Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Military Strategy and Tactics
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1965a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0358a.JPG

Miramar_14_GR4_1646a.JPG

Miramar_14_LF_0221a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Sweden/Soviet Union provocative actions

This is a discussion on Sweden/Soviet Union provocative actions within the Military Strategy and Tactics forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; This is not official and still classified. My sources are interviews made by swedish newspapers, books and documentaries. During the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old August 6th, 2006   #1
Lurk-loader?
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: some place
Posts: 566
Threads:
Sweden/Soviet Union provocative actions

This is not official and still classified.

My sources are interviews made by swedish newspapers, books and documentaries.

During the 50s the signals intelligence equipment was placed in DC-3s. And pretty often the DC-3s crossed SU territory, SU usally responded by sending 1-5 Mig-15s and Mig-17s to make the plane leave their territory. But 13.19-13.27, 13th June 1952 a DC-3 filled with american equipment got shot down by a Mig-15. All eight in the DC-3 died and the plane smashed in the baltic sea near the Sweden/SU border. SU denied this have happened. The 16th June 1952 a swedish Catalina aircraft was searching for the DC-3 when it was attacked three times by several Mig-15 on Swedish territory. The pilot manage to land in the water but the Catalina sunk very fast, all crew members survived. SU stated that it had entered SU territory.

SU flight chart for target 303(blue) and Mig-15-fighter(red)
12.15-13.44, 13-06-1952.
http://www.mil.se/images/local/flygkarta.gif

Through out the 60s, 70s and 80s it got really tensed between Sweden and SU. In the 60s Sweden signed a top secret treaty with USA that in case of war Sweden will be granted access to USA nuclear-weapons and it was dugged up that the swedish supreme commander shared information about the Swedish Air Force tactics, numbers and aircrafts peformance with SU.
In the mid 60s Sweden together with NATO had found out where the SU radar stations in the baltics were based. So Sweden got ordered by USA/NATO to "test" the SU Air Force time to respond against a attack from the air.
The swedish plan was to order take-offs to 10-100 Draken fighters from several fighter wings across Sweden. Then these pilots would select a spot to form a tight formation and start cruise at 950 km/h at low altitude across the Baltic sea with the radar switched off. Just before they cross the Sweden/SU border they scatter the formation, climb to high altitude, turn on their radars and light their afterburners to reach mach 2,05. When this was done they continue until they could register SU-figthers on their radars, then do a fast turn and leave SU territory in a light dive to increase the speed. This happened at least once every third month. Sweden also did this with Viggen fighter/bombers in the 80s. SU also did this a few times mostly against Gotland.
Between 1980-1994 Sweden registered 45000 underwater objects near the coast and in the baltic sea. And in October 1981 U-137 probably armed with nuclear warheads, hit rock bottom( ) well, not rock but sand. This happened inside a military protective area near. This almost got Sweden and SU to a conflict because in the begining Sweden refused to let SU ships towe the sub. This continued and it became a small arms race, Swedish Armed Forces brought rangers, subs, corvettes, helicopters to the area and SU brought several frigates, subs to stand by outside the swedish border. SU tried many times to get other subs to the area but was stopped by swedish helicopters and torpedo-boats.

This is a very intersting topic. All these things is probably just the tip of a huge iceberg.
rattmuff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006   #2
Defense Professional / Analyst
Lieutenant Colonel
icelord's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Posts: 1,218
Threads:
Quote:
This happened inside a military protective area near. This almost got Sweden and SU to a conflict because in the begining Sweden refused to let SU ships towe the sub. This continued and it became a small arms race, Swedish Armed Forces brought rangers, subs, corvettes, helicopters to the area and SU brought several frigates, subs to stand by outside the swedish border. SU tried many times to get other subs to the area but was stopped by swedish helicopters and torpedo-boats.
wow, for a country thats been neutral for hundreds of years to stand in the face of a superpower and get ready for war, it would bring a bigger s**tfight then NATO doctrine could imagine. Would this have been the spark? NATO would need to step in to protect a neutral country, theres no alliance, but if you can't be neutral, then your in trouble.

Quote:
When this was done they continue until they could register SU-figthers on their radars, then do a fast turn and leave SU territory in a light dive to increase the speed. This happened at least once every third month. Sweden also did this with Viggen fighter/bombers in the 80s. SU also did this a few times mostly against Gotland.
It would be no surprise that the swedes and SU pilots toyed with each other, checking alert status here and there. It would be no surprise that sweden took out the catalina, but even if it was on the outskirts of swedens border.

