Response to interpellation 2025/26:235 on future combat aircraft
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
M sees a need for a principled choice for replacements for Jas 39 between 2028–2030 1. M has authorized the Armed Forces to carry out a concept study to build knowledge and reduce risks 1. M wants to launch a parliamentary reference group to monitor the agencies' work 2. M emphasizes that Gripen E is a mature product with unique capabilities and world-leading electronic warfare systems 2. M argues that a strong defense industry is part of the country's defense capability 3. M believes that control over the industry can be ensured through manufacturing licenses with requirements for Swedish management 4. M does not believe that nationalization is the best way to achieve increased production 4. M argues that instead, one should look at the example of Ukraine, where production was increased by deregulating and privatizing parts of the industry to increase competition and lower prices 4. M emphasizes that it is increased production that is needed to be able to upgrade quickly 4.
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! Johan Andersson has asked me how the work on the future fighter jet program is progressing and when a position is expected for a potential upcoming decision. The background to Johan Andersson's questions is that he states there is a broad consensus in the Riksdag regarding developing a future fighter jet in Sweden. Johan Andersson has also stated that a mandate has been given to FMV to, together with Saab, prepare a basis for a decision in the Riksdag which may be part of an upcoming procurement.
The Government sees a need to be able to make a decision on a principled choice regarding replacements for Jas 39 by 2028–2030. Such a decision presupposes a number of considerations and broad political anchoring.
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 for the future based on operational needs. The activity shall be carried out in cooperation with the Defence Materiel Administration and the Total Defence Research Institute.
The Armed Forces shall, by the budget basis for 2028 at the latest, submit a basis for the government's continued considerations ahead of an upcoming crossroads. The basis shall be based on the Armed Forces' operational needs with real alternatives regarding future combat aircraft.
The Armed Forces report their activities annually through a written account.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister for the answer. I am actually satisfied with it, which we on this side of the rostrum very rarely say.
I do, however, have some supplementary questions. As the Minister knows, I come from Östergötland, and there we have a long tradition of building combat aircraft together with several towns and several countries. The Jas 39 Gripen has served Sweden well for many years and has had great export successes, which continues and is very positive.
It needs to be a good process when it comes to the future of combat aviation, and conflicts around the world show how important combat aviation capability is. Here I believe we have the same opinion.
The Defense Commission, in which the parties are included, is working on upcoming positions. We have to wait and see if reassessments and new decisions are required until the commission is finished with its work. It concerns risk analyses and other matters. We can, however, state that the situation in our global environment is changing rapidly. What we believed a year ago does not apply today. In that regard, the combat aviation and how it shall be managed is, of course, very important.
From our side, we would like to see that the facilities available here in the country are utilized when it comes to combat aircraft. This applies, among other things, to the many companies that are suppliers, and there are, of course, also such [companies] abroad.
I understand that we must take into account the timeframe for FMV's investigation, and I am satisfied with the checkpoints in the form of reports and other such things. I believe that we will have quite a few discussions ahead in this assembly and elsewhere on this issue. But what will be the next step once we have reached a decision? There are not that many actors who can deliver combat aircraft, but we have good conditions because our climate is a bit different than in other places in the world.
How does the Minister think regarding the next steps when the investigation is subsequently completed?
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I thank Johan Andersson for the constructive tone and the great commitment to Swedish combat aircraft capability. This is important and good. I usually say that we are at our best when we can unite as a country, and I think we have done so repeatedly in the defense policy area. This is a type-question where we will strive for broad political consensus, and the decision will apply for many decades ahead. We will work with Gripen E until around 2050, so it is a long-term decision, which also involves large economic means.
I think Sweden has succeeded well when it comes to making such decisions. All eight parties stand behind the total defense decision made on 17 December 2024, as well as the agreement on 18 June 2025 that Sweden shall increase to 5 percent of GDP. All eight parties also stand behind the support for Ukraine, and six of eight parties stand behind Sweden's Nato membership and integration into Nato. This guarantees that we will also reach an agreement on this issue. It is indeed a large and important decision.
