Response to interpellation 2024/25:123 on Swedish combat aircraft
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M argues that the government has already taken measures by authorizing the Armed Forces to carry out a concept study for future combat aviation 1. M emphasizes that it is natural to investigate all three alternatives as it concerns large sums and long-term needs 2. M asserts that the government secures expertise through financial foundations for demonstrator projects 3 and that the path-choice programs are already underway 4. M considers that more export deals for Gripen Erik are important to share development costs 4. S considers that Swedish combat aviation must be a long-term national development project where Sweden holds the reins 5. S argues that one should signal to the industry that one is prepared to invest money to secure jobs and technology levels 6.
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)
Madam Speaker! Peter Hultqvist has asked me what measures I intend to take to guarantee a Swedish or Nordic design for the next generation of combat aircraft.
The Government has authorized the Armed Forces to carry out a concept study regarding future combat aircraft. The intention is to build knowledge, formulate decision-making bases, and reduce risks ahead of the choice of path based on operational needs, while maintaining freedom of action for three possible principal choices: a nationally developed combat aircraft system, a combat aircraft system developed in international cooperation, and the procurement of a foreign combat aircraft system.
Depending on the choice of cooperation form and the number of cooperation partners, both national and international, a principled choice needs to be made by 2030 at the latest in order for the conditions to exist to specify, develop, and introduce a new combat aircraft system. A choice regarding future combat aircraft capability is a security policy choice for Sweden of great and long-term importance. The Defence Preparation Board emphasizes the importance of a transparent decision basis in this matter. I envision broad political conversations before a choice is to be made.
Peter Hultqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank you for the answer.
Right now, the Jas 39 E is on its way out for delivery to the units. The Jas 39 E is by far the best fighter aircraft for operations in Nordic conditions. It is a high-standing example of Swedish engineering and a high-standing example of Swedish aviation technology. To provide the Nordic air forces with maximum firepower in hunting, attack, and reconnaissance, the Jas 39 E is necessary alongside the F-35, which Denmark, Norway, and Finland have chosen.
This aircraft will be operational for a very long time to come - perhaps 40 years. But we will still, within not too distant future, have to decide what will come after the Jas 39 E. Already now, voices are being raised that are very firm and which think that a Swedish alternative will be too expensive. It is thought that Sweden cannot bear the costs and that Sweden does not have sufficient own technological potential. I have even read editorials where it is written that the Gripen program must think about the bottom line.
All such doubts are the kind noted by potential competitors. I have attended a number of fighter jet seminars regarding the future of fighter aviation and noted that competitors sit there and soak up every nuance in the debate. They expect and are just waiting to find a way to knock out the Gripen as an aircraft system. They want to avoid the Gripen as a competitor. During my time as Minister of Defence, I had the opportunity to operate in somewhat different parts of the world and realized then that there are those who clearly see that there is one aircraft too many in Europe, and it is the Gripen that is singled out.
In this market, it is not just about price and performance. Informal relations also mean a lot, and even informal promises of security protection are part of the marketing when it is pushed to its absolute limit. We must never forget that we have great competence and that we are at world-class level. We are one of the few countries that can actually manufacture combat aircraft.
We have the opportunities and conditions to be involved and deliver even when it comes to next-generation combat aircraft for Sweden's part, but that requires markings that this is a national development project. It requires a long-term handshake between the state and the industry, and it requires declarations that this is a core interest for the defense of Sweden. It requires clarity from both the government and the Riksdag.
We in the Defence Preparation Committee have agreed to have a Swedish alternative linked to a foreign partner investigated and to purchase foreign. But we must choose a path here, and it must not take too long. We must also not choose a path in such a way that the Swedish expertise, the Swedish capability, and the Swedish research results are relegated to the margins. We shall seek partners, but we must also know that what we can contribute - our expertise and our experience - is valued in economic terms.
It is difficult to see into the future, but the Swedish combat aviation must be a long-term national development project. We must not sell out Swedish capability, Swedish knowledge, Swedish research results and Swedish competence.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Peter Hultqvist for an important interpellation. We will not make the choice of path here and now, but I appreciate that we can have a dialogue regarding it. I do not believe we stand particularly far apart.
