New orders?

What will the future for the Swedish Armed Forces look like? Well, a lot depends on the success of the current international operations that Sweden has taken or takes part in.

The Air Force has recently pulled out of Libya. The military part of the operation has been a success. Gadaffi is dead an the rebels are in control of most of Libya. However there are a lot of weapons that has not been accounted for. There is a huge risk for a civil war in Libya if the National Transitional Counsil does not take control of the country and disarm the rebel forces. The "Arab Spring" has resulted in the removal of tyrants, but can very well result in the installation of new ones. In Tunisia the islamic party Ennahda has won the election. Hopefully it will not enforce religious laws on the population. In Egypt there are still riots on the streets even after Mubarak was forced to resign. And these were the "peaceful" rebellions. What will happen with Libya?

In Afghanistan the future looks very unclear. ISAF will pull out in 2014. The Swedish troops in Mazar-i Sharif will start to pull out during 2012. This is a decision by the Swedish government supported by he Social Democrats and the Green party. 150 soldiers will leave during 2012 and in May/April 2014 the unit will leave the country. During 2012, three of the provinces will be transferred to ANSF control. The Swedish helicopter unit will stay. Unclear for how long. They have today two HKP 10 Super Puma and will after 2013 replace them with HKP 16 Blackhawk. After 2014 about 200 Swedish personnel will be in the country training Afghan units. But who will ensure their safety? If the security situation in Afghanistan will not be good enough in 2014 I seriously doubt that any Swede will stay in he country. Unfortunately the violence has increased in he northern provinces. If this is due to increased activity in the south and a change of operations in the north is hard to tell.

If the result of these Peace Enforcing missions will be countries left in chaos, then I believe that the Swedish government will change its policy and return to Peace Keeping missions.

But what do the Swedish politicians have to say about the future?

In a recent article in the Swedish paper "Svenska Dagbladet", Peter Hultquist (Socialdemocrat) and chairman of the Defence board of the Swedish national assembly (Riksdagens försvarsutskott) said that the opposition will not see Sweden lead another EU Battlegroup in the future. He also criticize the new logistical organisation and most of all the professional soldier system that last year replaced the conscript system. He stress the importance of supporting the Swedish military industry and in the near future the new A26 submarine.

I agree on the need to cancel Swedish involvement into EU Battlegroups. There is no future in building up the EU military capability as an alternative to NATO. The only countries that realy want this are those outside of NATO, such as Sweden and Finland. The other can not afford even a NATO-membership, even less extra cost for an alternative force structure. If Sweden want to take part in Rapid Reaction Units, then it should be NATO QRF. The Sedish Air Force squadrons are very adapted to this, which clearly the Unified Protector campaign showed. The Gripen Aircraft has NATO IFF, Link 16 and Have Quick radio. The pilots are trained in NATO-tactics and the staff units are used to NATO ATO - Air Task Orders.

I also agree on the need to investigate alternate solutions to the professional army. The recruitment basis for officers and soldiers will be too small. I also fear that the Swedish civilian population will have less understanding of what the Armed Forces are used for. My suggestion is to return to the conscript system, but have a three month training, much like the three month "boot camp", GMU - "Grundläggande Militär Utbildning"/Basic Military Training that is used today. Volunteers can the go on with the rest of the training to become soldiers, NCO:s or officers.

The development of the A26 submarine is also good in order to keep the knowledge of submarines development at Kockums. However Kockums is no longer a Swedish company, but owned by German ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems. To say that Swedish military industrial knowledge is preserved is not accurate. The socialdemocrat politicians has also historically has a close connection to the industry. In some cases this has resulted in just developing military material rather than developing military capability.

Well, what is the governmental response on the Socialdemocrat critique?

Ceciilia Wennerström and Hans Wallmark of the Moderat-party response by saying that future Battlegroups will be pulled from regular army and air force units. They also say that the reason that the air force unit could be sent to Libya was due to tha fact that it was part of the Nordic Battlegroup NBG11 in standby alert. They also focus on the need to support EU military capability.

Well, what to say?

