Bad or Worse

The Swedish defence industry is at a cross road. During the Cold War the defence industry was supported by the Swedish Government. Experiences from WWII tought the Swedes a valuable lesson. When military equipment is needed, everyone need it at the same time. During a war a small country is at the very end of the list of customers who will receive what they have already ordered and in some cases even paid for.

There were a number of incidents:

- J 9. Sweden bought 120 Seversky Republic EP-106 in 1939. In US service known as P-35. However the war came before they were all delivered and the US decided to keep 60 of the aircraft. Some of the went to war in the Pacific against the Japanese, still wearing Swedish national insignias. Read more at LAE, here, here and here. Also see this video. 144 x Vultee P-66 Vanguard, designated J 10 were also not delivered to Sweden. Read more here. Sweden were forced to buy whatever aircraft they could find on the international market.

The outbreak of war greatly affected Sweden's military buildup, as the USA stopped deliveries of hundreds of new US aircraft to Sweden (among them 60 P-35A and 144 P-66 Vanguard). Only 62 other airplanes had been delivered before the embargo took effect. To complete its war preparations, Sweden searched for other sources, eventually ordering 84 of the Caproni Ca.313S, 72 of the Fiat CR.42, and 60 of the Reggiane Re.2000, an order totaling some 90 million crowns.

The Italian aircraft were not of the highest quality, resulting in many airmens death during the neutrality watch over the Baltic.

- Italian destroyers. In 1940 Sweden needed to enhance the Navy capability to be able to protect the Swedish coastal transports of Iron-ore from northern Sweden from attacks by Russian submarines. Four destroyers were bought from Italy. During the transport back to Sweden the four ships were taken into custody by the Royal Navy. Protests from the Swedish government resulted in that the destroyer could continue to Sweden. The were attacked by RAF on the way to Sweden, but without damage. The Swedish navy were humiliated and many Swedish officers were pro-Germany at the time.

During the Cold War it was important to have a strong Swedish Defence industry in order to truly be neutral and not depending on the west or east block. But nowadays the political ambitions are to buy on the global market at the lowest possible price. EU regulations state that all government purchases should be done by a public bidding process inviting every European manufacturer. The problem is that not all other countries are as willing to follow European laws as Sweden. In most countries the local defence Industry are supported by their government. It is no surprise that e.g. France buy their fighters from Dassault and UK from EADS/BAe.

In Sweden some politicians still believe that there are a need of a strong local industry and that they will need support by the Swedish Government. Otherwise they will have problems to compete on the international market against other manufacturers who get support be their governments.

But there are other possibilities. E.g. for the aircraft manufacturer Saab, there are today a number of very interesting options.

- Sell Gripen to Iraq. At the moment the Iraq government is planning to buy 18 x F-16 from the US. Of course it would be very difficult to compete with the Americans, since they have all the political and military contacts in Iraq. Sweden also avoided getting involved i the Iraq war. Selling military material to Iraq could result in major public outrage in Sweden.

- Work more closely with other aircraft manufacturers. To avoid being absorbed by bigger companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, BAe and Dassault the best option might be to cooperate with smaller countries. One very interesting partner is the South Korean company KAI. They are at the moment starting a partnership with Indonesia to manufacture a generation 4.5 fighter.

Established through a merger of three companies in 1999, KAI has a modest experience of developing the indigenous KT-1 Wong Bee trainer, license-producing F-16K and joint-developing T-50 advanced trainer as well as making parts for F-15 (forward fuselage and wings).
...
The KFX will be developed from T-50 Golden Eagle, a supersonic advance jet trainer jointly developed by KAI and the US Lockheed Martin, with the latter provided the avionics system, flight control and wings. In addition to the US, it is possible that Israel also contributes through an Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar that will be built domestically in South Korea.

But South Korea is in a hot zone with a troublesome neighbor. Sweden has always been neutral in this conflict and as such part of the NNSC - Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission at the Korean border. A lot of thankful people who were treated at the Swedish UN hospital in Pusan during the Korean War has commented on this page. Sweden´s EU membership and the close cooperation with NATO, including fighting with NATO in Afghanistan and Liberia, is on the verge of kicking Sweden out of the commission. A Swedish company cooperating with a South Korean to build a fighter could be the final step for North Korea to ask NNSC to remove Sweden from this task, which would be a political setback.