Quote:
Through out the 60s, 70s and 80s it got really tensed between Sweden and SU. In the 60s Sweden signed a top secret treaty with USA that in case of war Sweden will be granted access to USA nuclear-weapons and it was dugged up that the swedish supreme commander shared information about the Swedish Air Force tactics, numbers and aircrafts peformance with SU.
Well, there goes the neutrality. but why share tactics with Soviets? I don't get it, was there some arrangement, or something worse, say a leak.

And cheers rattmuff for the info
icelord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 24th, 2006   #3
the corporal
Master Sergeant
Gollevainen's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: somewere in Hame, Finland
Posts: 335
Threads:
Well Sweden and Russia have been natural enemies since the Viking days so usually we where just cauth in the middle...

To us finns the most famous incidents of Swedish-soviet/russian skirmishes where the extensive submarine searhcing operations conducted by the Swedes and later found out that they where chasing seamamals

You can imagine it was extremely hilarious to us
________________
Once Gollevainen was biten by snake....

...after ten days of suffering the snake died
Gollevainen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2006   #4
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlottenlund
Posts: 520
Threads:
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattmuff View Post
This is not official and still classified.

My sources are interviews made by swedish newspapers, books and documentaries.

Through out the 60s, 70s and 80s it got really tensed between Sweden and SU. In the 60s Sweden signed a top secret treaty with USA that in case of war Sweden will be granted access to USA nuclear-weapons and it was dugged up that the swedish supreme commander shared information about the Swedish Air Force tactics, numbers and aircrafts peformance with SU.
Do You have any sources for this? Links, books or/and Papers?

Personally I have had no doubt that Sweden played the major powers against each other - with the result that Sweden today is in the doghouse.

I have been thinking about the assasination of Oluf Palme, where the police have looked everywhere, but in the right direction.
I think Palme was about to make an agreement with the soviets, that in case of a soviet overflight over ´Swedish territory in wartime, Sweden would do nothing. That would have left Nato with just 5 minutes observation time over Denmark (low level), which was to little to intercept low flying attack planes: Next landfall would have been the american bases in East Anglia. Please note that in the beginning of the 1990'ies Britain opened a new Tornado ADV fighterbase in eastern England (base name escapes me at the moment).

This was a course of action the USA would in no way tolerate - and presumeably after a severe warning - that wasn't heeded - he was knocked off by a contract hit. The assasination has every mark of a pro job (running away where no car could follow) of the mob (shot in the neck ¨pain in the neck). To frame Christer Petterson (that possibly had done something the Police couldn't nail him for) has always been a mysterie.
The official excuses for doing nothing are more than lame: The only explanation is that it is "known" who did it; but nobody can tell.

Svend Auken in Denmark got a similar warning by the US ambassador - Auken has told (even if he is a little economical with the truth at times).
At the time of the assasination there were 3 socialdemocratic prime minister in Scandinavia: Oluf Palme, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Anker Jørgensen.
Anker retired - at least partly for domestic reasons - and the liberal government had a lot of trouble due to the reneging of the social democrats to the Nato missile decision (could it have been payback time???). Gro Harlem Brundtland retired to a no-job in the UN - I'm one of the few that has actually read her report - which is a lot of selfcontradictory rubbish. AND Palme got knocked off.
Ths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2006   #5
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Don't forget Soviet spy sub missions on the Swedish coast. I've seen a picture in a book, I believe the title was World Seapower, where a Whiskey class SSK had runaground. It was particularly amusing since the sub went aground at high tide and the photo was taken at low tide, with the sub cocked at an angle. I'll see if I can locate the picture and get it posted.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 29th, 2006   #6
Banned Member
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlottenlund
Posts: 520
Threads:
Well that was the reference to u-137, known in Scandinavia as "whisky on the rocks".

The conslusions in Sweden are far from logical - a fresh poll shows that Swedes consider the USA the major threat to world peace.
Generally people care swat about foreign policy, and it is an area where the public is easily manipulated - as compared to f.i. tax-policy, where everybody very quickly calculate where their interests are.
In foreign policy the public will have to arrive to a conclusion without the benefit of reasonable knowledge - as much of it is classified.