There is a big discrepancy. In the same article they say that the reason to why Sweden succeeded in sending the Air Force unit to Libya was because it was on high alert, but also that in 2014 any unit could be sent abroad without being specifically put on high alert.

Both statements are wrong!

The Swedish Air Force has always been on high alert and taking part in around the clock Combat Patrols over Sweden as part of the Swedish QRA - Quick Readiness Alert. The only difference today is hat the squadrons are trained in NATO-tactics and that the aircraft are NATO-compatible. That the Air Force can respond quickly without being part of a Battlegroup is shown by the change of the uit down in Libya when F17 Wing (that was part of NBG11) was replaced during the summer by F21 Wing that was on ordinary Air Force alert.

To say that any unit could be send abroad as is after 2014 is also not correct. There are no Swedish units that look exactly as needed for international missions. It must be put together specifically. And then it is also a need to train the unit for the mission in order for them to up and running. As best individual platoons or even maybe companies can be sent as is. The rest including civilian doctors, nurses etc has to be recruited. The army units hat are planned to be sent to Afghanistan know exactly what they are preparing for and can be sent for pre-deployment training about half a year in advance. But to say that all units will have this capability at the same ime will never be possible. It is too costly for the Armed Forces. It all depends on the level of training they have received to say that they are on high alert. In the Air Force there are four combat squadrons. One will be on alert. One will be on rest after an alert period. One will perform basic training of new personnel and one will be preparing to be on high alert the next period.

This kind of articles are unfortunately only propaganda. The Swedish minister of defence has not earned his nick-name "Baghdad Bob" for nothing. He and his followers has not changed their opinion even though a lot of officers are complaining that the planned future for the Armed Forces has not received a balanced budget. To have a complete Armed Forces in alert cost a lot of money. Professional soldiers are more expensive than setting up units for international missions when needed.

The focus on EU is also catastrophic. Sweden is today in need of an international ally. EU will never be this ally. The only available ally is NATO. Do Sweden want to continue in this direction which will sooner or later result in he need to join NATO?

The problem with both the Socialdemocrat and the Moderat defence polisy is hat the budget is too small to handle all ideas. The Moderat future will end in that the Armed Forces will strive to keep their personnel due to lack of training and lack of money to pay decent wages to the professional soldiers and NCO. The Socialdemorat future will end in that the Armed Forces can not rain due to much of the economy is lost to "sponsor" the Swedish military industry.

It is fortunate for the Moderate party that I agree on their economical politics that has steered Sweden clear from the economical disasters that has affected the rest of Europe, because I do not agree on much of the current military politics! Unfortunately the Socialdemocrat ideas are not much better financed. And since the rest of their politics is not financed as well I will stay away from voting on them.

SvD1, SvD2, SvD3, SvD4, SvD5

Italy is Pulling Back

Italy is starting to pull back units from the NATO "Unified Protector" mission over Libya. The reason is lack of money. The financial crisis in Europe has resulted in Greece having to get loans from the European Central Bank in order to stabilize their economy. Italy and Spain is next on the PIIGS list of countries who are very near the same financial disaster as Greece. Both Italy and Spain are involved in "Unified Protector" and probably both countries will reduce their involvement in the operation.

First to leave is the Italian aircraft carrier Garibaldi.

"We have cut back costs in Libya, from 142 million euros forecast in the first half of the year to less than 60 million for the second half," Defense Minister Ignazio La Russa said after a government meeting.

The news came after Italy's Cabinet moved to cut spending military spending.

The plan had been drawn up to pull the Garibaldi, its three fighter jets and 1,000 personnel out of the mission as they were "no longer necessary", La Russa said.

What will the future be for the Italian Air Force? Lt. Gen. Giuseppe Bernardis, Chief of Staff, Italian Air Force has in an interview discussed his view on "Unified Protector" and the Air Force future. Focus is of course the replacement of Tornado and AMX with F-35A/B aircraft.

Q. The Italian Air Force has planned to replace its AMX fighter bombers with the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing F-35B, starting from 2014, before replacing its Tornados with the F-35A. But Defense Undersecretary Guido Crosetto has hinted that buying just F-35As might be the order of the day, given the delays in the STOVL program.