Both these opportunities are of course just fantasies. But if the Swedish defence industries are forced to find international cooperation and business opportunities there will be a risk for political problems for the Swedish government.

During the years there has been a number of political incidents related to international arms deals.

- During the Vietnam war, the Swedish Prime minister, Mr Olof Palme publicly condemned US involvment in the conflict. At the same time Swedish companies sold weapons to both US and Australia that were used in Vietnam. Loved by US soldiers were the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle and the 9 mm submachine gun was used by US Special Forces.

- Well known is the Bofors scandal where a employee of Bofors leaked dokuments showing that Bofors bribed key politicians in the Indian government when the bought Bofors Howitzers.

- Saab has problems in South Africa due to the cooperation with BAe to sell the Gripen. Saab president Mr Håkan Buskhe has denied all involvement in any bribes to the South African government and put the blame on BAe.

"A person emplyed by BAE Systems has without Saab’s knowledge signed a for us unknown contract, signed for us up until now unknown transactions as well as signing the audited and apparently inaccurate financial statement for 2003.

The investigation and assembled materials have been submitted to the attorney Tomas Nilsson, who has been asked to comment whether, in his view, the investigation material supports Saab's conclusions. All investigation material has been handed over to Chief Prosecutor Gunnar Stetler at the National Anti-Corruption Unit on Saab's behalf. Saab will be at the complete disposal of the Chief Prosecutor in this case, should such a need arise.

"Saab has a zero-tolerance policy towards irregularities. Our internal investigation and openness in this matter demonstrates how seriously we regard this," says Håkan Buskhe.

Most likely what Mr Buskhe says is true. BAe has been involved in other shady affairs where there are rumors about bribes, e.g. the Eurofighter sales to Saudi Arabia. But wouldn´t it be best for everyone if the lid was kept on? Why do we Swedes always keep digging into our own dirty laundry?

This clearly shows that if the Swedish government does not support the defence industry, they are forces to work on the international market using the same methods as their competitors. These methods are not compatible with Swedish law and traditions. Mr Buskhes acknowledge to the money transaction might be honorable in Sweden, but in international business it might be a financial disaster. International companies might in the future avoid cooperating with Swedish companies since they too often leak information. International customers might avoid Swedish companies since there can be no bribes which unfortunately is what many customers are used to.

Supporting Swedish defence companies might be bad for the Swedish Government since this requires Sweden not to fulfill each and every EU regulation regarding public purchases. On the other hand Swedish companies getting involved in shady business might be even worse for the Government.

SvD

All Means Available

Michael Yon has a post on his Facebook page about "respecting the enemy and then beat them down". Obviously he is talking about the Taliban. He also posted a link to the Youtube video below.

I think it is very interesting to see the responses from Michaels "friends". Some of them believe there is a difference between Kamikaze pilots during WWII and suicide bombers during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Todays suicide cowards have nothing on these guys. Kamikaze pilots went full on after hard, military targets, can't say the same for the suicide cowards."
...
"Kamikaze attacks are a legitimate military tactic. Suicide bombing of civilian targets is a criminal tactic."
...
"If these kamikazes are so "honorable", as so many here claim, then where are the great American suicide warriors? What is the deal w/ our propensity for patronizing certain groups of people who do awful things? The way American blacks have been "compassioned" into functional oblivion comes to mind."

But what is the actual difference between the two ways of waging war? Is there any targets more legitimate than others during a total war? Can a war be kept at a "just" level?

First of all, the Kamikaze pilots were not seen as "honorable" during WWII by the US, but as crazy lunatics in the same way as Taliban suicide bombers are seen today. For the Japanese the Kamikaze was a final drastic tactic to stop the Americans from reaching Japan. The "Divine Wind" was a reference to a legend when the Mongol invasion of Japan in 1274 and 1281 was stopped by typhoons. One reason for the Kamikaze tactics was the lack of trained pilots. Japan could build new aircraft, but could not replace all the pilots that were killed in air battles such as the one during Midway or the "Great Mariana Turkey Shoot". A Kamikaze pilot did only get some very brief lessons on how to start his aircraft, follow his leader, a seasoned pilot who knew how to navigate and then dive onto his target. (Does this reminds anyone about the "pilots" that flew the passenger aircraft into the Twin Towers during 9/11?) The lack of skill resulted in that most pilots missed their targets completely and the Kamikaze tactics was in reality to very little effect. But the US seamen feared the Kamikaze. The psychological effect was much larger than the actual physical effect. This was maybe what the Japanese wanted. One final effort to make the Americans understand how costly it would be to attack the mainland Japan.

