Thai Air Force seals deal for Swedish Gripen jets
scmp.com
scmp.com
The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases. Those are now hard to protect from drone attacks, as Russia recently found out. From now on, air forces have to be able to operate from improvised bases, or build very strong bunkers at major bases.
I can understand this argument.
> The USAF's force model involves basing at big, well-equipped, well-protected air bases.
But I don't understand this one. Isn't a drone attack a drone attack? The same drones that could take out F-16s could take out Gripens. You'd have to defend your expensive weapon systems in either case.
Don't we need a new strategy that isn't entirely reliant upon extremely powerful, but extremely expensive hardware? I'd imagine you still want your expensive pieces, but that you want a compliment of inexpensive combat items and fortified bunkers as a line of defense to protect them when not deployed.
Also smaller airbases can mean more airbases. So a single drone attack might take out one or two bases worth of Gripen. But it takes a lot more drones and a lot more sophisticated attack to take out all the Gripen spread across so many small bases.
A jet like the Gripen can move basically instantly to basically anywhere and then it's hard to find, especially because it can just move again
I was under the impression a few attacks on air bases happened, but a lot more drones were aimed at refineries and other infrastructure.
They hit a substantial fraction of the Russian long range bombers and assorted other aircraft. Quite a bit of that is at least for the moment impossible for Russia to replace.
Gripens could base on ordinary highway, so could distribute planes through big territory.
Drones usually have limited range, so they really could target most air bases capable for F-16 (using for example semi-truck container as movable nest), but it is literally impossible now, to target all highways.
Some USAF officers have been making noise about the need for more dispersal for years.[3]
There's a "build tougher bases" faction in the military. Read "Concrete Sky"[4]
If you want to read up on this, those are some good starting points.
[1] https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Jo...
[2] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/drone-hype-and-air...
[3] https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/A...
[4] https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Concrete...
Any opinion as to which faction(s) will win these arguments?
It remains valid in most scenarios, as in most force on force that is not US/PRC, because very few countries has c4isr abilities to kill chain entire operational theatre, i.e. it's partially hopium strategy in US vs PRC in IndoPac. Which circles back to your second point, the related debate around hardening and distributing is almost distraction - airforce capitalization of highend platforms is in the shitters - so there's parallel discussion around distributed / agile deployment but with cheaper CCAs. Of course what's typically being hand waved away is the logistics tail part, i.e. there's already massive maintenance personnel shortages, unlikely to disperse thousands of maintenance crews on the ground to support the concept. The even more handwaved part for US in IndoPac is host nation access / political constraints.
There's a reason US wants JP to support ACE/agile combat employment (as in on main islands), increase harden shelters... but JP reluctant to open main islands. Because no one wants more American forces doing shenanigans with their civilians and the optics of having support fleets reminding populace they're on the frontline is bad. Hence JP still largely constraining US to Okinawa/Ryukyus, PH in Luzon/Palawan. The further downstream handwaving of all this is even if properly implemented, is now you've spread out shit load of more exposed logistics staff across vulnerable islands, i.e. dramatically increased exfiltration complexity / suicide deployments. Survivability of drones increases, survivability of the logistics force decreases. Which is... even worse optics, hence it's rarely even part of discussion with respect to ACE. There some self awareness with marine NMESIS MLRS / EABO (expeditionary advanced base operations)... i.e. wait we're sending marines on likely one way missions to tiny islands that PRC can lock down? Maybe that's worth if they take out a type055.
- Anti-air weapons all based on maneuverability much exceed planes with human pilots.
- Anti-missile maneuver based on limited energy in missile, because it is usually ~100 times smaller then plane, and square-cube rule mean, missile could make active flight just few seconds - if plane survive these seconds it win.
Stealth planes are new tier in warfare, because enemy see them when already lost time need to launch anti-air weapons.
USAF's switch to improvised bases seems to be motivated by needing to operate from small islands in the Pacific where they isn't enough solid ground to build a full airbase.
But if they land on big well known bases, it's much simpler.
