Texan Reacts to Gripen: What we must learn from Sweden by Military Aviation

Discord!
/ discord
Original Video: • Gripen: What we must l...
Reaction to Military Aviation's video about the style of fighting and doctrine of the Swedish Air Force, along with the JAS 39 Gripen and how it fills the role that is needed by that style, along with how this style could potentially be used of implemented in NATO.
Like, Comment, Subscribe, and comment below any suggestions for future videos.
As always, go support Military Aviation for the great content.

[@hansericsson7058]

As a Swede we are very proud of our airforce and we always been.

[@PaRadiZer]

@hansericsson7058 As a Norwegian, your little brother so to speak, :) I second that. Always been impressed by what you have been able to accomplish.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

And our Swedish combat pilots has been fully aware of the price of that excellence and willingly paid it, because they knew the stakes. And that price was to loose, on average, one colleague and friend to permanently crippling or fatal injuries in training accidents and mishaps every week through most of the cold war. And only with the final few versions of the SAAB 37 Viggen in the mid 1980ies, was that trend broken. The airforce doctrine was to *always* fly as if the country is at war as soon as the pilots were qualified on their aircraft, regardless if it's training, patroling airspace borders, flying sigint escort, intercepting and redirecting Soviet "accidental misnavigators" etc. There are air recon photos of fairly low bridges that could only be taken by an aircraft flying under the bridge. Upside down... Iirc, there are also records of aircraft crashes caused by hitting a sailing boat mast at near supersonic speeds... The regulated 'deck' over water was 10m in straight level flight as long as the pilot had at least 3.5km of clear path ahead. 3.5km is less than the blink of an eye at 600-900kph... and with tree covered islets of an archipelago on both sides, shit can hit the fan real fast... Over the countryside, the deck was 30m and over urban areas, 50/100m. Afaik, those regulated altitudes has been changed.

[@DrunkGeneral]

yepp i am also impressed by our submarines and general military tecnologys used around the world, and even our old but gold Karl Gustavs :)

[@hansericsson7058]

@@DrunkGeneral Specially Karl Gustavs. Still going strong

[@petritast3784]

SWAF flygflåttilj 19 & 21 och FAF F11 för alltid! Gudskelov Kallax ligger bara ett stenkast från Rovaniemi.. 🇸🇪🇫🇮🇺🇳🇪🇺💪

[@goldrush5764]

Just want to share a comment that was done in the comment section of the original video: "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." I really like what he is saying here. That we have the mentality that we should train everyone as a General! If you look at Russia it's the complete opposite, there you don't get any training at all and then you are thrown into the meat grinder.

[@rayceofhistory]

I think generally decentralized command has proven to be beneficial in modern combat. At its core, it’s really on the ground responsibility. Or I guess “in the air” for pilots. But I think the US tends to be more decentralized in regards to tier 2 and 1 units. Maybe it’s the same general thought process as it is for Sweden, smaller groups, and therefore a need for individuals to be able to make decisions that could typically be passed down the chain. If you want to see an example of the US centralization getting in the way of a real operation, take a look at the Dakota Meyer story. It’s rough, but it clearly shows how this can be an issue. It cost marines their lives.

[@MaskinJunior]

Yes, but also the "swedish Flat Organization" would probably make most swedes unmanagable in the russian army because we wolde take too many initatives on our own ending up with the Kremlin High Command not knowing anything about the reallity on the ground.

[@aramisone7198]

I wouldn't say that we (Sweden) have a tiny budget it will rise but Russia on the other hand the worlds largest country had only about 60-70 billion dollars thats tiny for a huge country. The landmass is large but 10 million people is almost enough but it's expensive to have a professional military. During the Cold War all countries had bigger military forces.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

​@@rayceofhistory another thing is that our original conscript system was based on the Preussian Officer's cadre philosophy where we had a deliberately excessively large core of professional contract officers, who in peace time served one or even two levels below their formal rank would suggest in other countries. Eg, my conscript mortar *platoon* CO was a captain by rank, his 2iC who were mainly responsible for training me and the other battery control specialists was an Lt, an Ensign/jrLt was responsible for the mortar squads and the three of them had two cadettes in training ranked as seargeants between them as aides. In mobilization, the Lt and Ensign would have been the platoon CO and 2iC, the cadette seargeants would likely have disappeared to other duties elsewhere, and the rest of the platoon would have consisted of mobilised conscript gunners, conscript specialists and conscript NCOs as squad leaders and aides. The armed forces would mobilize around 10% of the entire population, 800k, out of 8 million people, with stockpiled supplies for up to a year of constant defense in depth operations and a war cabinet government without authority or ability to negotiate surrender or cease fire as the first component of the defense doctrine was, and is, as printed in every phone book and crisis instruction pamphlet: *Every message that suggests resistance should cease is to be treated as false.*