The problem remains: Why is the very conformal Swedish population manipulated into anti-americanism?
The Swedish politicians - liberal and socialistic - are under pressure from the USA and/or are being thwarted. There is no doubt that Swedish foreign policy is NOT in sync with the USA.
The only time the swedish prime minister has visited the US president, it was because Sweden was meddling with the Baltic nations, and the Göran Persson was called on the carpet in Washington to explain what security guaranties Sweden could give these small nations - the answer was of course: None.

In Denmark - whichs is by no means pro-american, to many socialdemocrats still smart after being told the facts of life - there is a better compatability with US aims:
1. Stop russian nuclear subs from sailing: In the arctic north-atlantic we constantly have patrolling frigates. Of course the USA could do this as well; but it would cost money and lives to learn how to sail in those waters.
2. Protecting the Thule Air base by patrolling the EAST and NORTH of Greenland. Perhaps not the solution the USA would have chosen; but it seems to work.
3. The question of the defence of Iceland, where the upkeep of Keflavik simply was to much relative to the problem at hand. If I'm correct: The patrol line of the frigates is being pushed further north in harmony with the melting icecap.
4. Support to the new Baltic states, where the heavy handed US diplomacy ruffles sensitive feathers: They have recently gained independence from Russia and are not about to exchange one bully big brother for another.
5. In peacekeeping actions Denmark has sided with the USA and not with France - there are no benefits siding with France.
6. the worlds biggest container line is Danish and pro-american.

There are thus a host of issues where little favours allows Denmark a very large leverage, freedom of action and security:

None of the above applies to Sweden. There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet.
Another reason is that the independent Swedish defence industry is an illusion nowadays:
A. They are nowhere near to provide a full line of weapons, the last Swedish attempt to build a tank was a disaster. The navy doesn't sail and the airforce has come up with last years concept of a fighter - Gripen, which to be uncharitable is just an overpriced knock off aof the F-16.
B. Tehy cannot produce the weapons at an affordable price: The airforce requirement for a fighter has drained Swedish defence funds.
C. The Swedes are very much stuck in doing real well in irrelevant technology:
The submarines are good - provided Kochums doesn't build them - but if there are means to detect them, not being discussed in public - and I strongly suspect there are - otherwise the Danish Navy would not have given up their submarines.
Stealth corvettes; well if you can detect submarines, you can detect surface vessels.
Ths is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #7
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 67
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by icelord View Post
Well, there goes the neutrality. but why share tactics with Soviets? I don't get it, was there some arrangement, or something worse, say a leak.
And cheers rattmuff for the info
No, it´s a misstake. We (Sweden) did´nt share any info with the SU. We shared the info about "the Swedish Air Force tactics, numbers and aircrafts peformance with SU" to USA and UK. Rattmuff just to forgot to write the last part "to USA and UK".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollevainen View Post
To us finns the most famous incidents of Swedish-soviet/russian skirmishes where the extensive submarine searhcing operations conducted by the Swedes and later found out that they where chasing seamamals

You can imagine it was extremely hilarious to us
But you shurely know that was left-wing media trying to make the military look stupid. Afterwards, independant investigation-groups have made it clear that out of the hundreds incidents when swedish soldiers used live ammo against underwater objects only a few (less then a handful) could be explained as natural objects. The rest were manmade but origin unknown (but offcourse everyone knows from where). Finland also had it shares of unwanted guests in their archipelogy, why did´nt you do anything? Was it to risky to jeopardize the relations with SU?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
I have been thinking about the assasination of Oluf Palme, where the police have looked everywhere, but in the right direction.
I think Palme was about to make an agreement with the soviets, that in case of a soviet overflight over ´Swedish territory in wartime, Sweden would do nothing. That would have left Nato with just 5 minutes observation time over Denmark (low level), which was to little to intercept low flying attack planes: Next landfall would have been the american bases in East Anglia. Please note that in the beginning of the 1990'ies Britain opened a new Tornado ADV fighterbase in eastern England (base name escapes me at the moment).

This was a course of action the USA would in no way tolerate - and presumeably after a severe warning - that wasn't heeded - he was knocked off by a contract hit. The assasination has every mark of a pro job (running away where no car could follow) of the mob (shot in the neck ¨pain in the neck). To frame Christer Petterson (that possibly had done something the Police couldn't nail him for) has always been a mysterie.
The official excuses for doing nothing are more than lame: The only explanation is that it is "known" who did it; but nobody can tell.

