Response to interpellation 2022/23:215 on Sweden's future combat aircraft
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned Sweden's future combat aircraft and air defense. M argues that Sweden has a unique defense industrial capability 1 and that the choice between own development, partnership, or procurement is a long-term security policy path that affects dependencies 2 3. M emphasizes that Sweden is skilled in system integration 2 and that the threat from Russia as well as NATO membership are dimensioning factors 3. M considers the air defense to be a great asset 3 and a high priority due to Sweden's geographical location 3. S argues that it is a Swedish line to develop own combat aircraft in order to preserve competence, create jobs, and enable exports 4 5.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Markus Selin has asked me if I intend to work for Sweden's future combat aircraft to be developed and manufactured in Sweden.
Combat aircraft systems have long development cycles. It is therefore important to continuously develop and test new technology to meet future needs. Concept studies, development of technologies and technology demonstrators are significant tools for feasibility testing of future possible solutions for a combat aircraft system. The activity involves both the state and the industry.
The Armed Forces have proposed continued concept studies to initiate knowledge building and begin the development of decision-making bases, reduce risks, and create freedom of action for the development of the future air defense. At this stage, the proposal aims to begin preparations for an upcoming program, which, according to the Armed Forces' proposal, should result in a choice of path by 2030 at the latest. The Armed Forces' proposal is being prepared in the Government Offices.
A choice regarding future combat aircraft capability is a security policy choice for Sweden of great and long-term significance. I envision broad political discussions before a choice is to be made.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Defence, for a forward-looking and substantial answer!
For 97 years, Sweden has had an air force. In 84 of these 97 years, Sweden has developed its own combat aircraft. It was actually Per Albin Hansson who drove the self-sufficiency line in the 1930s. With the 1936 defense decision, Sweden chose to build its own combat aircraft. That is our history.
A bit about Sweden: Sweden is an engineering country. I am not saying that everyone is formally an engineer, but we are a country with people who like problem-solving. We like challenges and building things together. We are a welfare state, and we are an export country. That is what I mean by that we are a high-cost country that is high-tech.
When Sweden chose to build the Jas 39 Gripen, there were also political discussions, but, expressed cautiously, it eventually became a matter of time. I believe that we will now end up in the same situation as then, when in 1980, when it was time to start making decisions, we concluded regarding the future of combat aircraft that an alternative other than building our own combat aircraft would deplete Sweden's aviation technology competence.
The Jas 39 Gripen system was tailor-made for Sweden. It is easy to maintain, field-ready, rugged, and cost-effective. Without trembling in my boots, I can say that it is the best fighter jet in the world, and well-adapted to Sweden's and the Nordic conditions.
The pattern follows a fairly fundamental logic. The superpowers' aircraft are generally larger and heavier, and the superpowers' aircraft that are both larger and heavier become more expensive. Sweden is quite unique and is among perhaps a handful of countries that can develop their own fighter jets. We chose to follow the same fundamental pattern. We are a small country with fewer resources, and that led us to decide on fewer aircraft generally speaking, compared to the superpowers. Consequently, each aircraft must be able to take on multiple roles, and hence the designation Jas: fighter, attack, reconnaissance.
The Jas 39 Gripen system follows Sweden's specific requirements, and we have a secured delivery even in critical situations. We have our autonomy.
With the opening words, I would like to hear how the Minister for Defence will work to ensure that Sweden also in the future will develop and produce its own fighter jets.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Markus Selin, for an important interpellation! It is important to see the connection between defense industrial capability and defense capability. It is becoming increasingly clear.
Let me also say initially that there is no other country with 10 million inhabitants in the world that has the defense industrial capability that Sweden has. There is, therefore, no other country that can produce and design submarines, qualified ground combat vehicles and artillery systems and additionally combat aircraft. It is a handful of countries in the world that have the industrial capability, and there is every reason to feel pride over that.