[@DanielDuintjer]

@@MaskinJunior Doesn't seem like the Kremlin knows what's going on on the ground anyway with their own way of doing things LOL

[@MaskinJunior]

As a Swede I would not call it risk. What you see in practice is the swedish flat organization. It is true for all aspects of swedish society. Something american management really struggle with when dealing with managing sedish companies. In Sweden we dont have the need to have a manager giving precise orders for what we should do. Swedish workers are to much extent self managing. And beeing self managing makes us adapt to the situation far more efficiant. Especially if we are working dispersed. It does require higher intelligence for the least quallified workers, but I think having a culture where you are forced to think ahead even if you have the least qualified job trains you to get that intelligence just by the natural training of beeing forced to think. After I have been working interrnationally i start to see how it is different abraud. In toher places in the world workers are not allowed to take as much initiative that is expected of swedish workers. I think especially in south and east europe workers taking initative outside their mandate is even penalized for doing that resulting in a otally different order structure than the swedish flat organization.

[@andersgrassman6583]

I totally agree. It’s fundamental Swedish work culture and ethics. You aren’t even supposed to have to be told exactly what to do. Beeing a manager is often about making sure that your subordinates (even that word feels a bit akward to me) understand the purpose, the mission in and for the organization. Manegerial work is very much discusdions, not giving orders. Foreign business people - especially perhaps americans - get very confused. They think the degree of informality is almost disrespectful or something. In organizational theory, Sweden is often likened to Japan, with their ”consensus” way of managing things. In fact, the ”Swedish way” also applies to things like how we managed the covid pandemic. No laws, fines or policing was put in place. Instead daily hour long TV information briefings were held. Telling people what recomended actions and behaviours to apply, and why. I’d say it worked extremely well. Sweden had no worse outcome than other countries, in spite of the whole world saying we were crazy. This is also the way I’ve always expected Sweden to defend it self against Russian invasion.

[@MaskinJunior]

@@andersgrassman6583 The comparison with Japan is more like the Swedish honor system. The Swedish shame. But to us swedes it has nothing about respect for our ancestors it is more that you should be ashamed if you don't follow the rules, if you do things the wrong way. A fun way of testing this is to ride on the wrong side on the escalator. To which an American probably would say "there is a wrong side?".

[@ibuprofen_]

Despite the requirements on the Gripen ground crews it has the highest sortie completion percentage when participating in Red Flag.

[@thehoogard]

despite?

[@ibuprofen_]

@@thehoogard well given the other nations doctrine which supposedly have more support crew it doesn't equate to higher sortie completion capability.

[@justSkitBra]

@@ibuprofen_ if the groundcrew doesnt need 500 people per aircraft then its pointless to have 500ppl . Gripen is designed to have as few people as possible to be able to get the aircraft back into action as fast as possible. the design was also made to have as little cost as possible per flighthour as possible to cut down on running costs. all in all we swedes where seeing the development of countries being forced to disperse the planes due to missile strikes on primary bases taking them out more then 30-40 years ago.

[@axelv1753]

The only fighter jet available that was designed for invasions defence. All others were designed by large nations that don't expect their own territory to be threatened. These are forbprojecting power into other countries or helping defend a country bordering russia from a country that is far away. This means that JAS Gripen is the only fighter jet suitable for countries bordering russia. (Unless maybe if they purchase 20 Patriot systems and build very many airfields)

[@eyedee12345]

It blows my mind that a country like Sweden small at it is, Made its own fighter jet. Like let that sink in, they are like 10mil ppl.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

And when the Gripen was designed, we were 8million... with a "total defence" organisation where all kinds of supplies were stockpiled, from sugar cubes to steam locomotives, for both military and civilian needs for up to a year in case of Soviet invasion, with bomb shelters and evacuation plans for each city and town by multiple vectors and to mobilize just over 800'000men out of that population. It's as if the US national guard had been able to field 37million soldiers in case of a peer level conflict.