Svend Auken in Denmark got a similar warning by the US ambassador - Auken has told (even if he is a little economical with the truth at times).
At the time of the assasination there were 3 socialdemocratic prime minister in Scandinavia: Oluf Palme, Gro Harlem Brundtland and Anker Jørgensen.
Anker retired - at least partly for domestic reasons - and the liberal government had a lot of trouble due to the reneging of the social democrats to the Nato missile decision (could it have been payback time???). Gro Harlem Brundtland retired to a no-job in the UN - I'm one of the few that has actually read her report - which is a lot of selfcontradictory rubbish. AND Palme got knocked of
This is total BS. Olof Palme may have critizized the USA during the Vietnam-war but he allways was knew that Swedens "enemy" were the SU and that our allies were the west. He was probably the biggest hypochrist there is- travelling all over the world to 3rd world socialists countries, communists and dictators declaring that Sweden was a friendly neutral country that supported them in their fight against fascism, when in fact he was a realist knowing that our military worked togheter with NATO and that our entire country was in fact a NATO-member without the sign on the paper.
Olof Palme was killed by a drug-addict named Christer Pettersson. He was convicted of that but later on relaesed due to technicalities. Christer died a few years ago and before that he admitted several times he killed Olof, everyone knows it, the police to, thats why they have closed the case....

BTW, Sweden have had much more cooperation with NATO besides the stuff rattmuff mentioned. Some examples; in the 60´s we built extra-long runways to host the B-52:s and other long-range NATO-bombers (out airforce shure did´nt need those runways), we stored fuel some NATO-bombers needed and built tools so that we could arm them on swedish bases, NATO key-personell often trained in swedish command- and radar centers and vice-versa, swedish and norwegian airforce trained together including landing-procedures on northern swedish/norwegian airbases etc etc etc etc etc.... the list goes on...
Maskirovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #8
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 67
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
Well that was the reference to u-137, known in Scandinavia as "whisky on the rocks".
About that U-137 or "Whiskey on the rocks" incident. At that time Sweden, and perhaps the world, were seconds away from war. The russian commander at the scene had decided to fight their way into the swedish waters and save their comrades and started to move towards the border. It was a pretty big naval-force too, several cruisers, destroyers and frigates. Much more than the swedish navy could mobilize in that area. But we had our airforce and some coastalartillery. At the same time that started to move against our border our prime minister "Thorbjörn Fälldin" told our forced "-Hold the borders, at all costs". Viggen-fighters armed with SSM´s (RB-04) took off and the coastal-artillery locked their fire-control-radar onto the russian ships, they had their finger on the buttons but in the last seconds the russians were given orders to withdraw. Just a few hundred meters from the border, that were some tensed seconds... The russians tested the swedes and never thought that we would dare riscing open war, but when it became clear that we would have slaughtered their first wave they withdrew...
Another tence moment was when the swedes intercepted the radiocom. from the sub to their high.command in Kaliningrad. And Kaliningrad ordered the crew to blow up the sub(suicide) if they were invaded. The scary part was that the sub had nucleartorpedoes/mines and at the same time a swedish invadingparty were on the way. The rangers were quickly called back....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
The conslusions in Sweden are far from logical - a fresh poll shows that Swedes consider the USA the major threat to world peace.
U-137 was in 1981. 26 years ago, what does that have to do with the fact that most swedish (and most european for that sake) consider USA as the major threat to world peace. The cold war ended 17 years ago, USA have invaded Iraq and everyone knows it was a mistake. It´s another world now and this has nothing to do with anything...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
Generally people care swat about foreign policy, and it is an area where the public is easily manipulated - as compared to f.i. tax-policy, where everybody very quickly calculate where their interests are.
In foreign policy the public will have to arrive to a conclusion without the benefit of reasonable knowledge - as much of it is classified.
Don´t know what your talking about. I think people in general are very concerned about foreign policy and how we could contribuate. Not even when there where swedish soldiers killed in afghanistan there were any voices raised about what we were doing there or anything. On the contrary we are going to strenghtened the military in afgan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
The problem remains: Why is the very conformal Swedish population manipulated into anti-americanism?
The Swedish politicians - liberal and socialistic - are under pressure from the USA and/or are being thwarted. There is no doubt that Swedish foreign policy is NOT in sync with the USA.
The only time the swedish prime minister has visited the US president, it was because Sweden was meddling with the Baltic nations, and the Göran Persson was called on the carpet in Washington to explain what security guaranties Sweden could give these small nations - the answer was of course: None.
WTF are you talking about!!??? Is this post from 1971 and were talking about the Vietnam-war or what? No, swedish Iraq-policy is not in sync with US, as well as the most the rest of the world. Do you think this means the rest of the world is anti-american??!!! Most swedes (aswell as most of the world) does´nt agree with some american decisions made about Iraq the last few years, thats it. It has nothing to do with anti-american or anything. The rest your rabbling about is just total imaginary...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ths View Post
In Denmark - whichs is by no means pro-american, to many socialdemocrats still smart after being told the facts of life - there is a better compatability with US aims:
1. Stop russian nuclear subs from sailing: In the arctic north-atlantic we constantly have patrolling frigates. Of course the USA could do this as well; but it would cost money and lives to learn how to sail in those waters.
2. Protecting the Thule Air base by patrolling the EAST and NORTH of Greenland. Perhaps not the solution the USA would have chosen; but it seems to work.
3. The question of the defence of Iceland, where the upkeep of Keflavik simply was to much relative to the problem at hand. If I'm correct: The patrol line of the frigates is being pushed further north in harmony with the melting icecap.
4. Support to the new Baltic states, where the heavy handed US diplomacy ruffles sensitive feathers: They have recently gained independence from Russia and are not about to exchange one bully big brother for another.
5. In peacekeeping actions Denmark has sided with the USA and not with France - there are no benefits siding with France.
6. the worlds biggest container line is Danish and pro-american.

