Posted on 12/03/2010 12:48:22 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Sweden 'tricked' in failed Norway Gripen bid
Sweden was deceived by both the United States and Norway regarding the latter’s interest in signing a multi-billion kronor deal to buy Sweden's JAS Gripen fighter plane.
Citing US diplomatic cables recently released by WikiLeaks, the Aftonbladet newspaper reports that Norway’s supposed interest in the Gripen was just a show.
Norway ultimately decided to purchase the US-made Joint Strike Fighter/F-35 combat aircraft in a deal reportedly worth 55 billion kronor ($7.9 billion).
At the time, Norway's choice of the American plane over the Gripen angered a former Saab executive.
"We are really surprised about how this was handled, what happened yesterday, and about the justification," Jan Nygren, who served as Saab’s deputy CEO until two years prior to the decision, told the TT news agency at the time.
"And besides, we are just a tad surprised to say the least that they so unabashedly chose to criticize the Gripen, despite the fact that all of us involved know that the Gripen is a better fit for the functional demands laid out in the documentation included in the proposal request."
According to Aftonbladet, the United States threw a spanner in the works of the Gripen deal by stopping the export of an American-made radar component for use on the Swedish plane.
The prelude to the snub included a 2008 meeting between Sweden’s defence minister Sten Tolgfors and the US ambassador at the time, Michael Wood.
During the meeting, Tolgfors asked for permission to buy the American-made Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar system for the Gripen.
But documents released by WikiLeaks describe how the Americans worked to scuttle the Swedes’ radar request.
“We suggest that we delay the decision about the ASEA-permit for the Gripen until after Norway’s decision,” read one US diplomatic cable, according to Aftonbladet.
The newspaper writes that the US embassy in Oslo also placed a “call for help” to Washington for assistance in putting high-level political pressure on Norway following negative reports about the F-35 in the Norwegian press.
After the call, prospects for the F-35 brightened; Norwegian politicians gave signals that made the United States confident its plane would win the Norwegian tender. But the Americans were careful not to claim that the aircraft purchase was a done deal before Norway announced its decision.
“We must continue to act like an honourable and elegant competitor,” read a cable from the US embassy in Oslo.
“We don’t offer reviews of WikiLeaks documents or embassy reports,” said Mikael Östlund, a spokesperson for Swedish defence minister Tolgfors, to the TT news agency.
TT/The Local/dl (news@thelocal.se)
The Gripen is a good plane. I look forward to seeing it fly agains the F35 someday (in simulated combat of course). that will be a clear demonstration one way or the other regarding the overall combat effectiveness of the F35 imo.
Business is a cut throat affair, Sweden. Welcome to the real world.
This looks like there is still a long memory of how Sweden cooperated with Nazi Germany during the invasion of Norway in WWII. If you don’t believe that the memory is still there, accidently call a Norwegian a Swede.
No thanks. I'm sure the memory is fresh. Tens of thousand of Norwegian children were relocated to the 'Aryan State' for adoption. Sweden was complicate in those kidnappings.
Blond/blue children are the most favored children to adopt, even by parents both with dark hair. Everyone assumes men selected the blond/blue traits however it was actually carefully cultivated first for children and mostly by mothers.
“Swedish Fighter Jet”?
Can you buy one of those at Ikea?
No thanks. I’m sure the memory is fresh. Tens of thousand of Norwegian children were relocated to the ‘Aryan State’ for adoption. Sweden was complicate in those kidnappings
I did not know this. Where can I read more on this. Thanks
Yes...the package is labeled “Gripen”...
The only problem is getting the thing off those damned high shelves.
There should be loads of info on the web.
Dunno. Assembling them is a bit of pain, too.
In other words it is not only about competative flight cgaracteristics. The F 35s willbe centrally located, and will in war ne all wiped out at once. The Grippen would survive initial attacks and be in the air while the F 35s would all be destroyed.
Thats the gaff. Canada should also have the Grippen.Its made for the Canadian North, ,and dispersed, forward positioning. The F 35 is a fine aircraft in the air, the best. But in war it would have almost zero long term survivability, and replacing those lost would not be possible.
Don’t know what you did wrong...mine went together just fine.
I just have some leftover parts is all...:)
Candor7, are you sure you are talking about the same plane? The F35 is supposed to be able to operate like a Harrier, if need be. It has VTOL capabilities which the Gripen does not...are you possibly thinking of the F-22?
(which we don’t export, and aren’t making anymore, I’m told)
I think the dispersed operation capability is more a part of Swedish defense doctrine which evolved during the Cold War. Earlier Saab products such as the Viggen could do the same.
While the Gripen is easier to rearm and refuel (10-15 minutes) than an F-16, the point is that the Swedes have trained personnel and a logistics network (moving fuel, weaponry and spares) to exploit it. There’s no point having a versatile jet if your military is not oriented for dispersed operations. Other airforces have also tried dispersed allocation-Taiwan for example, has operated both its F-16s and Mirage-2000s from highways. I’m sure it can be done with the F-35 as well. So I don’t think the Gripen’s unique capabilities are a major factor unless the prospective buyer wants such a capability.
Ah. I’ll have to re-read. I didn’t realize that they were getting the “A” model...if true, that changes it. I presumed they were getting the “B”.
Although, you have to take into account how they plan to utilize the aircraft, I am certain the “B” model is considerably more expensive, complicated and likely has less range.
Depending on the primary mission of the plane, and the money available (for both initial purchase and maintenance) the “A” model may make sense.
Depends on the mission, I would think.
Bah.
I claim to be Swedish every time I get into trouble abroad... :-P
Good grief...why on earth would the US intervene to help to torpedo the fortunes of a US based company? Granted, I can see it coming from the CURRENT White House/State Department, but that says more about the state of this current administration than it says about the normal way of doing business or governing affairs.
I must say, that is a beautiful aircraft, but it doesn't look real stealthy. For CAS, I am sure it is not an issue, but if the Canadians are using it for air defense or penetration missions, that could be problematic. But I am just using the eyeball test...there might be more to it than meets the eye with respect to stealth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.