We have launched a path-choice program. That is how it is always done, and that is how it was done with Gripen C/D and A/B. It is completely natural that one looks through which alternatives exist. We now have a process where the authorities are working on this based on the operational needs that the Armed Forces will have in the future. It is, however, completely natural that we also have a political process.
I have not seen the Defence Preparation's work with this, so in this regard, I would like to have a parliamentary reference group that has the opportunity to follow the authorities' work. I therefore look forward to launching such a group during the spring, so that we can then follow the work of the investigators and the authorities with this. What lies at the basis for this is, of course, the path-choice program, where we have allocated many billions to maintain the freedom of action to develop our own combat aircraft in the future. It is important in order to be able to work with demonstrators and maintain competence. It is the starting point for working long-term and strategically with this.
So, this is about the replacement for the Gripen E. I had the privilege of being at F7 when the Gripen E was rolled out, and Sweden holds its own when it comes to having a newly developed fighter aircraft. It also has a number of unique capabilities. The dispersal system, which allows one to operate outside of airbases, is an important capability that increases the attractiveness and is something that many countries around the world are interested in, not least based on the experiences from the war in Ukraine, where one sees how the long-range capability has developed.
This is a platform that is dimensioned to meet the Russian air forces. There is a completely unique electronic warfare system in the Gripen E that I dare to claim is world-leading. It is, therefore, a platform that enters a situation where there is a great need for upgrading. That we, unlike many other countries, stand well there, we secure success in the future.
Just as Johan Andersson noted, we have now also seen great successes in the export market. I will return to that. This is important for sharing development costs with other countries. It took ten years before we got a Gripen deal, but then we got it with Thailand. After that, we got it with Colombia, and I have good hopes that Brazil is interested in more Gripen E.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I think it sounds very positive with the interparliamentary group. Just as the Minister says, it is a major issue for Sweden, for the Riksdag, and for other parts of the political organization.
Export is also very exciting. Just as the Minister says, it has gained momentum. We have had several successes in recent years, even though it was a bit slow at the start. If we can share the development costs with more countries, it is always a success. It can also affect the future pricing at potential sales and other things once we have reached a product, but that is the next part.
I know that it does not quite belong to the Minister's questions, but I am a bit concerned about the competence supply within the defense industry. We adopted a defense materiel strategy not so long ago, and we had a debate and a good discussion about this. We are fairly in agreement between the parties. We might want to see more of different parts, but overall it still feels good.
How, the Minister believes, can we develop this part? We know that we have a skills shortage in several sectors of the Swedish labor market, especially where there has been industry previously. We have not had a defense industry in that way for many years, but right now there is a huge boom.
When we meet the industry, we hear that it is attractive to work within the defense industry. It has not always been that way, and it has therefore turned around. What can we do together to support in that part? When we have reached a decision on a future combat aircraft – where I really hope it will be a Swedish supplier – it is important that we can provide the necessary skills, regardless of how it turns out.
I would very much like to hear if the Minister for Defence and the government have any thoughts or ideas on that.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! I shall return to the issue of skills supply in just a moment, but first, I want to put the question of future combat aircraft into perspective in two respects.
One thing is that it must be reality and not the map that governs. What we see now is an extremely rapid technical development, not least when it comes to connectivity and AI. In that regard, the Gripen stands well, and it is well known that Saab has worked with Helsing. Work is also being done on an AI program linked to the Gripen E. It is thus an exponential, rapid technical development that drives forward and influences.
The second is the possibility of finding strategic partnerships to share the development costs, which we have touched upon. We must admit that the F35 has so far been more successful than the Gripen. It is naturally an asset that there is strength in numbers. If we can get the Gripen linked to, not least Ukraine, and secure a cooperation there, it would be a great success for us and also strategically important. It is about collaborations that extend many decades forward and that tie strong bonds between nations. Therefore, it feels extra urgent to do it with Ukraine.