There are thus a host of issues where little favours allows Denmark a very large leverage, freedom of action and security:

None of the above applies to Sweden. There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet.
Another reason is that the independent Swedish defence industry is an illusion nowadays:
A. They are nowhere near to provide a full line of weapons, the last Swedish attempt to build a tank was a disaster. The navy doesn't sail and the airforce has come up with last years concept of a fighter - Gripen, which to be uncharitable is just an overpriced knock off aof the F-16.
B. Tehy cannot produce the weapons at an affordable price: The airforce requirement for a fighter has drained Swedish defence funds.
C. The Swedes are very much stuck in doing real well in irrelevant technology:
The submarines are good - provided Kochums doesn't build them - but if there are means to detect them, not being discussed in public - and I strongly suspect there are - otherwise the Danish Navy would not have given up their submarines.
Stealth corvettes; well if you can detect submarines, you can detect surface vessels.

I don´t even know where to start here.... So your danish and are jelous that sweden produces fighter-jets, submarines, stealthcorvettes, IFV:s etc etc etc and all that while Denmark can´t produce shit?
Or are you mad about the fact that these weapons are pretty good and that Denmark purchases some of them while you can´t do shit?
Or are you mad about the fact that Sweden is one of the european countries that are making the best progress right now and that Denmark is 10 years behind?
Or are you simply mad about the fact that Sweden crushed Denmark 350 years ago and you never rouse after that?
I don´t know, you and your post is just a joke unless you were only joking cause everything you wrote were utter BS.

"There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet"

LOL LOL LOL

You do know that Sweden is part of the DTSI accords since 2001? Besided NATO (offcourse) only close allies like Japan, Australia and SWEDEN is part of that. And in that "club" UK, Australia and SWEDEN has the highest bilateral status on export regulations and defense cooperation. (It makes buying, selling, and cooperation much more easier with US). It´s followed by Canada, Japan, South Korea and the NATO members. In other words USA trusts Sweden, UK and Australia more then Denmark. Or perhaps it is that fact that Denmark don´t produce shit so they don´t have to be trusted with anything...at least according to USA.
Maskirovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #9
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
Or are you mad about the fact that Sweden is one of the european countries that are making the best progress right now and that Denmark is 10 years behind?
Not going to enter a contest here, but curious on how you come to this conclusion...
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #10
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 67
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Not going to enter a contest here, but curious on how you come to this conclusion...
That conclusion were made of different media sources (and I have compared the figures between our countries in International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook.) That 10 year thing does mainly concern the healthcare. Denmark is 10-15 years behind sweden in that area....
Maskirovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #11
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
That conclusion were made of different media sources (and I have compared the figures between our countries in International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the CIA World Factbook.) That 10 year thing does mainly concern the healthcare. Denmark is 10-15 years behind sweden in that area....
So that sweeping statement was only about health care... Uhm, OK.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #12
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 67
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
So that sweeping statement was only about health care... Uhm, OK.
Mainly....