Sweden is also in a unique position to actually be able to make this choice of path. What choice is it then that we face after Gripen Erik? It could ultimately be a matter of whether one either develops this oneself or does it together with partners, or whether one procures an aircraft system. It is naturally a matter of whether we have the industrial capability and the opportunity to perform the assessment ourselves if we are to buy from someone else or develop the capability ourselves.
Just as Markus Selin says, the Gripen is designed specifically for Swedish conditions - it has been developed based on our geography and is an aircraft that entails low costs when it comes to flying and also a low life-cycle cost. This, of course, is based on the fact that there is a strong innovative power within the framework of the Swedish defense industry.
Jas 39 Gripen balances high operational capability, high availability, and low maintenance costs in a combat aviation context. Most recently, in 2013, it was decided to develop Gripen Erik, and that has led to the fact that there are now possibilities and freedom of action regarding how we want to proceed. Should we go for partnerships, develop it ourselves, or procure it in the future? I believe it is important that we have the security policy freedom of action that this entails.
We are now in a knowledge-building phase and have begun the preparation of decision-making bases. It is partly about reducing risks and creating freedom of action also for the future defense, because one must be honest and say that it can partly constitute a risk to develop independently as one is then alone with the project. If one does it with partners, one gets the opportunity to reduce risk. On the other hand, it can sometimes become more complex because one must involve several national parliaments, several industries, and so on. There are many parameters to consider in this.
The most important thing right now is to create freedom of action, which the Armed Forces also point out in its submission that is currently being prepared in the Government Offices.
Let me also say that this really is not something I am to decide on in this chamber either today or tomorrow, but we must have broad political conversations. It is about decisions that should reflect choices that will shape us for the next 30-40 years.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Minister for Defence, for the answer!
I want to return to the historical description. As we know history, we see into the future. I would like to assert that the fact that Sweden develops its own fighter aircraft is the normal situation. It is a Swedish line. In 84 of 97 years, Sweden has built and chosen to develop its own fighter aircraft.
Just as the Minister for Defence pointed out, we get the most well-balanced and adapted aviation system for Swedish conditions. We get guaranteed delivery even during critical situations and tensions in the world. We get, as the Minister for Defence said, significantly cheaper operation and maintenance, especially in the field where perhaps only a technician and a group of conscripts are required to get the combat aircraft into the air after maintenance.
What I am particularly passionate about is that this creates numerous jobs all over Sweden. Hidden within this is also another positive upside, namely opportunities for exports. We are talking about tens of thousands of jobs in Sweden.
Let me express myself a bit more directly and comment on the alternatives to developing and building our own fighter jets that the Minister for Defence was touching upon. Two alternatives that exist are to make direct purchases of existing foreign systems or to enter into some type of license production. Both of these alternatives dilute Swedish aerospace competence, more or less.
If one wants secrecy problems during the execution of future combat aircraft, one should probably look at direct purchase and license production.
If one wants a fighter jet in the future that is not fully developed for Swedish and Nordic conditions, one should look at license production or direct purchase of foreign aircraft.
If one wants to have significantly less amount of preserved aviation technical competence in Sweden in the future, one should look at foreign direct purchase or license production.
And if one wants coordination challenges when potentially developing the fighter jets of the future with other countries, one should look at collaborative projects and perhaps license production.
In other words, we will have more freedom of action and more values that are favorable for ourselves if we develop our own future combat aircraft. We will become more independent. We will maintain our readiness. We will have developed competence as a knowledge nation. We will have export opportunities and tens of thousands of jobs all over the country.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Since the Social Democrats are an important partner for me and the government in this matter, I have looked at how the Social Democrats formulated themselves in their committee motion regarding this. I perceived in the formulation, in the six sentences, a great humility toward the fact that this is a major and important crossroads where it is necessary to highlight the alternatives available, that is, whether we are to develop something of our own together, whether we are to develop it together with one or more partners, whether we are to conduct a procurement, or whether we are to develop it ourselves.
