swedish model certainly is not a one size fits all. Too many NATO air forces wouldn't be able to reistate conscription, let alone that they would be able to entrust multi million Euro jets to the hands of conscripts. Nor does operating from dispersed bases sound feasible, with most NATO-jets being quite vulnerable to FOD, requiring longer runways or having so much specialized tools, support equipment or even specially air conditioned shelters to function properly. That certainly makes them very vulnerable in this age of UAVs and long range cruise missiles, but I do not see how NATO air forces could remedy that in the short term. Especially since that would also require having to recruit more personnel I imagine, something most European air forces are having trouble in realizing, if only for budgetary reasons.
It's certainly worth considering how this vulnerability can be mitigated though. Possibly by prepositioning secret underground stocks of supplies at points near pieces of highway that are suitable. And possibly also by relying less on lean logistics (or just in time management) and maintaining considerable amounts of reserves, both in terms of supplies and personnel. And possibly by experimenting and learning as trials go along. It's just a thought.
"I don't know if the SWAF has crew/pilot retention issues, but if it does, this might be a contributing factor."
They do, and this is only one of the reasons. Unfortunately.
@@gunnarmonell7253 That really is too bad to hear. But, not unique to the Flugvapnet I'm afraid: NATO wide recruitment is lagging behind and forces of all branches struggle to retain skilled and experienced personnel.
As far as I understand, wages aren't what they used to be plus long and irregular hours, months long deployments away from family, political controversy seeping through within the ranks, etc. are probably other contributing factors.
As l understand the history, the Gripen was designed with the Soviets in mind (quick dispersal, low budget, and shared training): stealth just doesn't fit with a fixed frame and NATO may not immediately appreciate the uniqueness of this weapon system … however, as Russia transforms and eastern Europe adjusts, regional fighters will have an important niche to fill (tactical) while NATO remains structured more for strategic exercises. I think the Gripen is here to stay!
Ex Swedish AF (Tactical Road Air Base Weather Service) here. Thanks for your great videos! FYI, the pronunciation of "Gripen" in Swedish is very similar the way you would pronounce the word in German. "Griipen", not "Grippen". Keep up your fantastic work!! 👍
And if you don't want to mispronounce it, no one minds if you call it "the Griffon". Well, no Swede would mind. We often call it that when speaking English.
Another great video! I love the Gripen so I am always excited when you speak about it :D
Very nice! Something about the Swedish planes that make them very interesting to learn about. 💜🐇
All I gotta say is I'm proud to be of Swedish decent. One thing I love how Sweden uses their public highway system as take off and landing strips for military aircraft. Please I must say don't forget stealth that the 35 has. Also complete integration from gound base to drone to infantry to SAM batteries. Ect. Stealth definitely has a big effect on BVR air combat..
First of all thank you for deep and down to point analysis.
You made two points
1. The bunch of design decisions have been made to make Gripen easy to maintain by small highly trained teams.
2. The size of maintaining team mandates the level of training and that hard to achieve in most air forces.
I don't think that n.2 is a show stopper. From my experience there are well established business procedures, when we replace a highly trained critical person with several less skilled people with overlapping responsibilities. It will come at price of increase maintains complexity and cost, but it still should be below most othe western fighters, given n.1.
The five-conscript team with their supervising aircraft tech can replace the jet engine in a 39 Griffin in well under an hour, the plane was designed with unheard of serviceability in mind.
I dunno if it's possible but it would be interesting to do an episode on Taiwan's F-CK-1. This was a domestically produced jet they designed after the US declined to sell them F-16s and F-20s to replace their F-5s in the 80s and 90s. So they built a domestic jet, albeit with US engines and a lot of other US technology.
Thanks for mentioning this aircraft. Looks interesting - sort of a cross between the F16 and the F18. I too would appreciate such a segment.
@@Ghatbkk The Taiwanese have a very interesting way of doing military procurement. Typically they'll buy a small amount of US kit but at the same time negotiate a tech transfer agreement so they can build domestic stuff which is 80% as good but much cheaper. Of course critical components are imported from the US because it would be cost prohibitive to develop domestic versions.
E.g. they import Patriot missiles but they've also got domestic Sky Bow missiles where they got a 85% tech transfer from Raytheon for Sky Bow 1 and then went off on their own for subsequent missiles. Probably the US gets access to any technology they develop.
The Gripen is built with a US GE engine and US technology in all of its subsystems, sans the UK ejection seat.
@@user-qf6yt3id3w Taiwan doesn't have the industrial capacity to develop critical aerospace systems for fighter aircraft, and neither does Sweden. This is why both nations fly with US-built fighter engines.
F*CK-1? That's a great name tbh.
Love the Gripen and the Swedish defence. l wish my country had an airforce good as Sweden. Plus Sweden is the home of my all time favourite tennis player Stefan Edberg ⛳
As a finn i think Gripen would have been the better option for us compared to the f 35.
We all know where the threat is coming from anyway and Finland being so close to Russia gives us minimal response time if they were to attack.
Russia knows where our planes are and our runways. Like they did in ukraine they would use overwhelming missile attacks to destroy most of this on the ground.
If an attack actually happened as i see it it would be better for the Finnish air forces to jump over to Sweden's territory and disperse there. This would increase the response Time for further incoming strikes.
Service and maintenance would be easier since the sweeds have the same plane. And global eye surveying the skies over sweden would provide valuable information for both countries Air defence.
Norway having gen5 fighters i understand. They have allmost unlimited budget if they want to and having their planes behind both Sweden and Finland does give them the ability to actually use these planes for what it's intended for without having them blown up on the ground.
The plane choice was mostly political as far as I understand it. Finland doesn't need to buy Swedish cooperation (we're already two of the closest countries worldwide), but appeasing the US was seen as more important.
As far as Gripen goes, Finland is by far the most suitable country other than Sweden for it, since you've got a very similar mentality on that front.
@@AnotherDuck you're absolutely right 👍