So since you are a moderator, and a danish

you immediately search every possible reason to knock me down.

The fact that some writes garbage as Ths did does´nt bother you at all?

The crazy examples:

Quote:
1. Stop russian nuclear subs from sailing: In the arctic north-atlantic we constantly have patrolling frigates. Of course the USA could do this as well; but it would cost money and lives to learn how to sail in those waters.
2. Protecting the Thule Air base by patrolling the EAST and NORTH of Greenland. Perhaps not the solution the USA would have chosen; but it seems to work.
3. The question of the defence of Iceland, where the upkeep of Keflavik simply was to much relative to the problem at hand. If I'm correct: The patrol line of the frigates is being pushed further north in harmony with the melting icecap.
4. Support to the new Baltic states, where the heavy handed US diplomacy ruffles sensitive feathers: They have recently gained independence from Russia and are not about to exchange one bully big brother for another.
5. In peacekeeping actions Denmark has sided with the USA and not with France - there are no benefits siding with France.
6. the worlds biggest container line is Danish and pro-american.

There are thus a host of issues where little favours allows Denmark a very large leverage, freedom of action and security:

None of the above applies to Sweden. There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet.
1) Thats way off our terriotorial waters. It would be like blaiming NewZealand for not protecting our waters.

2)Once again, thats not our country, or even hemisphere.

3) Defending Iceland is not a swedish task, were neutral and not a member of NATO.

4) Sweden were of one of the states who supported the baltic states the most (at least Estonia and Latvia). In the early 90´s we donated enough equipment (guns, uniforms, vehicles, APC, howitzers, mines, shipsm planes etc etc etc) to arm both countries entire population. After that we have donated modern weapons (Carl Gustaf, BILL-2, RBS-70 etc) so they can be a part of the Nordic Battle Group. What have Denmark done except loading off some scrap?


Quote:
None of the above applies to Sweden. There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet.
Another reason is that the independent Swedish defence industry is an illusion nowadays:
A. They are nowhere near to provide a full line of weapons, the last Swedish attempt to build a tank was a disaster. The navy doesn't sail and the airforce has come up with last years concept of a fighter - Gripen, which to be uncharitable is just an overpriced knock off aof the F-16.
B. Tehy cannot produce the weapons at an affordable price: The airforce requirement for a fighter has drained Swedish defence funds.
C. The Swedes are very much stuck in doing real well in irrelevant technology:
The submarines are good - provided Kochums doesn't build them - but if there are means to detect them, not being discussed in public - and I strongly suspect there are - otherwise the Danish Navy would not have given up their submarines.
Stealth corvettes; well if you can detect submarines, you can detect surface vessels.None of the above applies to Sweden. There is no reason for the USA to treat Sweden with any consideration - and again US diplomacy is heavyhanded. That is why Sweden is slowly dripping into the toilet.
Another reason is that the independent Swedish defence industry is an illusion nowadays:
A. They are nowhere near to provide a full line of weapons, the last Swedish attempt to build a tank was a disaster. The navy doesn't sail and the airforce has come up with last years concept of a fighter - Gripen, which to be uncharitable is just an overpriced knock off aof the F-16.
B. Tehy cannot produce the weapons at an affordable price: The airforce requirement for a fighter has drained Swedish defence funds.
C. The Swedes are very much stuck in doing real well in irrelevant technology:
The submarines are good - provided Kochums doesn't build them - but if there are means to detect them, not being discussed in public - and I strongly suspect there are - otherwise the Danish Navy would not have given up their submarines.
Stealth corvettes; well if you can detect submarines, you can detect surface vessels.

How can one answe this BS?
A) On no sweden built a bad tank in the 60´s. It was thw worlds best tank destroyer tough. Our nave does sail. Gripen is a success.

B)No that BS

C)Again, total BS. Denmark bought a swedish sub and decided to scrap the entire submarine force. Why? Cause they rely on other (NATO)
US Navy wanted to hire a conv. sub they could train to hunt (before going into the persian gulf and stuff). They hired the best, the swedish Gotland-class HMS Gotland with Stirling-AIP. After over a year of excerises the US navy still have´nt been able to catch Gotland (thats outside California) so they decided to lease her for over another year

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10116514/detail.html#
Maskirovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #13
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
Mainly....