[@speedpuppy638]

The Gripen E/F platform already meets the requirements for the Next gen fighters, NGAD. This is a statement directly from SAAB and the call stealth “old 70:s” technology referring the Gripens E-Stelth (electronic). It disappears and becomes a Ghost. Gripen E/F model is a different gen within the Gripen Platform and Is a refinement of the old platform. They walkthrough the earlier models and corrected and adjusted all the restricting designs. It looks almost the same but are completely a different aircraft than the c/d.

[@PaRadiZer]

Gripen E, while a great aircraft, is an evolution of an 1980's platform, which even then lagged far behind the US in terms of stealth and systems, for instance the AESA radar. It is certainly nowhere near the technology of the NGAD. Consider that the Gripen E has lost all the competitions vs. the F-35 so far.

[@crimeinvest6523]

@@PaRadiZer Pros and cons with both aircraft. For an example, Jas 39 gripen is far superior in the turnaround time on ground and being able to land everywhere. Also as of right now, F35 can't fire the meteor BVR missile while Jas 39 can...

[@PaRadiZer]

@@crimeinvest6523 Get your point. And the Gripen was built for this. However, things are not black and white. Even the F-16 could be turnaround in 6 minutes, given the right circumstances, as demonstrated in testing with the YF-16 and later by the Israelis. Meteor and new missiles will be cleared for the F-35 in the future, like the Aim 260. Also, Finland has a requirement of operating the F-35 from a road base.

[@Jonsson474]

⁠@@PaRadiZerYou are talking about physical stealth, with radar absorbing materials and shapes, which is an old technology that the Gripen doesn’t have but that the most modern American aircraft mostly rely on. Gripes E/F have electronic stealth, which is a more modern technology that is potentially far more effective since the most modern radar systems can detect physical stealth. I’m that sense I would say that it’s the American aircraft models lag behind when it comes to stealth. According to the pentagon research agency DARPA, this is the case since physical platform stealth “is approaching its limits” while electronic stealth can be developed infinitely. Developing and building electronic stealth is also a lot more cost effective which in the future will allow every aircraft to eventually have stealth technology.

[@Jonsson474]

NGAD is expected to take over the F-22A Raptor in 2030 so it’s a long way off.

[@drzoidnilsson73]

About military spendings. [13:00] Sweden really slashed (butchered?) its military seriously in the 90-ties. Recent Swedish news about the defense budget. (published June 28, 2023) "Government: Increased defense budget next year The government plans to give the Armed Forces SEK 20 billion more next year and another SEK 12 billion the following year. Sweden will thereby reach NATO's definition of the two percent goal for defense spending next year, says Defense Minister Pål Jonson (M) to SVT."

[@melkor3496]

Yeah after I heard that I was surprised we will be reaching 2 percent much faster than I thought.

[@Karl-Benny]

when you say Butchered i say saved Billions

[@melkor3496]

@@Karl-Benny Saved? If we didn’t scrap all of it we wouldn’t have to rebuild our defence from start and invest billions of new money into it. We should have always had our defense between 2-2.5 percent.

[@mikaeljonsson4686]

@@melkor3496 Absolutely! But noooo, no more evil ruzzians when USSR collapsed.. or that was at least the thought, but then mr Poootin took over....

[@johns70]

The problem is that it is not enough. Just the investments in new hardware, like the Gripen E buildup, replacing CV90s, ordering new ships, new submarines, and rocket/AA systems like more Patriot systems, will run in the 100's of billions of SEK. Add to that the increase in operational costs of facilities (new bases, with everything from hangars to restaurants) and personnel (basically increasing the force by 60%), and if you have ANY financial knowledge, you will see that to sustain it, around 3% would be necessary.

[@benktlofgren4710]

Lots of stuff that gets better if the trainers have REAL experience. I did my service here in Sweden in the 90'ies. The standard education sergeant screamed all the time one shot fire only no burst, you do not want to be out of ammo. While the other sergeant that just came back from a tour in Bosnia with Kfor screamed more led in the air :)

[@henrikg1388]

One thing that is almost always is left out when discussing Gripen, is the complete willingness to transfer technology, except for the most secretive parts, such as the EW suite. Any purchaser could produce most of the plane and spare parts locally, which is a HUGE benefit. Sure, BAE Systems, Leonardo, GE and weapons manufacturers need to be dealt with. But SAAB retains the right to the engine, locally called RM16, and weapons are easily adaptable. Leonardos AESA and IR-sensors are probably trickiest. But no single nation has you by the balls if you go Gripen. I would also like to add that the reliance on many conscripts is an option and not a necessity. The Gripen in itself is a platform fully capable of dealing with professional service teams and more stricter operational guidelines. The dispersal ability is just a huge bonus and Sweden does it in it's way.