Another comment here about slow drone speeds and nest drones:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44918955
And sometimes the other side can destroy all big airbases in a small country.
Specifically, Swedish doctrine assumes all airfields are destroyed 24-48h after start of major conflict.
However, revisit times are still long enough that sibling comment's remarks on mobility make sense.
I would bet that within a year we'll see ransom attacks on airfields in open societies. The idea is out there and the capabilities are so cheap that any idiot could do it.
The schedules, radar frequencies, etc. of those commercial satellites are all public knowledge.
(Based on timestamps) your reference is to user cutemonster's comment. Yep - "move immediately after the satellite passes" is a game that children can master. I would put a bit more weight on user walrus01's (later) sibling comment - on the problem of distinguishing small, pop-up air bases from routine civilian activities.
Also, I suspect that very few of those commercial satellite radars have much resilience in the face of jamming. That is expensive and security-sensitive tech on the satellite operator's end, of minimal use to most users of the satellites' services. Vs. in a war zone, the diplomatic consequences of using cheap (relative to getting hit) ECM against surveillance satellites will usually be the lesser evil.
If operating from an airfield that has been improvised out of a straight stretch of highway, the grouping of vehicles that contain all of the necessary ground support equipment and munitions resupply can be disguised to resemble an ordinary civilian cargo box truck, or tractor trailer combo.
Unless the attacking force is willing to begin with the resources needed, and repercussions of airstriking everything that looks like a civilian cargo truck moving in the region, it would be extremely difficult to eliminate the group of vehicle and men that compromise the ground support equipment element. Particularly when you might have multiple groups of such roaming randomly around an area.
They are all parked individually at separate locations kilometers away from the road landing strip.
When the plane comes in for landing, they (3-5 pickup trucks and a tiny tanker) all scramble and meet up when the plane touches down. Refuel and rearm in 10 minutes, drive away again.
I've seen this done with my own eyes, it's very impressive.
Nothing is really new. I used to live in West Germany in the '70s and '80s. The UK had an aircraft called Harrier - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_jump_jet. At that time I think Sweden was deploying the Drakken (Dragon) and later the Vigen (Lightning). I made models of both as a child and I think both of them were superb in their own way.
Harrier was designed to work out of fields, let alone roads. Rather similar to an Apache. Minimal maint (ish) and so on.
I now live in Yeovil, Somerset and we have recently had several Italian rotary wing aircraft, such as The Seaking doing test flights around here. Presumably airframe testing and proving for VJ Day.
The names are much less flashy, Draken (The kite, due to the shape) and Viggen (The tufted duck) :P.
The names do however carry the other meanings as well.
Draken means (the) kite, dragon and male duck.
Viggen means (the) lightning and tufted duck.
RNAS (Royal Naval Air Station) Yeovilton in nearby Ilchester, which has also a fascinating museum of British naval aviation and an old Concorde.
[Fun fact - Yeovilton and Westlands are connected by an old Roman road: A37 Ilchester Road, Vagg Lane, Vagg Hill, Larkhill Road... ]
Also, the French: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEPECAT_Jaguar which was designed to be useable from improvised runways, hence the extremely robust landing gear.
It (Jag) wasn't really about mixing it in the hand to hand combat thing - it was a trainer and a few other things. I remember the landing gear being really long but not robust.
This works great unless the onshore enemy has anti-ship missiles and drones.[2] Unlike fleet carriers, which can stand off from an enemy shore, amphibious assault ships have to operate in sight of shore, maybe a few kilometers, because their job is to launch boats. That's within small drone range.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_...
[2] https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press...
Also, anti ship missiles and drones aren’t a cheat code. They can be suppressed, jammed, destroyed with preparatory fires, or shot down in flight. Anti-ship missiles aren’t new, nor are anti-anti-ship-missile-missiles. Anti-ship missiles were a major factor in the 1982 Falklands War but not, in the end, a decisive one.