So since you are a moderator, and a danish

you immediately search every possible reason to knock me down.
No. Just wondered about that particular statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
The fact that some writes garbage as Ths did does´nt bother you at all?
That I don't delete or edit what Ths write does not automatically mean I agree with it. There are quite a few Swedish posters around here, and they don't bite on Ths' very special posting style.

The obvious thing to do would be to counter the comments and claims made by a poster, and why the analysis is wrong. Instead you posted a reply in the same spirit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
The crazy examples:

1) Thats way off our terriotorial waters. It would be like blaiming NewZealand for not protecting our waters.

2)Once again, thats not our country, or even hemisphere.

3) Defending Iceland is not a swedish task, were neutral and not a member of NATO.

4) Sweden were of one of the states who supported the baltic states the most (at least Estonia and Latvia). In the early 90´s we donated enough equipment (guns, uniforms, vehicles, APC, howitzers, mines, shipsm planes etc etc etc) to arm both countries entire population. After that we have donated modern weapons (Carl Gustaf, BILL-2, RBS-70 etc) so they can be a part of the Nordic Battle Group. What have Denmark done except loading off some scrap?
1), 2) and 3) I think Ths is pointing out importance to allies. Not area of responsibility.

Btw, re 4) I'm noting that an entire Lithuanian Bde is attached to Danske Division. And the Estonians and Latvians are usually with the Danes when going abroad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maskirovka View Post
How can one answe this BS?
A) On no sweden built a bad tank in the 60´s. It was thw worlds best tank destroyer tough. Our nave does sail. Gripen is a success.

B)No that BS

C)Again, total BS. Denmark bought a swedish sub and decided to scrap the entire submarine force. Why? Cause they rely on other (NATO)
US Navy wanted to hire a conv. sub they could train to hunt (before going into the persian gulf and stuff). They hired the best, the swedish Gotland-class HMS Gotland with Stirling-AIP. After over a year of excerises the US navy still have´nt been able to catch Gotland (thats outside California) so they decided to lease her for over another year

http://www.nbc4.tv/news/10116514/detail.html#
Re A) I agree on the S-tank. Btw, Strv 122 is my favourite version of the Leopard 2.

I like Swedish kit like the Carl Gustav, the CV90, and the Archer looks promising. However, Gripen is only a success in Swedish context. Sweden is doing a fine job on the platform design/integration and subsystems level. Though, few platforms can truly be labelled indigenous anymore.

B) Cannot say, but countries 6-7 times the size of Sweden are struggling to build the full palette of platforms (and system of systems).

C) Aha. Could it be that disbanding the sub sqn was a matter of prudence, as frigates would be of better value to us and our alliance partners? The USN is training against SSK of various nations from Australia to Sth America.
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"

Last edited by Grand Danois; February 18th, 2007 at 09:43 PM. Reason: sp comp
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #14
Entertainer
General
Grand Danois's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: CPH
Posts: 3,297
Threads:
To stick to the topic, what do you think of this, now that Ivanov looks set to replace Putin?
Quote:
Russia reclassified as a military threat
Norwegian defense officials aren't declaring a new Cold War with Russia, but Norway's huge neighbour in the northeast is once again being described as a threat, also in the military sense.

Relations between Russia and Norway have been strained of late, over incidents ranging from illegal fishing in the Barents to collapsed investment prospects in Russian gas fields to Russian restrictions on salmon imports.

At the same time, Russia has been asserting itself all over Europe, often in unpopular ways. It has cut off gas supplies to countries that don't agree to its terms, it has refused entry to top officials traveling to Russia on business, and it has rekindled Russian nationalism to a degree that worries human rights activists. Suspicious murders of government critics also have sparked widespread international concern.

Newspaper Aftenposten has gone through a series of recent speeches and reports written by Norwegian defense officials, and documented use of descriptions of Russia that reflect the recent tensions.

The most revealing was a fresh report from the defense institute FFI (Forsvarets forsvarsinstitutt, the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment ) that analyzed threats against Norway. In the report, which sets the premises for the Defense Ministry from 2009 to 2012, Russia is identified as a "military threat." There's no fear of invasion, but rather a "limited, military action."