[@matsv201]

Its worth saying that Sweden have gone pretty hard for upgradibility all the way back to the Draken.. and .. well to a degree even J21 that was upgraded from propeller to jet. (quite successfully so). With that, a lot of stuff that was developed for draken carried over to viggen, but the opposite was also true, stuff that was developed for viggen carried over to draken. This was also true to an extent for Gripen, but the amount carried down was way less due to the end of the cold war. After 200 gripen was built all the viggen and draken was simply just put out of service and scraped. The intention was originally to build a hundred or so gripen more and replace all the draken with gripen, then upgrade the viggen to the same radar and weapons system gripen had at that time (some systems was carried down before scraping). Viggen is technologically very similar to F14, and they even share some components. For Gripen there is not really a US equivalent. A lot of people compare it to F16, but apart from the general size, they two aircraft's are very different. In deployment even the F18 is much more similar (hence that is what Finland use to fly that have a very similar defense strategy as Sweden). The most similar aircraft is probobly F35, of cause Gripen lack stealth, making the comparison not really that relevant. About the US, it looks to me.. here from Europe that US want to maximize the support troops, while making the cutting edge as expensive as possible. minimizing the troops in harms way. This may be a good strategy in a short impulse like war (like the first gulf war) when the enemy is totally immobilized in days. But in a long drawn out slug, that strategy will probobly blunten the edge pretty fast, having a large support organization supporting frontal tropps that maybe is not that much better than the enemies, but much fewer. This is pretty much the opposite to Sweden that have a very slimmed down support organisation but a fairly big amount of frontal units. This might sound absolutely insane, but with end of cold-war strategy, Sweden and Finland would be able to deeply more troops to the front than Russia can to day, with a considerable margin. Its hard to say how long those troops would be supplied, some estimates put it on 2 weeks.... and that might not sound like a long time, but the principle is pretty much to break the enemies back in i a short a time as possible, then get support from other countries. I would think that not taking all the troops at the same time and have a higher turn over would extend this period for quite a while.

[@rayceofhistory]

To be completely honest, I don’t think the US thinks a country can hold out very long without having their capabilities pretty substantially downgraded. Now the conflict itself may not be over, but the US likes to have many carrier fleets in a region before launching an offensive, they even have bombers that are coming from the states flying into enemy territory right around when the first shots are fired, they want overwhelming numbers and support there immediately (at least from the air). And I think this is because they think no country can actually hold out for that long in that scenario. Now that may not actually be correct, and when a major state on state conflict breaks out they may end up making a mistake by having that thought process, but I still think that’s what it is. It would take months for any sort of sizable offensive force to get to a country for a real major state on state conflict. Even with the US transport fleets. But planes are quick, carriers can go anywhere, and I think the US has this sort of view that they can overwhelm a country, at least from the air, immediately.

[@matsv201]