A. We still have a need for both an F-35A and B. The delay of the B is not a problem. We are ready to reconsider the whole thing in light of the probation period for the B. We are ready to switch to the A as the initial order. We do not forsee IOC [initial operational capability] before 2018 in Italy for either type, and the first ones will remain in the U.S. for training purposes. The buildup of the F-35A fleet would be at the end of the decade, as the Tornados draw closer to being phased out.

Q. One advantage of the getting the Bs first was that the AMX, which they are due to replace, will be retired before the Tornados. What happens if the AMX phaseout starts before the Bs arrive?

A. AMX phaseout will start gradually, and it is scheduled to take place without losing significant operational capabilities due to the fact that aircraft with the latest upgrades will be dismissed last. In this way, we will still perform all the assigned missions, only with fewer aircraft.

The UK has used their Eurofighters for strike missions. But Italy has focused on using Eurofighters for CAP - Combat Air Patrol to secure the NFZ - No Fly Zone. Initially this was performed by F-16 ADF. The air to ground missions have been performed by Tornado IDS and AMX. SEAD missions by Tornado ECR and IDS. Recce missions by Tornado IDS. Italy are planning to remove the Eurofighters altogether from Unified Protector since there is little need for fighters over Libya and instead increase the number of AMX involved. This is of course also a financial decision since the Eurofighters are more expensive to operate than the AMX.

The Italian Eurofighters have during June been on Iceland for training. Maybe they will support NATO in the air defence over the Northern Seas together with UK and Norway instead of the Libyan mission? In this way UK can focus more on the Libya mission.

Will Italy be able to continue with the introduction of both Eurofighter and F-35?

There is one big advantage by operating two different types of aircraft. If there is e technical malfunction that affects the whole fleet of aircraft there is an alternative solution to be able to continue flying. That is one of the major reasons why USAAF traditionally has been operating at least two different types of fighter aircraft and also why there are at least two different design bureaus involved in an offer to produce the next fighter aircraft. But this is also a very costly solution. Two aircraft types results in two logistic needs for spare parts etc and the need for training pilots and technical personnel on two types. However since Italy buys the aircraft together with other nations they can use other nations facilities for training and other nations logistics for international missions.

Tranche 3B of the Eurofighter development has been put on ice. This means no AESA-radar for the Eurofighter and bad news for UK/Italy company Selex Galileo. But since Italian Alenia Aeronautica is a member of the Eurofighter consortium, they will most likely put political pressure on the Italian government to continue with the Eurofighter upgrades. Italy has a big part in the Eurofighter production.

19.5% Italy (121). Alenia Aeronautica: Left wing, outboard flaperons, rear fuselage sections

Note: Italy has already cut down the number of Eurofighters on order from 121 to 96.

My guess is that the Italian Air Force will have to cancel their order of the F-35B. The rising prize of the F-35 in combination with the Italian bad economy will result in cuts in their Air Force. But there are Italian companies involved in the local production of F-35 and they will of course also put political pressure on the Italian government.

I also believe that it will be very expensive for the Italian Air Force to have both Eurofighter and F-35 with the same type of capabilities. Most probably the Eurofighters will focus on the Air dominance missions (as they have done so far during Unified Protector) with a second hand role of doing air to ground missions while the F-35 will focus on what the Tornado and AMX do well ant that is strike and recce missions. The Eurofighters will most likely never be upgraded to increase their air to ground capability. I am not exactly sure what Tranches the Italian Eurofighters belong to and if all will be retrofitted to Tranche 2 standard or only to Tranche 1 Block 5 standard by the R2 update program. Today only the UK has Typhoon FGR4 with capability to carry Litening Laser Designator Pods and Paveway Laser Guided Bombs. (The picture above is from flight testing).

Here is a summary of all Eurofighter Tranche and Block variants.

It will be interesting to see which aircraft manufacturer (EADS, Lockheed Martin) that has invested the most in Italian aircraft industry. My money is on that the Eurofighter will win this financial battle.

Together with the cuts in the Air Force Italy will most likely be one of the first nations to start cut their forces in Afghanistan. Today there are 4.200 troops in Afghanistan. Since Obama has set the time line for 2014 withdrawal, this gives the excuse for Italy to start removing their troops. The economy will in this case be a more decisive factor than actual success in stabilizing Afghanistan.