The report notes that the institute may be criticized for its classification of Russia, but even Defense Minister Anne-Grete Strøm-Erichsen has altered her word usage of late. She has stressed that Russia isn't likely to exert power, but notes that its military build-up can't be overlooked.

"We must be aware that developments can take another direction than we want and expect," Strøm-Erichsen said in a recent speech before the defense group Oslo Militære Samfund.

'Demand for attention'
Espen Barth Eide, state secretary attached to the Defense Ministry, says Russia has consciously positioned itself as an "international player with a demand for attention and influence." Oil income and foreign currency reserves have helped give the country new economic clout that it lacked when the Soviet Union fell apart.

Barth Eide also rejects any talk of a new Cold War, but notes that Russia "is back on the international stage." Its president, Vladimir Putin, is working hard to keep it there, and boost Russian self-confidence.

"It's more important than ever that we continue our policies based on dialogue and concrete cooperation, both multilaterally and bilaterally," Barth Eide told Aftenposten.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/lo...cle1641031.ece
And this:
Quote:
Swedish army warns of growing Russian threat

Published: 14th February 2007 10:14 CET
Online: http://www.thelocal.se/6397/

The Swedish Armed Forces are calling for more military resources inside the country following a revision of its stance on Russia.

Major General Michael Moore however warns against perceiving the news as "alarming", stressing that the military does not regard the level of threat to have dramatically increased.

"We are seeing the crystallisation of a changed strategic situation in northern Europe. This is partly due to pressure created by economic advances in China and India, which are demanding more and more energy," Moore told newspaper Dagens Nyheter.

The growing importance of energy, Russia's renewed economic power, and the growth of Baltic trade have all contributed to altering the overall picture, according to Moore.

Colonel Stefan Gustafsson, head of the Armed Forces' strategic analysis unit, agrees that the situation in Russia has changed.

"The country has the financial capacity to invest more in defence. That is not to say that Sweden is at risk of attack.

"Such threats emerge from a combination of resources and intentions. And we do not predict any such intentions in the foreseeable future," he said.

The Swedish Defence Commission will meet on Wednesday to discuss the issue of national security. These discussions will form an important basis for a parliamentary resolution on national defence later this spring.

The Swedish Armed forces have previously prioritised international engagements.

http://www.thelocal.se/6397/20070214/
________________
"Of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh?"
Grand Danois is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 18th, 2007   #15
Banned Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 67
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
That I don't delete or edit what Ths write does not mean I agree with it. There are quite a few Swedish posters around here, and they don't bite on Ths' very special posting style.

The obvious thing to do would be to counter the comments and claims made by a poster, and why the analysis is wrong. Instead you posted a reply in the same spirit.
Ok, I admit, I walked straight into the trap and made an ass out off myself




Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
1), 2) and 3) I think Ths is pointing out importance to allies. Not area of responsibility.
But why is he pointing them out here and now? In a thread concerning sweden and the cold war politics.[/QUOTE]


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Btw, re 4) I'm noting that an entire Lithuanian Bde is attached to Danske Division. And the Estonians and Latvians are usually with the Danes when going abroad.
Weve been giving to the balts as same as you....


Quote:
Originally Posted by Grand Danois View Post
Re A) I agree on the S-tank. Btw, Strv 122 is my favourite version of the Leopard 2.

I like Swedish kit like the Carl Gustav, the CV90, and the Archer looks promising. However, Gripen is only a success in Swedish context. Sweden is doing a fine job on the platform design/integration and subsystems level. Tough, few platforms can truly be labelled indigenous anymore.

B) Cannot say, but coutries 6-7 times the size of Sweden are struggling to build the full palette of platforms (and system of systems).

C) Aha. The USN is training against SSK of various nations from Australia to Sth America.
A)Ok. S-tank = bad MBT. Best tankdestroyer ever.
B) We have enough problem selling our stuff. If it would have been overprized we would never had sold anything. Remember, we are struggling against USA, the Eurofighter, France and Russia. How the hell could little Sweden sell anything if it was "overprized"? The only reputation sweden has is quality, and that is very hard to gain when you refuse to sell to contries war and with out strict export -policy, despite that countries still want to buy our stuff... That can only prove one thing, we provide quality....

As an example, the Indian howitzer-purchase (Future Military Contracts Worldwide)



Sweden has to make 10 times better products than its opponents to have a chance...
Maskirovka is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 PM.