@@rayceofhistory Well yes, i do think that the US airforce sort of discovered the all out F35 deference plan would not work in a all out conflict. While a F35 probobly would pacify any current enemy, it would be very expensive to use it as a strike platform. Not only monetarily but also logistically. I guess the navy, typically operating a longer period away from bases are better suited, and well they where also very skeptical to the F35 project. Of cause a attack on US mainline is probobly not very likely currently. But i could certainly see a long time brawl with China about Taiwan, Japan and US islands in the area. USA (at least currently) for sure could overwhelm china for a while, but eventually the maintenance backlog would really cut down on a situation like this. While this is true in Sweden to a degree also. The amount of troops Sweden could field (well at least in 1989, and its true for Finland to this day) for the first two weeks is over a million. (for a typical scenario, everyone would not be fielded at once, would probobly start with 10-15% then build up). What Sweden done differently to USA, while it does effect performance, is that many main components, like engines, are from a civilian origin. CV90/CB90 have truck engine, exactly the same engine as in a specific model of truck. The idéa is that in case of war they can take spares from the truck. The old tank had the same engine as a civilian helicopter and a very common tractor. And the old Viggen fighter had a engine derived from (and shared many component) with the engine of a DC9 airliner. And of cause the modern archer platform is basically a civilian truck, a very common truck. I do think that after the cold war, Sweden sort of strayed a way from this policy... a bit. (CV90 was designed just in the last days of the cold war). And the bonus of it is that it got civilian like maintenance. On top of this. And this is really smart part. Due to the army being a conscript army, they have a civilian profession, and they try to as far as possible shift the profession over to a similar role in the army. If you are a truck mechanic in the civilian, you are a mechanic in the army. And its likely you will work on the very same engine. If you where aircraft mechanic, at least in the 80s and 90s, you maybe work on a DC9 in the civilian, you may work on a viggen RB8 in the airforce, basically the same engine. My father is a doctor in the civilian, so he was assigned as a field doctor. I´m an civl-engineer in the civilian, so i was assigned as a army-engineer (due to the situation in the 90s i was unassigned quite quickly), and my Brother was a landscape engineer.. so he was assigned as a cock... well, all professions don´t transfer. Your hobbies and general health also matters. This might be surprising, a very common army posting for a engineer is a ranger position. It turned out that engineers are excellent rangers. (yea.. i didn´t pass the fitness test for that). My nephew that is a software engineer become a field ranger. They did 100 km running march with packing. That is a bit to hardcore for my liking (granted, the 100 km running march, was like for extra bonus, they was not required to do that)

[@ros8737]

There are really no such issues by NATO concerning Swedish air forces who contributed 8 Gripens to enforce NATO’s no fly zone in Libya 2011. It seems it all worked just fine.

[@matso3856]

If anything , they got upgraded from tactical to strategical assets based on thier performances

[@tommyholmbom6151]

I would say dispersed air force capabilities are not a major issue for US but it might be one way to keep an air force operational for a longer time in case of smaller countries... My guess is that it comes down to efficiency for the cost, partly to buy but also to operate..

[@PaRadiZer]

@tommyholmbom6151 It is worth mentioning that the USAF lately has tested austere basing concepts as part of the Agile Combat Employment (ACE) initiative, including the F-35, F-22 and A-10. However while this concept would seem like a no-brainer, it depends on each country's different need and circumstances. Back in the 70s the Norwegian Air Force evaluated the SAAB Viggen and this very concept. They concluded, based on geography, that the concept wasn't suitable for Norway. In effect: Norway was long and narrow facing a Soviet invasion from the north, whereas Sweden was wide and primarily facing an attack from the east over the Baltics. Thus, the Viggen was developed for this scenario (as is the Gripen) with short range whereas the Norwegian jets would be fighting over longer distances. As an old timer I spoke with, who were part of the fighter evaluation back then, commented: 'The Swedes fly "across" whereas we fly "along"'. So the Viggen was an excellent fighter, but its short range was one of the reasons it fell through and the F-16, having much better range, was chosen.

[@TommyEngdahl]

Build many weaponsplatforms as JAS Gripen in wait for able drone weapons platforms. They are no longer fighters as seen from fighter vs fighter in close combat. They should be fast response weapons platforms with many weapons hardpoints

[@henrikwannheden7114]

18 seconds in, and I just have to comment on the excellent pronunciation of Gripen. In Swedish, it's much more like [greepen] than [grippen].

[@rayceofhistory]

I definitely appreciate it. When I first started doing Swedish content I asked about pronunciations about all sorts of systems and platforms. Unfortunately the vowel sounds still throw me off when I just come across the words, but there are a few I’ve memorized by now and the gripen sounded like a double ee is one that’s just stuck in my head for some reason.

[@connywestlund924]

Just say grippen only huge neards giv a darn. We know what you mean with jazz grippen😂

[@LoneWolf731000]

One important thing to keep in mind here when speaking of and comparing things between Sweden, Us or other countries is that Sweden and Us are practically the opposite of each other when it comes to defence, take the Us navy, the big ships are built and fueled to be able to sail for 20 years and all around the world but our Gotland submarine is built particulary for coastal defence, perfectly designed to patrol and defend Sweden and our Nordic brotherhood, also our fighter jets are designed and built for the same, local defence including our nordic brotherhood with the hostile Russia kept in mind. Our military is not built to operate all over the world but defending particulary our nordic region but now when we are a nato member, we will be adapted to assist within nato as well.