For the Taliban, suicide bombings is the only way to engage the US and ISAF troops with any chance at all of winning. Asymmetric warfare per definition. And yes, they are killing more civilian Afghans than western military troops. But their goal is not to kill all ISAF troops, just to spread fear in the same way as the Kamikaze. They do not only want ISAf to fear the Taliban, but also the population at home to fear more killed soldiers (and loose the political will to continue the war) and the local Afghan population to fear supporting ISAF. In a way the are using the "Hearts and Minds" tactic, but not as we in the west are used to.

Unfortunately killing civilians is a reality in war. Accidentally or intentionally. During WWII the allied used terror bombing against Germany. "Bomber" Harris preferred night time bombing since the German fighters were less of a threat at night to his bombers. Unfortunately the only targets that could be hit from high altitude at night was entire cities. The tactics was then changed into "frighten the civilian population and make them want to end the war". Exactly as Douhet had once predicted was the perfect mission for Air Power. Did it work? Maybe in the long term after years of bombing, but it also made the population want to defend their country more. The US dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs over Japan. It was to "save american lives since a invasion of Japan would be very costly". Maybe they were right about that. The invasion of Okinawa showed the Americans how hard the Japanese soldier fought for their home land. The resistance of the Japanese (including Kamikaze tactics) ultimately led to them being hit by atomic bombs. But I doubt the west will see the atomic bomb as the final solution in Afghanistan.

Even with precision weapons a lot of civilians die today in Iraq, Afghanistan and now in Libya. The Taliban are clearly killing more civilians and so are colonel Gadaffis troops. But are we morally any better than them? We have a just cause and therefore it is a just war? Maybe, but we do accept civilian casualties to reach our objectives, even though our politicians will never admit to that. In Sweden we have a saying about this, "the end justifies the means".

One reason to why the Taliban suicide tactics might work in Afghanistan is because every Afghan know that the west will leave them in 2014. President Obamas promise to withdraw his troops by that date has given the Taliban a timeline. A classic saying is that "You (the west) has all the watches, but we (the Taliban) has all the time".

How has fear been used in historical wars?

One example is during the US Civil War, when general Sherman brought havoc to the south during his "March to the Sea". Modern analysts like Liddel Hart states that Sherman was the first modern general who declared total war on the south. The north won the war, but in the south they still remember the torching of Atlanta, known from the movie "Gone with the wind".

Machiavelli once said that "A Prince can choose to be loved or to be feared by his people. But, there will always be another Prince that is more loved and therefore more preferred by the people to be the next leader. However, there will be no other Prince that is more feared and at the same time more preferred by the people. That is why it is wise to use fear to rule the people". Today the west always try to be loved and therefore have a hard time competing with those who rule the population by fear.

One of the very few wars that can be used as a role model for a successful COIN - Counter Insurgency campaign is the one in Malaya 1948-60. The British soldiers gave birth to the tactic known as "Hearts & Minds". Unfortunately too many believe that this means being nice to the population and winning their friendship. In reality, the British soldiers used some very harsh tactics including moving entire villages in order not to be able to support the guerrilla. There is a very fine line between this tactic and the concentration camps used during the Boer War.

What we want in every COIN-campaign is winning the support of the population. But since everyone know that we will be leaving Afghanistan there is no support to win. Everyone know the Taliban will return to power when ISAF leave and they rightfully fear the Taliban more than they love us.

I am not trying to defend the Taliban tactics. It is clearly not morally acceptable from a western point of view. But we need to understand how this type of tactics have been used historically to be able to win the war. The Malayan campaign took 12 years. The British then had the advantage of the colonial background with knowledge of the population and the terrain. This together with a clear goal that the population would be able to build a new free country (the Afghan already have one) and a stable income to the government based upon natural resources (there are none except opium in Afghanistan) made it possible for the British to succeed. It would take many more years to succeed in Afghanistan. Time we clearly do not have and the Taliban can afford to wait.