The bad Italian economy can affect Sweden's military operations as well.

- Italian withdrawal from Libya will increase the need for other countries to continue. Swedish Gripens fly 25% of all recce missions over Libya and deliver 37% of all photos produced. The UK has sent four extra Recce Tornado down to the Mediterranean, but there will always be need for intelligence. Maybe Italy can provide extra intelligence with their Raptor UCAV, but they are still not yet operational. This might also put extra pressure on Sweden to start using the Gripen in air-to-ground role, but I suspect that even if NATO asks for this type of capability, there will be no Swedish political will to do these types of mission.

- In Afghanistan the Swedish government is planning to remove the Swedish troops by 2014. The removal were planned to start 2011, but so far nothing has happened! On the contrary Sweden has sent down to HKP 10 Super Puma helicopters that will be replaced by HKP 16 Blackhawks in 2013 and there is ongoing plans to send down Shadow 200 UAV at the end of 2011. There has been very few political discussions on how the other nations troop removals will affect the security in Mazar-i Sharif and how to synchronize the Swedish removal with that of the others. If some nations, e.g. Italy start to emove their troops ahead of the major pull back, then other countries will have to take a larger part of the overall mission. Since the economy of Sweden is one of the strongest in Europe I would not be very surprised if NATO asks Sweden to increase rather than decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan until 2014.

India Getting Closer to France

Only Eurofighter and Rafale are left in the Indian MMRCA evaluation. Who will win? Who knows, but in the battle-proven aspect, Rafale is clearly in the lead with one tour of duty in Afghanistan and now doing all kind of missions in Libya. The Eurofighter has dropped a few bombs in Libya, but RAF mostly let the Tornado do the mud-moving and leave the Eurofighter to do the top-cover. The Eurofighter is not yet fully ready for air-to-ground missions.

The first part of the MMRCA evaluation was about fulfilling the Indian Air Force technical requirements. To get the best aircraft possible. The second part of the evaluation is about economy and industrial cooperation.

Technically the Rafale may be in lead, but what about the cooperation between French and Indian industries?

France has sold a number of aircraft to India over the years.

Besides the Russian aircraft (Su-30 MKI, Mig-29 and Mig-21), the main fighter aircraft in the Indian Air Force is the 51 x Mirage 2000H, which will now be updated to Mirage 2000-5 standard.

India has approved a $2.4-billion proposal from French defence groups to upgrade its fleet of 51 ageing Mirage fighter jets, a military source said on Thursday.

"The defence secretary has agreed to the proposal put forward by French defence majors Dassault and Thales and (European group) MBDA for the Mirage-2000 retrofit," the source in the Indian Air Force (IAF) told AFP.

The upgrade is expected to include advanced navigation systems, mission computers, electronic warfare systems and radars.

The deal was signed in 2010, but put on hold since France also made some business with Pakistan and were almost on the way to sign a contract to deliver avionics to PAF JF-17. France however decided that the Indian contract, including the chance of selling Rafale, was worth more than the deal with Pakistan.

Note: One very interesting aspect of the Pakistan deal was that the Rafale was out of the MMRCA evaluation for a while, but when France started cooperating with Pakistan they were back in again...

Russia may be the main partner in the Su-30 MKI deal, but there are a number of companies delivering western avionics to the aircraft, many of them French.

- SAGEM Sigma-95 integrated global positioning system and ring laser gyroscope inertial navigation system.

- Thales Topsight-I Helmet Mounted Sight is used in Indian Mig-29. A modified version will be integrated in Su-30 MKI by Indian manufacturer SAMTEL and HAL. Thales did also deliver the displays in the SU-30 MKI, but now they are delivered by SAMTEL in cooperation with Thales.

France do have some ongoing business with India. We will soon know if this will be enough to win phase two of the evaluation.

The Rafale has one other big advantage over the Eurofighter and that is the Rafale-M naval version which could come as a bonus for the Indian navys new carriers. This is however a requirement that is not included in the original specification used during phase one. But both Eurofighter and Gripen are looking into developing a naval version of their aircraft.