There is a third dimension that is also important, and that is which other programs exist. There are actually three major programs. There is a German-French-Spanish program called FCAS. Then there is the GCAP program, which the UK, Japan, and Italy are working on. Finally, the Americans have a program called F-47. We did not jump on any of them, even though we spoke with the Brits. The programs have had some challenges as the technology has run ahead of them a bit. This applies in particular to the balance between unmanned and manned.
I dare say that we now, through the development of Gripen E, have a mature product that stands very well. I just want to mention that perspective, because it will affect our cooperation opportunities. We have freedom of action, and I think we have obtained that through the path choice program.
Competence supply is a very important issue, and it is an area where the defense industry plays an ever-increasing role. I usually say that the buildup of the defense is the largest societal reform that Sweden has undertaken in many decades. It is also one of the fastest societal reforms in terms of public funds, and this naturally affects the entire society. Part of it is personnel supply, as Johan Andersson was touching upon.
There are things that give me hope when it comes to attractiveness – that people want to be involved and contribute. I can state that FMV is Sweden's fifth most popular agency to work for. They are succeeding in growing. Saab was the most popular employer among Sweden's engineers last year. This shows that there is an attractiveness and a pride in working within the defense industry. I am always careful to emphasize that a strong defense industry is part of a country's collective defense capability and that one is involved and contributing to Sweden's defense.
The fourth dimension I want to bring up is the work we do with STEM. It does not fall under the Ministry of Defence but under the Ministry of Enterprise and the Ministry of Education. We work on ensuring that more people make the choice to work with technical and natural science subjects so that we produce more engineers. That our young people receive good basic knowledge in school and learn mathematics and natural science is important for Sweden's prosperity. It is one of the ways we work to secure the personnel supply. This is important. Just last year, the number of employees in the defense industry increased by over 6,000. It is also an important part of Sweden's social economy.
Johan Andersson (S)
Madam Speaker! I thank the Minister very much for the answer regarding the competence supply and how the Minister views future collaborations and other matters.
I have one question remaining. The Minister of Defence is aware that we in the Social Democrats would like to see greater state ownership responsibility when it comes to the defense industry as a whole. There may be slightly different models for this. In several of our neighboring countries, not least Norway and Finland, there is state ownership of various parts. This has been done primarily from a security perspective. Historically, we have had this in Sweden, for the most part until the disarmament, even if it perhaps did not apply to everything entirely.
I would like to hear a bit about how the Minister for Defence and the government reason regarding this issue, especially from a security perspective. I am not saying that it is always for the better to have it under state management, but one can still have parts there. It can look a bit different.
Försvarsministern Pål Jonson (M)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Andersson, for an important interpellation!
When it comes to the privatization of the defense industry, it was an honorable man who carried it out, Björn von Sydow. The last part, which was linked to Celsius, was sold off in 1998, and since then we have had a privately owned industry in Sweden. It has been competitive, and it has served us well.
I agree with Johan Andersson that the issue of ownership is important to highlight. Now there are opportunities to ensure this through the manufacturing license that ISP issues. This requires, among other things, a Swedish CEO and also a number of Swedish members on the board. In that way, we can secure control over this, also linked to IPR rights and cooperation with Försvarets materielverk and Saab. We have not identified any problems so far when it comes to defense companies.
Regarding the second question linked to the nationalization of the defense industry, I am not sure that it is the best way to achieve increased production. I just want to give a contrary example. Ukraine is the country that has succeeded best with a defense industrial reform in Europe. What we donated is starting to run out, and then one has increased production. Ukraine chose to go a different way. To increase efficiency, a large part of the defense industry was deregulated when it came to laws and regulations. One went from 100 companies up to 800 companies, and one privatized. One increased competition in Ukraine, and today the price of defense materiel in Ukraine is actually falling. The problem is that the Ukrainian state does not have the possibility to finance.
I do not believe, therefore, that nationalization will increase production, and it is increased production that we need – especially now when we are to upgrade very quickly. But we can take that in the next debate, Johan Andersson.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.