In Sweden analysts now fear the withdrawal from Afghanistan, "It will be bloody". And the planned future tactics using UCAV to kill leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda will continue to take a toll from the civilian population. Do the western world actually have the guts to use these tactics? Or will the coalition break down and leave the US to continue the fight from outside Afghanistan? Are we prepared to use all means available to win the war or are we crippled by our own moral standards?

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

PAF Build-up

I found this interesting video (see below) of PAF - Pakistan Air Force pilots flying in Chinese Su-30 MKK.

This "exchange program" is of course partly due to the fact that China is very close to Pakistan and has for long been a key supplier of aircraft technology to PAF. But for Pakistani pilots to fly the Su-30MKK must be very interesting since one of their main opponents in case of a new war with India would be the Su-30 MKI. India and Pakistan has fought two air wars (1965 and 1971, the PAF avoided the Kargil war in 1999), and the ongoing conflict in the Kashmir is far from solved.

What do the PAF have in their arsenal to use?

- 192 x Chengdu F-7/J-7 "Skybolt". This is an good interceptor aircraft due to high sped and good climb performance. But other than that it is only an outdated Mig-21 copy. The Mig-21 was outperformed by the Mirage III during the Israel Six-Day War. F-7 will be replaced with the JF-17.

- 121 x Mirage III.

- 60 x Mirage 5. The Mirage III and 5 have been upgraded during Project ROSE. The aircraft have been fitted with flight refueling probes to train pilots before the convert to the JF-17. Most probably the newest Mirage III/5 will be in service for a number of years as an attack aircraft, but sooner or later they will also be replaced with the JF-17.

- 42 (150-300 will be delivered) x JF-17/FC-1 "Thunder". Jointly developed by Chengdu Aircraft Industries Corporation (CAC) of China, the Pakistan Air Force and the Pakistan Aeronautical Complex (PAC). The wing geometry look very F-16 to me. The fuselage have a lot in common with an ordinary Mirage. This aircraft will in the future be the backbone of PAF. The avionics in the JF-17 were supposed to be upgraded by France, but after protests from India (where France hopes to deliver Rafale fighters) the contract has been put on a hold. There are also rumors about the licence built Klimov RD-93 engines not being allowed by the Russians to be sold to other countries, which might stop export of the JF-17 to other interested countries. In the last video below there is a flight display with the JF-17. The RD-93 smokes in similar way to the RD-33 on the Mig-29. My guess is that the JF-17 will be used mainly for attack-missions with a fighter capability mainly for self defence. Se more on the defence.pk forum about JF-17.

- 63 x F-16. Mixed force with old F-16A/B Block 15 and 18 x newly delivered F-16C/D Block 52. Another 14 F-16C/D Block 52 has been ordered. The old A/B will undergo MLU - Mid-Life Upgrade in Turkey. Since Turkey is a NATO allied, and the Turkish industry is working on US blue-prints to perform the MLU, the MLU could be stopped if US wants it.

- 36 x Chengdu FC-20/J-10 will be delivered in 2014-15 and maybe the contract will be for up to 150 aircraft. According to rumors it was initially based upon the Israeli Lavi design, but later Chinese knowledge of the Russian Su-27/J-11/Su-30 MKK has most probably been introduced. But the planned cooperation with western avionics industries was cancelled. This might be a big disadvantage comparing to Su-30 MKI which has state of the art avionics from French and Israeli industries. Instead Russian made avionics or Chinese improved versions have been used. See more on defence.pk forum about the J-10.

Both the J-10 and the JF-17 has 1553 and 1760 databus, which will make it easier to integrate western avionics and weapons. But considering the problem Pakistan have with handling the situation in Afghanistan it is far from sure that western avionics will be available.

Against these aircraft the Indian Air Force have on the front line some 159 x SU-30 MKI (will be 272), 51 x Mirage 2000H, 69 x Mig-29, 200 x Mig-21, 147 x Mig-27 and 169 x Jaguar IS. 48 x HAL Tejas are being delivered, but are far from operational. 128 x MMRCI are under negotiation with Rafale and Eurofighter on the shortlist. 200 x FGFA (PAK-FA T-50 derivate) will be developed jointly between India and Russia.