This House has decided that the combat aviation area is a significant national security interest, and it is now called a strategic material area. It is a position that the Riksdag has taken, which we have considered and will continue to consider.
When making choices regarding the programs, it is about many billions, and it is about issues that sometimes lie 20, 30, 40 or 50 years in the future. Therefore, it is reasonable that one investigates such an issue, that one investigates it carefully and that one also looks at the Armed Forces' operational needs and what needs exist.
Just as we have done at every previous road map program and landed on the Gripen system, it is natural to look at what the alternative would be if we bought something from the international market, developed something together with others, or developed it entirely nationally. It is therefore natural to look at all three alternatives in the matter. It is also natural to investigate it, because it concerns many billions and looking far into the future.
I have also said that I want to see a broad parliamentary agreement on the issue. Therefore, we will appoint an inquiry with a parliamentary reference group so that there are good conditions for both the government parties and the opposition to have good insight.
Let me also discuss the Gripen system. It is sometimes presented as if the Gripen system is a national system. Yes, we have a main supplier in the form of Saab, but the Gripen C/D has an approximately 50 percent share of international subcontractors, while the Gripen E has approximately 70 percent international subcontractors.
Sweden has never chosen to develop its own engines. The Gripen also has radar systems from Great Britain and weapon carriers from Switzerland. Even if it is called a national alternative and a national platform with Saab as the supplier, the system involves extensive international cooperation.
Peter Hultqvist requests a Nordic cooperation in the development of combat aviation capabilities - at least in the adaptation to Nordic conditions. Until now, it has been difficult to carry out successful collaborations regarding the development of combat aircraft. Iceland naturally has no combat aircraft. The other Nordic countries have chosen other alternatives in the form of the F35. Even though I would welcome a joint cooperation on a Nordic basis regarding next-generation combat aircraft, I believe that the conditions for it are unfortunately limited.
Peter Hultqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! I believe the Minister for Defence misunderstood what I was trying to say. I am talking about Swedish and Nordic operational conditions and that the design of a new combat aircraft should be based on exactly that, just as was done during the design of Jas 39 E and Jas 39 C/D. This is what I am aiming for.
The operational conditions in the Nordic countries are so similar that the Jas 39 E is an extremely well-suited aircraft for the operational environment. A deeper cooperation to develop combat aircraft is, of course, out of the question, as they have chosen other alternatives. That is how it looks, and there is no disagreement on that point. But it is important to describe this in the right way.
It is completely correct that we are not making any choices here and now. But if this is to be investigated, which we would in that case support in the Defence Preparation Board, both the government and the investigators must conduct the work in such a way that the possibilities for Swedish production are maintained. This also applies to Swedish production in terms of cooperation with a foreign alternative so that Swedish expertise and Swedish capability are present as an important part of this.
We have seen previously how difficult it has been to regain lost competence, for example when we phased out the production of submarines at Kockums but then came to the conclusion that we would take it up again. It has led to the fact that one has been forced to build it all up again from a zero position. We must not end up in such a protracted process that we manage to lose competence and production capacities when the time comes, so that we are unable to take on the task.
I also look forward to us being able to get more international orders, which will help us. I hope now that a choice of path for transport aviation can also result in positive effects for us when it comes to combat aviation.
It requires activity and work that creates the conditions for the Swedish alternative and the alternative of having Sweden in cooperation with a foreign partner. It also requires work so that the conditions for this shall be realistic.
This is, as has been said, a significant security interest, so it is not just any weapons system. But the reason why I choose to describe the entire depth of the system itself with all the research, all the development work, all the expertise, and all the engineering knowledge is that it is a system that affects Swedish industry and Swedish small businesses in a broader sense. There are many subcontractors here.
It is correct as the Minister says that we have always had foreign components in the Swedish fighter jets. That is so, but the point is that we must hold the steering wheel when it comes to developing the system that will apply in the end. One can have foreign components and foreign collaborations, but it is about who holds the steering wheel. It is a core issue in what we are discussing.
Therefore, the investigations must also be conducted with this perspective, so that we do not let go of the helm. If we were to let go of it, all the competence and everything we have built up will quickly disappear and be scattered to the wind, and we will no longer have it. If we are to build it up again later, it will take a very long time.
