Karlis Neretnieks, former Commander of the Swedish National Defense College, Director of Operations and Fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Military Sciences, regarding his country’s role and contribution to NATO points out the following:
Sweden could contribute to NATO’s deterrent/warfare capabilities in the Nordic Baltic region. For example, by taking primary responsibility for maintaining open Baltic Sea links and the contribution of land forces in the Baltic. There are also some areas, mainly related to air forces, where the Nordic countries could “pool” their resources, since a single country could not afford it.
The United States is the backbone of the alliance. However, the growing challenge posed by China in the Pacific reduces the US’s opportunities to bring more resources to Europe quickly. This increases the demand for persistence and increased personal competence among the European members of the alliance. Here, there should be a Nordic dimension in how we handle this aspect when Finland and Sweden join NATO.
For example, around 2030, the Nordic Air Force will have just over 200 of the world’s most modern fighter jets, the JAS 39 E and F-35. About as much as the Royal Air Force or the German Luftwaffe. Which would provide completely different opportunities to run a sustainable business, compared to what a single country could do.
Acquiring accurate equipment systems is always a difficult balancing act. They are often in danger of becoming cuckoo kings. Today, all Nordic countries lack their own capability to refuel their fighter jets. Refueling aircraft were simply too expensive to procure.
On the other hand, co-ownership in a Scandinavian air refueling tank could probably be considered economically sensible. This would increase opportunities to concentrate air operations anywhere in the Nordic-Baltic region, regardless of where the plan is based. The potential impact of the Nordic aircraft fleet will increase significantly.The Nordic Armed Forces also lack heavy transport aircraft and heavy transport helicopters.
Distances in our part of the world are long. It is further from Malmö to Tromsö in northern Norway than between Malmö and Rome. The ability to move supplies and units quickly is a critical capability in a common Nordic defense concept. The fact that Nordic aerial refueling and transport capabilities will also help facilitate the efforts of other alliance members in the Baltics, or with us, does not make these capabilities any less interesting, on the contrary.
The determined Swedish acquisition of two Globaleye reconnaissance/radar combat aircraft could also be the start of a pan-Scandinavian resource. Although Sweden has an option at two more levels, for a total of four, it does not provide sufficient persistence and volume to meet the needs of all Nordic countries. Nor does it allow for potential losses in the event of war.
Also, when it comes to land and sea conflicts, there are opportunities to create power-enhancing synergies in a Nordic context. Regardless of formal obligations within an alliance, cultural similarities and an understanding of each other’s ways of thinking will be an important “force multiplier.” Something we are also saying is that we should look for Nordic solutions, where possible, in the context of the countries joining NATO.”
Conclusions
- In the above article, the point of view of the single Nordic space in the fields of defense and war industry is expressed by the 3 above countries to deal with the Russian risk, based on the fact that the US has focused on the Pacific to deal with China.
- Therefore the gaps that exist overall in the areas of aerial refueling aircraft, airborne radars and helicopters should be filled through the cooperation of the 3 Nordic NATO member countries and not individually.
- Finally, the further development of technologies so that their fighter aircraft can compete in number and capabilities with Russian fighters, makes the cooperation of the 3 Scandinavian NATO countries imperative.