One very interesting fact from a Swedish point of view is that the PAF is using 4 x Swedish Saab 2000 EAW (similar to the Saab 340 EAW the Thai Air Force have just made operational). These will be used together with 4 x Chinese Shaanxi ZDK-03 (Y-8F600). What kind of datalinks they will use is not easy to say. But I think that no data communication systems delivered separately by Sweden and China would be able to communicate. Instead the PAF must have integrated a system of their own. If this is the case they have a even bigger problem to solve if they want to integrate this C2 system into their F-16. The JF-17 can probably be lead by the Chinese AWACS, but to what use? The only reason would be a one-way data communication to increase situational awareness and in order to avoid Indian fighters. The J-10 in combination with the ZDK-03 could be a very good defensive force and maybe also fly top-cover for the JF-17 acting as bombers.

How long will the US support to PAF continue? The F-16 has an interesting story in Pakistan. US has for many years put Pakistan on their Military Embargo List, but the war in Afghanistan has made Pakistan an important ally in the region. The Usama Bin-Laden case has however clearly shown that Pakistan is not an ally that the US could rely on. Now when the US are withdrawing from Pakistan, the support to PAF will probably be reduced.

Altogether, about $800 million in military aid and equipment, or over one-third of the more than $2 billion in annual American security assistance to Pakistan, could be affected, three senior United States officials said.

This aid includes about $300 million to reimburse Pakistan for some of the costs of deploying more than 100,000 soldiers along the Afghan border to combat terrorism, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in training assistance and military hardware, according to half a dozen Congressional, Pentagon and other administration officials who were granted anonymity to discuss the politically delicate matter.

Some of the curtailed aid is equipment that the United States wants to send but Pakistan now refuses to accept, like rifles, ammunition, body armor and bomb-disposal gear that were withdrawn or held up after Pakistan ordered more than 100 Army Special Forces trainers to leave the country in recent weeks.
...
American officials say they would probably resume equipment deliveries and aid if relations improve and Pakistan pursues terrorists more aggressively. The cutoffs do not affect any immediate deliveries of military sales to Pakistan, like F-16 fighter jets, or nonmilitary aid, the officials said.

The only thing that might make it possible for Pakistan to have future support from the US is their possibility to help stopping the war in Afghanistan. When the US forces are leaving in 2014 there need to be a stabilizing force in the region and this could very well be Pakistan, since the other option (Iran) is not an option at all for the US politicians. On the other hand, if the conflict between Pakistan and India is not solved there will be very little interest for Pakistan to solve the conflict in Afghanistan since they fear to be surrounded by countries with interest in Pakistan territory (Pashtun tribal areas and Kashmir).

Without US support, PAF will be more dependent upon China.

What makes me a bit worried is that there is a well-known absurd logic in Cold Wars. If there is equal strength, nothing will happen. If one country is much stronger than the other nothing will happen, unless there is political will to do so. But if there is equal strength and one country feels that the other may get an upper hand, this country could be forced to act otherwise it would be to late.

The PAF build-up is one reason for why the Indian Air Force is looking for new aircraft. The Su-30 MKI is a capable aircraft, but will have problems with the J-10. Especially if the PAF pilots find some weakness that they can explore.

PAF has the last years been upgrading their aircraft fleet, but numbers is not always everything. Their aircraft (with exception of J-10 and the F-16 Block 52) are a generation older in design than the Su-30 MKI. One reason for why the numerical advantage of the Indian Air Force is being reduced is the scrapping of older aircraft types. But in their place there are now modern aircraft. It will also be so in the future with the introduction of the winner of the ongoing Indian purchase (Eurofighter or Rafale) and the next 5:th generation joint Indian/Russian version of the PAK-FA T-50. I therefore still believe that PAF would be not match for the Indian Air Force as their force structure look today, no matter what the Pakistan propaganda on the Internet say. But maybe the Chinese support will continue in the future with deliveries of the J-20? Then the Pakistan vs India conflict would in all practicality be a technology test area for Russian and Chinese aircraft technology.

Pakistani pilots testing the Su-30MKK.



Propaganda video of the new PAF aircraft.



Indian TV news about the rising capability of PAF.







JF-17 display.



SvD1, SvD2, SvD3

Thai Gripen Operational

Today RTAF - Royal Thai Air Force declared the Gripen fighter and the Saab 340 AEW operational.