It is this perspective I want to describe. Here, the government has a clear responsibility to act so that it is possible.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I dare to assert that the government is actually taking that responsibility through the assignments it has given and the decisions it has made. On one hand, the government has tasked the Armed Forces and FMV to develop a basis for the path-choice program, which was initiated as early as last year. It is good that one begins with different types of concept studies. This is being carried out here and now. On the other hand, we have something further that is linked to the path-choice program. The government has developed a significant financial basis from 2023 to 2025, which will then be extended from 2025 to 2030 with the intention of engaging both the company Saab and EKN.
All of this is about the companies having to maintain their competence during the period when new fighter jets are not being developed. Through this program, which is at the billion level, we ensure that the companies have the opportunity to maintain the competence here and now but also in the future by, for example, developing various demonstrator projects.
We are naturally keen on getting more Gripen E and having them stationed. We have received a handful already, and the work for the Air Force to transition more extensively from C/D to E will begin during 2025.
Let me also say something about the unique capability we have in the defense industry area, something that I think Peter Hultqvist also touches upon well. There is no other country with 10 million that has the ability to design fighter jets. It is a unique resource, and in my opinion, we should nurture it, the technical competence and also the ecosystem that this constitutes.
I usually remind that there are, above all, two things that are unique. The first is the ability for system integration. There are many countries that can build a radar, a wing, or a nose, but the ability to design fighter jets has been identified as a strategic material area. The second thing that has been a success for the Gripen project is that one is used to working with a customer who is more cost-conscious. So it becomes natural when one works towards a Swedish customer. Project management has therefore been a great strength at Saab.
Both of these capabilities - efficient project management and a unique ability for system design - have also made Saab a sought-after international partner. It was in that way that a collaboration could be entered into with Boeing to design the American trainer aircraft TX.
These are important strategic resources that we have and that we need to nurture. However, we need to investigate the alternatives on the table, just as we have done at every step previously when we have faced choices in the issue of combat aircraft.
Peter Hultqvist (S)
Madam Speaker! I am not so sure that we are in a position where we have covered everything required for the market to be so cleared that Swedish manufacturing, or alternatively Swedish manufacturing together with a foreign actor, are realistic alternatives.
I am fully aware that we are to investigate this. We have set that up, and it is sound that we do it with such breadth. But is it the case that if one does not create the real conditions for the Swedish opportunities to hold the helm to be as strong as possible, there is a risk that one loses this. Demonstration projects are simply not enough in this context.
We must eventually say that Swedish combat aviation is so nationally important that this must take place on Swedish terms and Nordic terms when it comes to operational capability; in that case, it is not about whether cooperation on manufacturing needs to occur. We must eventually state this in a clear way and place it in a clear category. The signal to the industry shall be that one is prepared to invest the amounts that are necessary in such development work. This will naturally cost money, but it plays a decisive role regarding both jobs in our country and the level of technology. It is a matter of a spread far beyond just the aircraft systems; other things are also affected.
This also gives us a good position within the framework of Nato. Some say that we should end this with Swedish combat aircraft because we are now in Nato and can join with the others. But that is not how we see it. We believe that Jas and the Swedish type of capability development is a very good complement to the systems that exist within the framework of Nato.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! The choice programs already cost money here and now, given that we decided on them in the supplementary budget 2023. They are thus - excuse the expression - up and running. Demonstrator projects naturally aim for later further development at higher TRL levels.
Peter Hultqvist touched upon transport aircraft and the Gripen E linked to Brazil. In order to keep production of the Gripen E going, it is naturally important for us that we get more export deals regarding the Gripen E, also in the long term, to share development costs linked to the Gripen E system.
Madam Speaker! The final point concerns the international projects, where it can be observed that there is currently a slowdown. This is partly linked to the British-led project GCAP, which is being conducted together with Japan and Italy. Reference can also be made to the German-French fighter jet system that they aim to develop, but also certain American choices. This is partly due to the fact that technological development is now moving extremely fast.
A discussion is being held on how the seventh-generation fighter aircraft should be designed. It is about whether they should be manned or unmanned, but also about how new technologies should be used, not least linked to robotics and artificial intelligence. There is therefore some time for us to prepare to make this important decision for Swedish security and defense policy, but also for the Swedish aviation industry.
Thank you for a good debate, Peter Hultqvist!
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.