This review of the Rafale by a British pilot is worth reading.

New Threats

In Afghanistan the Swedish PRT Mazar-i Sharif has become more violent the recent year. The number of attacks has doubled since last year. Now the US and the French troops have starting their withdrawal. All according to Obamas timeplan to start the withdrawal in 2011 and let the ANSF be fully in charge of the security in Afghanistan in 2014.

But the focus seem to be more on the time plan than on actual achievements. Is there an increased security to motivate the withdrawal or is the presidential election in 2012 more important? Obama need to show progress in Afghanistan before the election rally starts. Maybe thee has been improvements in Helmand, but then the Taliban has moved to other regions e.g. RC North. This could be bad news for the Swedes in the so far relatively "calm" PRT Mazar-i Sharif.

Can we protect the civilian population in Afghanistan? This is one of the main reasons for being there. Well, the number of civilians that has been killed due to attacks by ISAF or the Taliban has increased by 15% the last year. Even the most protected afghans have difficulties to avoid being killed by the Talibans, which was clearly shown by the killing of Ahmad Wali Karzai, brother to president Kharzai. If he civilians feel that ISAF can not protect them, then they are more ore less forced to support the Taliban.

There are also new threats that could seriously change the safety of the ISAF troops.

The Taliban has been using IED to attack convoys on the roads and suicide bombers to attack civilians in the cities. All to show that ISAF can not guarantee the safety of the population. But now snipers have appeared. They seem to have been trained outside of Afghanistan.

Toolan, who runs NATO’s Regional Command Southwest, said many of the snipers attacking his troops speak Farsi or Arabic, meaning that the fighters likely come from Iran and other neighboring countries. Other U.S. officials in Afghanistan say Iran has significantly escalated its support for militants there, providing long-range rockets, money, and technical assistance. Tehran denies the charges, but Toolan said some of the snipers appear to have been trained outside of Afghanistan.
...
Snipers have killed approximately 20 troops in Helmand this year, according to a military official at the Pentagon familiar with the data. Coalition forces have lost 84 troops in Helmand in 2011, according to icasualties.org.

Up until now there has been very few attacks on ISAF aircraft and helicopters using MANPADS - hand held missiles. A few attacks have been done using RPG volley attacks, but the Stingers and SA-7 that were used during the Afghan-Soviet war are too old and could not be used. But the war in Libya might change that. In the same way as the Iraq war released a lot of former Saddam Husseing government weapons to the black market a lot of Colonel Gadaffis weapon can reach the wrong hands. In Ghadaffis weapon stores that are in the hands of the rebels are among other things fully working SA-7, and there are also rumors about more modern SA-24 in Libya.

On a recent day, 43 emptied wooden crates — long, thin and painted in dark green — had been left behind on the sand inside the entrance. The boxes had not been there during a visit to the same spot a few days before, and the weapons were gone.

The stenciled markings showed each crate had contained a pair of lightweight missiles called SA-7s — early Soviet versions of the same class of weapon as the better known American-made Stingers, which were used by Afghan fighters against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was not clear who had taken them. The rebel guards variously blamed Qaddafi forces and misinformed opposition fighters.

During more than four decades in power, Colonel Qaddafi’s often bellicose government is thought to have acquired as many as 20,000 of these missiles, known as Manpads, for Man-Portable Air-Defense Systems, in arms deals with the former Eastern bloc.

If these missiles reach Afghanistan int would change the threat scenario for ISAF. Helicopters are the prime targets since they are slow and flying at lower altitudes. This could also affect the Swedes since there are Swedish HKP 10 Super Pumas in RC North being used for MEDEVAC. They will be replaced in 2013 by the new HKP 16 Blackhawk.

More Taliban attacks in the north, Taliban snipers and possibly SA-7 in the country. 2011 can be a very tough year for ISAF and the Swedish unit in RC North.

When is a No a No?

The NATO intervention in the Libyan civil war clearly shows how different the European countries act. I does not even depend upon if they are NATO-members or not. Finances and political will out-weights their NATO-obligations in a time when the threat from Russia is almost non-existent.