RTAF now have 10 Gripen pilots and 30 technicians that have been trained in Sweden. They have also undergone CRT - Combat Readiness Training in Thailand with support of the Swedish Air Force Support Group at Wing 7. More pilots will be trained in Thailand. These pilots and technicians will form the core of the first Gripen squadron and maintenance unit. Since the Gripen is much less demanding when it comes to maintenance compared to F-5/F-16, RTAF is now fully prepared to operate the Gripen.

But how does the future for the Gripen in Thailand look like?

In a comment on the Swedish Air Force blogg, the Gripen News Thread believed in more good news in Thailand and hinted about "ADF". The only ADF-related thing that I could find using Google and the search parameters "thai air force ADF" was the RTAF F-16.

The first 12 Gripen that has been ordered by RTAF will replace the old F-5 at Wing 7 Surat Thani. The first 6 Gripen has already been delivered and the next 6 will be delivered in 2013. But what will happen with RTAF F-16? The F-16 used in RTAF are old Block 15 F-16A/B. They have recently been modernized in order to keep them flying a few years more. But maybe there are ongoing negotiations about replacing them with more Gripen fighters?

RTAF has approximately 30 x F-5 and 57 x F-16. 18 of the F-16 are undergoing structural upgrade program to prolong their life length to 2025. To replace the F-5 there is a possibility that RTAF will buy 18 more Gripen. If the oldest F-16 will be replaced, this could possible result in as many as 39 more Gripen, in total a possible contract for 57 Gripen and more in 2025. The new Prime Minister in Thailand has promised increase in economical support for the poor people of the population i Thailand, so most probably this will result in that the Armed Forces will not get as much money as they want. On the other hand I suspect that the Prime Minister want the support of the military commanders in order not to repeat her fathers fate, so maybe the reduction in the military budget will not be as big as it could have been.

My guess is that RTAF will replace at least one squadron of F-16 with 18 Gripen and buy 6 more to Wing 7. Then in 2025 RTAF will probably buy a further 18 to replace the last F-16 squadron. 42 more Gripen for Saab to sell to Thailand will be a good boost in the economy while they wait to see what happens with the future for Gripen E/F.

DefencePro, Flight Global
Expr, DN, SvD1, SvD2

Austrian Upgrades

The Austrian Air Force will soon receive their first upgraded Eurofighter. Austria bought second hand Tranche 1 Eurofighters from Germany. It was a big surprise for Saab who thought the deal was almost signed with Austria to buy the Swedish Gripen.

Maybe Saab was too confident to get the deal? Austria has a long tradition of buying Swedish Aircraft. Both countries were neutral after WW2. Saab B-17A, Saab J-29F "Flying Barrel", Saab J-35O "Dragon", Saab 105Oe (still in service) and Saab 91D Safir has been part of the Österreichische Luftstreitkräfte inventory. Maybe not always the most powerful aircraft, but the Austrian Air Force was not allowed to have any other weapons on their aircraft but guns according to a treaty with the Soviet Union signed at the end of WWII. But after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1989 there was new possibilities. When the war in former Yugoslavia started in 1991, the Austrian government felt threatened and decided to upgrade their J 35 with Sidewinder missiles and more modern avionics.

In order to prepare for the planned Gripen, Austrian pilots flew the Saab JA 37 "Thunderbolt" at F21 in Luleå for a number of years between 1999 and 2002. Since all Austrian pilots have been trained at F10 Wing in Ängelholm in Sweden, some of them were still speaking basic Swedish. Then in 2003 the Austrians choose the Eurofighter because it was cheaper than the competitors.

The eventually negotiated price for 18 EADS Typhoons is EUR 1,959 billion, including all system- and support costs, and the financing of 18 half-year payments from 2007 onwards. The offer for Gripen was only between 3 and 4% cheaper in cash and 5-year payment, and not much more even in the targeted 9-year payment. This is nothing near being acceptable for an aircraft with 30-40% less capability in climb-rate (important for small airspaces), radar, processing-reserves etc.

Most aircraft deals have rumors about bribes and this one is no exception. But there has been no proofs. Clearly the price/performance was a decisive factor, but they also got the oldest Eurofighters that Germany did not want to operate (compare Tranche 1 with the problems Germany had with their newer Eurofighters in the Baltic QRA). Most probably they got a costly deal regarding maintenance. As I understood the 2003 deal was with Germany, not directly with EADS. This new deal is with EADS and will probably lower the maintenance costs.