[@michaelpettersson4919]

If Gripen was as successful as the CV-90 IFV it would be mass produced and dirt cheap. It could actually happen if the right decisions are made.

[@HelmetmanTheSwede]

It is possible to play Candy Crush in Jas 39 Gripen

[@rayceofhistory]

🤣🤣

[@mikaeljonsson4686]

Candy Crush is old tech but Hay Day for sure! 😂

[@henrikwannheden7114]

Of course, since Candy Crush is a Swedish game.

[@matso3856]

It comes with all ABBA songs preinstalled

[@SonsOfLorgar]

And you'll probably be able to play Fallout5 on a CV9040C's commanders tactical display 🤣

[@johankaewberg8162]

The CV90 tank/launcher/infantry carrier/whatever is modular and upgradable in a similar way.

[@matsv201]

Its a bit unfair to call it just a upgrade. Grippen E got a new airframe (about 60%), new wing, new engine, new cockpit, new EW and radar. Its like landing gears and nose cone that is left from grippen C. With that, grippen is not alone with a upgrade like this. That is also true for F18 to F/A18 and sort of kind of for mig 25 to mig 31, granted they also change the name.

[@P0intL3ader75]

The US usually haven't had so much quality prior to conflicts until hard lessoned learned. The different in many western or central European countries is that we have so much of generation knowledge and adaptation of warfare going thousands of years back compared to USA there's really no brainer there. Yes, USA is great at what it does but it still learns as it develops new tech, but tech only takes you to certain length.

[@gabriellasvensson4384]

I love your comment to these videos! I'm not very knowledgeable about the Swedish army (i'm a swede myself), but it's very interesting nontheless! Have a good one /Gabbi

[@rayceofhistory]

I appreciate it!

[@kjelljohansson1799]

Hi im an old officer in the army now in pension. I have some questions . Do you think a soldier be better if i yell at him until he wet the pants? I dont think so, all people have a brain, we in sweden tests all soldiers befor start to know what work will fit them best. If a soldier make a mistake he will not learn a shit if you yell at him in an hour,but he will be afraid to do what he should do so the chance he do wrong gain be hughe,and he will bee enormous afraid of that drill sargent.. Instaed you can first of all he must learn what to do,second rehersel time after time untill he can do it in sleep. a nossle on a hose is a nossle and it fit one way so if the motor is runing or not doesent matter because the soldier should concentrate to atatch the hose not fiddel in the motor. and its the same for all members in the team eatch of them have a specific task to do. not build a new plane. you can hit or yell or do what ever with a soldier but he will not be better just unsertain. its human beeings not animals and if you as chef is polite they will follow you in daeth, bad behavior and you got bad soldiers or deserters. i have 27 years in the army and iv never yelld at a soldier to learn him something. disiplin comes out of that you are a professional not a sadist.Kj

[@rogerviklund7894]

True!!!!!

[@DanBergmanSE]

The gripen e is larger, so.. comparable to what you did with the f18.. but only by 3% compared to the 20% on the Hornet 😂

[@cidie1]

you always have interesting videos!

[@rayceofhistory]

I appreciate it!

[@Karl-Benny]

See how long it takes and how expensive it is to upgrade the F-35

[@petter5721]

I read that Norway will spend about 55% of their defence budget on the F35 programme over time. That is insane….

[@rayceofhistory]

Oh yeah when referencing the countries not moving toward generational aircraft anymore the US does not fall in that category. Now there are some in the US, specifically the AF hierarchy, that want new fighter programs to be in five year increments from now on. They argue for more upgradeable and cheaper to produce craft, but as of right now that’s not exactly the way the US is going about their stuff.

[@PaRadiZer]

​@@petter5721 5.5 percent is more accurate. The Norwegian Government has repeatedly stated that the F-35 will be 20 percent more expensive to operate than the F-16 Actually, we can test this. The F-35 will cost 316 bn. NOK in future value to acquire and operate from 2015-2054. The accumulated defense budget in this period, assuming a fixed today's budget, is roughly 5500 bn. NOK in future value. Sum: 316 is 5.7 percent of 5500. So your figure was probably a typo or someone didn't have their glasses on.

[@connywestlund924]

That 316bn does that include flight hrs and maintenance costs?