When I read the Social Democrats' committee motion, I perceive an openness but also a humility regarding the important crossroads that lies ahead of us.
This is a defense policy decision, but it is naturally also a security policy decision. It will affect relations with countries for a long time. In strategic material supply, one develops dependencies that can sometimes last for 30-40 years. In the field of combat aviation, it can involve security of supply agreements that need to be established regarding logistics, maintenance, training, and so on. The security policy dimension should also be highlighted very carefully.
As we have seen, the development of the Gripen program has become increasingly internationalized from the A/B version to the C/D version and the E version. The C/D version, which we primarily operate now, has approximately 50 percent foreign subcontractors, and Gripen E has approximately two-thirds foreign subcontractors. We have, for example, never developed our own engine for the Gripen system, but there we have relied on American suppliers. The radar system is today British, and the weapon pylons for Gripen E come from Switzerland.
So, it is about extensive international cooperation, even with what we perceive as a somewhat national platform such as Gripen E. I just wanted to add that dimension.
What we have a unique ability for in the defense industrial area concerns above all the ability for system integration. Anyone can build a radar, an engine, or a wing, but it is the ability to integrate these that one has, not least at Saab. There, one has a world-leading ability in combination with being very good at project management and project leadership. That is partly due to the fact that at Saab, one is used to working towards a small and cost-conscious customer.
It is within these two major areas of specialized expertise that I believe we have the industrial capability, which is also something important to consider regarding the choice we will face.
Markus Selin (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister of Defence for the contribution. What he highlighted is correct. Sweden has a unique competence when it comes to building submarines, signals, systems, and combat aircraft. I also agree that, for example, an aircraft engine in today's Jas 39 Gripen is based on a foreign platform, but it has been developed from an engine that was intended to be installed in pairs in an aircraft. I want to add that it has been developed by Swedish women and men and has, in large parts, become a better product.
I thought I would try to highlight the spirit of the entire debate with a few words from a famous American president. I have translated it all, Mr. Speaker, because we speak Swedish here in the chamber.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon during this decade and do these other things, not because they are easy but because they are hard, because the goal will serve to organize and measure the best of commitment and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are not willing to postpone and one that we intend to win."
Mr. Speaker! These words, of course, come from John F. Kennedy's speech at Rice University on September 12, 1962. I think that in these lines he captures my message regarding the view on the future of Swedish combat aircraft. Our competence must not be taken for granted.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Markus Selin, for an important debate and not least an elegant conclusion, if I may venture to review the contribution. It was inspiring.
I want to say a few more things connected to this. It is partly about security policy relations over a long period as well as the dependencies that one builds with other countries. One really needs to think through carefully, both who one exports to and imports from and what consequences that has.
Then we have the second dimension of security policy, which we must constantly consider, namely the threat scenario. It is a fact that Russia is what it is and is located where it is. It will be a dimensioning factor for us to consider when we make decisions linked to our own air defense and future combat aircraft.
There is a third aspect that I want to add, which is, of course, our upcoming NATO membership, which can also influence the design of the air defense. Markus Selin knows, of course, that the core of this is Articles 3 and 5. This means that we have a responsibility to ensure our own defense capability. Therefore, a strong air defense is important. Within the scope of Article 5, we will also need to receive and provide defense guarantees. That too can affect our air defense capability. It can affect the range or which threat picture we must dimension based on.
What I believe is obvious with a NATO membership and Sweden's geographical location is that air defense will become a high-priority aspect for us as we enter NATO. I also have extensive contacts with the other defense ministers in the EU-NATO context.
There is a pride and a satisfaction with the Swedish air defense. On one hand, there are six Gripen divisions, on the other, we have our own combat aircraft program with the Gripen E. Furthermore, there is Patriot. The air defense is a great asset for us, not least with the interim capability goals within the framework of NATO's joint defense planning.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.