The Eurofighter has not been very successful in Austria. The Tranche 1 is a very basic aircraft with mainly air-to-air capability. This might not be a big problem for Austria since they mainly use their Air Force for defensive homeland protection with focus on QRA - Quick Reaction Alert. What is worse however is that the flight hour production is very expensive and the MTBF is also too low. The result is that their pilots are not flying very much and they have also few trained pilots. If some of the pilots would leave for civilian airlines it could result in that the Air Force is almost wiped out of existence.

Budget constraints mean the fleet is restricted to 1,200-1,300h annually, although Stadlhofer said this is to rise to 1,500h by 2015. Each of Austria's 14 Typhoon pilots flies an average of 70-80h per year, while another two are being trained.

Did the Austrians get a good deal in the end? Well, compare the introduction of Eurofighter in Austria with Gripen in the Czech Republic:

- Austria: Contract signed 2003, first delivery in 2006, final delivery (out of 15 a/c) in 2009. Flight time production up until 2011 is 3200 fh.

- Czech Republic. Contract signed in 2003, first delivery in 2005, final delivery (out of 14 a/c) in 2005. Flight time production up until 2010 was more than 10.000 fh.

In Sweden there is a saying, "What you don´t get as income from the swing you will get from the carousel". Austria got their Eurofighter at a bargain price, but they are now paying more to get full tactical functionality and they are also paying a lot in operating cost. The total cost of an aircraft is always = acquisition price + upgrades during life time + yearly cost * life length.

Time For Delivery?

The first Dutch F-35 is now under assembly at the Northrop plant.

Northrop Grumman has completed the centre fuselage for the Netherlands' first F-35A Lightning II,
..
It will then be integrated with the other major sections for the conventional take-off and landing aircraft: its Lockheed-produced forward fuselage, cockpit and wings; and BAE Systems-built rear fuselage.

The Dutch has ordered two F-35 to start with. These test aircraft will be used for training the first cadre of instructors. Norway are planning to buy four test aircraft to do the same. UK has bought three test aircraft and the first UK pilot has already flown the F-35B (even though as it looks right now UK will buy the F-35C conventional carrier version). Outside of the US these are the only F-35 that has actually been bought yet! The rest are just on the "to-be-decided"-list.

Some countries has not even decided which configuration of the F-35 they will buy. UK is choosing between F-35B/C. Canada is planning to buy the CF-35 with drag chute and drogue AAR refueling (there are ongoing discussions in the Canadian government regarding ordering a special version of the F-35, since it will be very costly for the Canadians). The drag chute is for landing on icy runways. Note: Norway might also be interested in this version of the F-35.

One thing that has not yet been decided, or at least not been made public, is the final export configuration of the F-35. There has been rumors about the stealth capability being less effective on the export version and that not all of the jamming capability will exported. Maybe this problem will be automatically solved if the US does not have money enough to finish the development of these capabilities.

Many F-35 customer are now facing problems with the non-existing time overlap between the last day of operations with their existing fleet of aircraft and the introduction of the F-35. E.g. the Norwegian F-16MLU and the Canadian CF-18 will probably be grounded for good before the first flight of the F-35 in their respective Air Forces. Maybe this will result in that some countries need to buy another aircraft. My guess is that the F-15SE and the F-18E/F will find customers among countries that today are on the F-35 interest list.

How effective will the F-35 be? RAND Corporation has done a simulation of F-35 and F-18E/F versus Su-30 for the Australian Air Force with some bad news for the F-35.

The clear implication of the RAND study is that the F-35 is very likely to wind up facing many more “up close and personal” opponents than its proponents suggest, while dealing with beyond-visual-range infrared-guided missiles as an added complication. Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is described as “double inferior” to modern SU-30 family fighters within visual range combat; thrust and wing loading issues are noted, all summed up in one RAND background slide as “can’t [out]turn, can’t [out]climb, can’t [out]run.”

Worst of all is that the price tag of the F-35 keeps going up. In combination with the bad European economy it will of course affect how many aircraft that will be bought.

But, instead of the poor European customers there are other potential markets coming up. President Obama has given go-ahead to Lockheed Martin to offer F-35 to India. In the FX-3 program in Brazil, F-35 will most probably be an contender. Israel is very interested after Saudi Arabia decided to buy Eurofighters and F-15E.

Finally I recommend this documentary about the F-35.