[@kentnilsson465]

In regards to the question if this is about Nato countries or Nato as a group. It doesnt really matter since the Nato countries more or less operate with the same operational policy. As for desert storm, Saddam Husein made a serious error invading when he did. In 1991, Nato and the west in general was just coming out of the cold war and were at its peak. Never before or since have they been as good operationally. What they did then, they cant do today and if they wanted to get to that level again, it would probably take them 10 years to be that good or get close to it.

[@rayceofhistory]

I think that’s probably true in regards to operational tactics and capabilities as a group. As far as resources as a total..I’m not totally sure. While there is absolutely no doubt the vast majority of NATO ramped down defense spending and defense projects as a whole post soviet collapse, the U.S. ramped up so hard post 9/11 that I’m not sure it doesn’t at least close to even out. In 1990 the US defense spending per macrotrends was 325.13 billion. It was over 800 billion in 2021 and only accounting for “on the books” budget. Since we know there are military bases that the US operates that aren’t officially recognized, it’s assumed by many military experts that this number is probably closer to a trillion dollars annually. Could the US fill that gap of ramping down left by most of the rest of NATO? Maybe not. But I feel like they could make the gap much closer than it initially appears to be.

[@stiglarsson8405]

Yeah, I like his analyse, and yours to.. and then it boils down to, is there any lessons to learn!? Yes, there is this "limited military operation" of Russia against Ukraine!!!!! All Ukraines airbases was atacked at the begining, and there airforce suvived becuse they dispered there few resources beuces they have Sovjet typ of jets, that is made for and able to be dispered and operate even in war time situations! Does everyone need to buy JAS 39 Gripen.. I dont think so, but many NATO countrys need to evaluate there ability and budget restrains of there NATO comitment! Lets buy F35, we know they gonna get wiped out the first day of war, but becuse of us buying those jets.. USA is gonna come and save us.. and then we are on the wining side!?!?! I say this is a problem for NATO and USA.. at first, NATO want/need smaler nations to be able to protect there airspace.. at least for some weeks befor US congres votes for a full war effort! Its still this, in wartime, good enough is good enough to still fight back.. in peactime its moe about budget restrains and central comand!

[@carro-xb9oz]

this plane can land and start almost anywhere'

[@Halli50]

The 'Muricans tend to go for extremely high-tech and cutting-edge military aircraft - that are also out-of-this-world expensive! 'Murica tends to solve problems by throwing shitloads of money at it. The driving force? My uneducated guess: The Military-Industrial companies that are out to milk everything they can from a really fat purse that is really willing to be milked. A country like Sweden (only 10M citizens, 1/30th of 'Murica) cannot afford this, and they are no doubt getting FAR more bang for their buck (or SEK). When USSR imploded, many nations thought that eternal readiness for war was over and done with and resources could be used for constructive purposes - how wrong we turned out to be!

[@rayceofhistory]

I think there are relatively few American civilians who would argue that defense budget spending isn’t pretty excessive. I’ve talked about this with a few Swedish friends in regards to support for Ukraine, or why it’s a bit more complex here than just for or against. Many Americans feel like they were taken for a ride by the pentagon and military industrial complex in the wars in the Middle East. So when we pull out of afghanistan and then immediately start backing Ukraine, it has a lot of people feeling like it’s just another reason to keep the defense spending going. Which I can’t really blame anybody who feels that way. And we have sort of a running joke on discord about the defense programs that have been funded by the US that turned out to be so impractical it’s almost laughable. So I have little doubt many countries get a better bang for their buck on lots of different platforms and systems. My guess is that for many the excess is worth it as long as systems are still coming out that are top of the line, which those systems do exist, there are just some pretty big misses in there too.

[@werre2]

Gripen is cheap to operate and looks cool. Swedes may be gay but their military hardware is potent.

[@PaRadiZer]

@werre2 Not that simple. Consider that the Gripen has lost out in every competition so far in part because of costs.

[@mikaeljonsson4686]

@@PaRadiZer Underbid is probably more like it....

[@PaRadiZer]

@@mikaeljonsson4686 That would imply that numerous nation's fighter programs, even those where the Gripen did not participate, do not know what they are doing, which is very unlikely.

[@TWFydGlu]

@@PaRadiZer despite the cost you mean. Buying aircrafts is as much political as economic or military decision.

[@Ruppe62]

This system is fore the Sweds only,

[@lasse3412]

Swedish crap !

[@Anders_Eriksson]

LOL Nice to see someone who really knows what he's talking about.🤣🤣🤣

[@yamahaevo]

Im so happy i didn't get your brain when i was born.