France went into action with haste and did not even wait for the rest of NATO to act. With support of USA and UK they stroke first with long distance missiles (US and UK only) and then with precision attacks to take out the Libyan air defence. North Africa has always been of particular interest to France.

In the Scandinavian countries there are also big differences. Norway and Denmark are at the front and are dropping more bombs per aircraft than any other country in the Alliance. Denmark is even out of bombs and have asked Holland for more. Finland choose to not send any of its F/A-18. Sweden, a non NATO-member, chose to send 8 Gripen aircraft and 1 C-130 tanker for air refueling. The aircraft are limited to recce missions only since the Swedish politicians are very afraid of civilian casualties.

Germany, one of the biggest and most powerful NATO-members also chose not to intervene in Libya. But this is just a political masquerade. Germany has agreed to send more AWACS personnel to Afghanistan in order for other NATO-countries to send personnel currently in Afghanistan to support the mission in Libya. Germany has also agreed to provide those NATO-countries that are out of ammunition with bombs from German supplies. I.e Germany are not doing the job themselves, but are making it easier for others to do it instead.

With the number of "smart" bombs dropped on Libya estimated at more than 2,000 some Nato allies have seen their stocks dramatically depleted.

Both Denmark and Norway are understood to have asked for more bombs through the Nato Maintenance and Supply Agency and the German defence minister Thomas de Maiziere has granted permission to release stocks.

Note: Out of 2000 "smart" bombs, Denmark has dropped 487!

I wonder for how long the NATO-countries can afford to drop the expensive "smart" bombs? Will the start using "dumb" bombs when the stocks are out and the finances does not cover buying more bombs from Germany or USA?

In this happen there will be more demand on the skill of the pilots to correctly identify their targets and then release the bombs at the correct coordinate. The precision will of course not be as good as with laser- or GPS-guided bombs. Therefore the safety margins and the ROE - Rules Of Engagement must be changed. Each country then also have national caveats within the ROE allowing their personnel to do less than what the ROE in itself states. Within the ROE and the national caveats there will also be more up to the pilot to say "no". After all, he/she is the only one with good information about the ground scenario. In Libya the NATO-forces lack FAC - Forward Air Controller that can identify the targets more precise. There are some Special Forces units on the ground that are cooperating with the rebels, but there is no information about them being used as FAC.

In Afghanistan there are rumors that Danish and Norwegian pilots (among others) have refused to bomb targets that did not look legitimate to them. Precision weapons have one big disadvantage, and that is the need for precision intelligence. It does not matter how small targets you can hit, if it is the wrong target. Precision weapons also make it possible to bomb closer to civilians and your own units which increase the risk if something goes wrong.

During the Iraq War there was numerous incidents with blue-on-blue and civilian casualties. Australian pilots have reported 40 occasions when they did not deliver their weapons because the targets was not correct.

But it appears there were fundamental differences between the US dominated headquarters and Australian pilots over what constituted a valid military target.

Squadron Leader Pudney said under Australia's rules of engagement pilots had to ask themselves on each mission whether it was right to drop their bombs.

"Each guy would have made that decision once to half a dozen times in the conflict. It was presented as being just one pilot in one incident, but it was all of us several times," he said.

If e.g. the Swedish politicians does not want their pilots to take these decisions then it is correct to do as they have done to limit the Swedish Gripen to only perform recce missions. But someone has to do the fighting otherwise the Gripen photos will be of no use other than documenting Gadaffis war on his people. Unfortunately there is no possibility for a pilot to say "Yes" to a mission his leaders have forbidden him to do. In this case it is only for him to watch, as was being done i Rwanda and Srebrenica by the UN-forces. But sometimes you can be punished for doing nothing. The dutch government has lost a case in the Haag tribunal for not protecting three men in Srebrenica. 8000 people were killed in Srebrenica, will their families sue the dutch government also?

What will this court decision lead to? More countries taking more responsibility for their actions and getting involved to protect civilians or some countries avoiding the international missions completely in order to avoid any risk of doing anything wrong.