The Swiss Air Force is regularly practicing starting and landing on highways: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYkleF72du8
Not hard at all - just build the damn concrete shelters. Not going to protect you from bunker busters but more than plenty against drones
While Ukraine was able to use drones to attack Russian airbases, this was not the way Israel overpowered Iran, whose main driving factor was F-35s rather than drones (although these were present)
Edited: STOVL not VTOL
In practice the main benefit of STOVL has been in naval aviation. CATOBAR carriers are expensive and challenging to build, especially if you don’t have the economy of scale of building a dozen of the same class instead of just the 1-2 most countries can actually afford. A STOVL jet can also operate from an amphibious assault ship. The feasibility of the “improvised airfield” concept with modern jets is unproven and controversial, while STOVL naval aviation has been successfully done for decades.
This is an oft quoted gimmick. Most planes can take off just fine from a normal paved road. As a rule of thumb, if the road can supported a heavy container truck, it can support an aircraft of equivalent weight. (Transportation class and airliners are a different story entirely as they are extremely heavy).
A good runway is one that's without debris. The only other factor that makes a plane good for taking off on different surfaces is the location and design of the engine intake. You want to avoid rocks being sucked into the engine.
But generally speaking, if you have a nice clean paved road that can support heavy usage by semis trucks, most random fighter jets can take off from it just fine.
Ukraine has been successful attacking Russian airbases with drones because they can sneak entire truckloads of drones and drone pilots into Russian-controlled territory. And even that was a massive operation that took over a year to plan. Israel carried out similar drone operations against Iran, so we know it’s not a fluke and this approach can be effective, but it’s harder to pull off the longer the distances become.
The US are trying to alter the deal and raise the price to ~1 billion USD more than agreed to.
I wish Switzerland would do the same and cancel the deal.
On top of that Switzerland should go a step further and impose a tax on gold exported to the united states if they don't stop with their silly little 39% tariffs on imported Swiss goods. Just ridiculous and embarrassing to sever long running trade relationships out of ignorance.
That's correct, or at least it was until this week. Did you happen to see the recent announcement where NVidia and AMD are now apparently required to pay 15% of the revenue from GPUs exported to China to the U.S. government? This is apparently GPUs which were, prior to this new 15% payment, "too harmful to our national security" to export to China.
Frankly, I only saw the headlines and haven't looked into it myself yet - mostly because it makes my head hurt trying to even tally the laws, policies and trade agreements doing this would probably violate. So, I'm admittedly unclear on the details but it sure sounds like an "export tariff".
Source: lawyer who understands the core element of law is enforceability, but who is not himself a criminal due to quality upbringing
in other words, threaten to put up barriers than agree to take them down for a "fee"; it's exactly what the mafia does
It just isn't commonly done to apply an export tariff.
Tell that to Nvidia and AMD
Swiss also pride themselves to European but having their own way of doing things, and as a result they aren't going to join EU.
Tough times, wishing them the best luck.
Also, this procurement process was driven by former Swiss Defence Minister Viola Amherd who has since stepped down from her position.
While the deal may still be own, it will probably be altered such that it is within budget (lower quantity).
Tough times indeed.
I don't understand why people claim that. Here are the actual facts/timeline:
Nov 2021: Switzerland agreed contract terms with the U.S. government for 36 F-35A and budgeted CHF 6.035 bn. Under U.S. FMS (Foreign military sales) rules, LOA (letter of offer) values are estimates and the buyer owes actual full cost, so this was not an enforceable CHF-fixed total.
May 2022: The Swiss Federal Audit Office warned of legal uncertainty around any fixed price, but the warning was ignored internally.
Sep 2022: Parliament authorized; LOA signed Sep 19, 2022.
Jun 2025: Switzerland announced the U.S. disputes a binding fixed price and sought a diplomatic solution. U.S. officials pointed to inflation/raw-material/energy costs that have changed.
Aug 2025: Switzerland announced it cannot legally enforce a fixed price and is estimating additional costs (+CHF 650 m–1.3 bn).
Which in most cases is the norm. From what I understand, the Swiss deal is mired in federal corruption with the then defence minister, Viola Amherd, going for the most unfavorable terms.