SR

Preparing For War

The second batch of Swedish Air Force personnel are preparing to go down to Italy as part of FL02 - "Flygvapnet Libyen 02" (Air Force Libya 2:nd unit), the Swedish task force taking part in NATO mission Unified Protector over Libya. The Swedish political decision to prolong the mission came very close to the date when the unit needed to be ready for transport down to Italy. So this is a very good test of how well prepared the Swedish Armed Forces are today.

By January 1, 2011 the new employment contract was introduced in the Swedish Armed Forces. This new contract makes it mandatory for all personnel (military and civilian) working in the Armed Forces to when needed be sent to international operations. During the autumn 2010 there was a lot of turbulence in the Armed Forces, since the new contract was mandatory to sign, otherwise you were forces to leave the Armed Forces. The Supreme Commander and the Minister of Defence both stated that the new contract was needed, otherwise it was not possible to continue sending Swedish units on international missions.

But how prepared are the armed forces today? Is it possible to send any unit on international missions without a lot of mission specific training?

The Nordic Battle Group trained for a year in order to be available during the 1-2 quarter of 2011 for international missions within the force structure of EU. The Battlegroups has been criticized since there seem to be very little political interest and financial possibilities for the EU to actually deploy a Battlegroup. NBG08 cost a lot of money to train and keep on alert, but nothing happened. NBG11 has been on alert for 6 months, but nothing has happened even though there have been escalation of conflicts in e.g. Sudan.

A unit that is sent to Afghanistan train for approximately 3-6 months depending on the position within the unit. Maybe this will change in the future, but even though army units can take a core company there will always be need for specialists to accompany the unit to the mission area end this personnel also need to be trained as part of the unit.

FL01 was build up mainly by personnel from F 17 Wing in Ronneby that was already on international alert as part of NBG11 EAW - Expeditionary Air Wing. FL02 will be organized mainly by personnel from F 21 Wing in Luleå. F 21 are well prepared, since they also were on international alert during 2010, and were planning to be on alert during 2012. So a lot of the pilots were already combat qualified and current on e.g. AAR.

But in order to be available for international missions just having aircraft and personnel is not enough. The units must be trained in the type of missions that are planned and their flying status must be good enough.

NATO demand 160-180 flying hours per pilot per year. If the entire Swedish Air Force would be at this high alert it would stress the economy a lot. A squadron also need time to train new pilots and to replace the old guys retiring or leaving for HQ duty or schools. Therefore there will never be a time when all pilots in the Air Force are in combat status.

There is also a lot of special training needed. One example is AAR - Air to Air refueling. In order to be "current", a pilot need to train every 90 days. The only AAR-tanker available in the Swedish Air Force is the Tp 84/C-130 Hercules that is currently down in Italy. It has now been sent back to Sweden to train the F 21 Wing pilots and also check out some new C-130 crews on how to handle this specific aircraft.

There are also a lot of other equipment that is in short supply in the Swedish Air Force and is therefore difficult to train with in Sweden, since most of the equipment is down in Italy. Most Air Force pilots are today well trained in CAS - Close Air Support that was planned to be their major contribution to support the army units in a Afghanistan type of mission. Now they are going to Italy as recce pilots!

It will be interesting to see if the Swedish Air Force can continue with the planned activities for 2011. It was planned to send a unit to Red Flag in Alaska during 2011, but will there be any personnel and aircraft available? Will there be any budget left for this kind of exercise? Unified Protector is a sort of Red Flag exercise and has shown that the Air Force units has been trained well enough.

The supreme commander and the minister of defence focus of getting all officers to sign the new contract is not what counts when it comes to be ready for international mission. What counts is to get realistic training in the same type of equipment that will be used down in the hot zone. The old saying is that "You must train as you fight". Unfortunately the truth is too often that you train as you can afford and then fight as what is needed in the operation. This is of course quite risky since the operational procedures can differ quite a lot from the training.

Interesting to note is that a lot of the planned Red Flag exercises in Nellis has been canceled for 2011. Maybe the European (and American) units are to occupied with Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? US minister of Defence, Mr Gates, was to the point when he criticized Europe for our lack of capability/capacity to support the mission in Libya. Sweden is doing its best, but it put heavy stress on the Air Force organization.