Their junta and King wants to keep Thailand as an authoritarian illiberal democracy. The Biden admin on the other hand strongly opposed democratic backsliding in Thailand [2]
As a result, they - like Cambodia - decided to flip to China.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...
[1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/06/17/china-thailand-submarin...
[2] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...
We the US cannot have a values based foreign policy - all that matters is power.
Cambodian and Thai leadership wants to retain power, so they decided to work with the Chinese - who don't care if you are an autocracy or a democracy, while we tried to make an example out of Thailand (and Cambodia) for regressing into authoritarian military governments.
We the US need to return to the same mercenary foreign policy. We are starting to do that again with rappoachment to Pakistan, shielding Israel, and arm twisting the Europeans.
Welcome to a multipolar world - only the powerful can set the rules.
This is exactly why countries are deciding to reduce their dependence on the US. If you're one president or one policy away from being cut off from technology, tariffed to death or otherwise bullied you're going to choose other partners.
Politics is about power, that much is true. But power exercised with restraint. China isn't increasing its influence by arm twisting but the opposite. Simply saying "we're open for business" and not interfering in the domestic politics of other countries as long as that's reciprocated. This is effectively a reversal of the Cold War, which they learned a lesson from. Acting like the Soviet Union isn't going to serve the US well.
The more you look like a desperate empire in its late stages losing its grip, replacing mutual benefit with brutality the faster you're done. That ought to be the lesson of the 20th century.
My brief research says Cambodia was using old Soviet and Chinese stuff, with some UAV support.
But in the 2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy, build an independent press (a number of Cambodian journalists used to be HN users back in the day), invest in rural healthcare expansion, and even sponsored Hun Sen's son to study in the US.
The Cambodian leadership didn't want any of that. They wanted to continue to rule as an oligarchy, and Western development funds came with oversight requirements and American firms followed the FCPA.
On the other hand, Chinese vendors were fine paying bribes to leadership in Cambodia and ignoring rising criminality (it was a win-win for China as well - they were able to "convince" organized crime to leave China).
China's elite centric approach [0][1] to foreign relations is better than grassroots democracy promotion that a subset of Americans believed in.
If Cambodia or Serbia or Thailand's leadership want to remain a dictatorship or oligarchy, let them. It's not our problem. Our commitment to democracy should be within our borders. Let other countries be dictatorships or democracies as long as they align with our interests. This is what China and Russia does.
[0] - https://www.iseas.edu.sg/articles-commentaries/iseas-perspec...
[1] - https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/lost-translati...
History of US-Cambodia relations -
1970 - CIA aids Lon Nol coup against government. US invades Cambodia. US kills 4 student protesters against invasion at Kent State, 2 at Jackson State
1970-1973 Operation Freedom Deal, US drops 250,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia
1975 King Sihanouk, overthrown by CIA assisted coup in 1970 returns to power, in coalition with communists. The destabilization of the country by the US is what is seen to help bring the communists to power
1979 Split in Cambodian communists, Vietnamese-aligned side comes to power. US immediately begins to arm the coalition of Sihanouk and the so-called "Khmer Rouge". The US also fights to keep the Khmer Rouge coalition as Cambodia's UN representatives. The New York Times reports on the arms shipments in the early-mid 1980s
[...]
"2010s we helped Cambodia transition into a democracy"
I've noticed that alephnerd's comments are often tinted with pro-U.S. propaganda. Note that I'm not accusing him of being disingenuous or malicious. I think he shares his thoughts and viewpoints in good faith. But his bias is very obvious when he writes about topics I'm familiar with, which makes me a bit skeptical when he writes about topics I'm not familiar with.
In reality, the US-Thailand relationship has been dead since the Junta took over in Thailand, and for domestic brownie points we decided to make an example out of them and Cambodia for democratic backsliding during the Biden admin [3]
Edit: cannot reply below (@Dang am I being rate limited)
The US has consistently rejected Thailand's F-35 request under the Biden admin [0][1]. If forced to buy a 4th gen jet, may as well buy the cheapest option on the market, which is the Gripen, as they have been using the Gripen for decades [2].
European affairs have little to do with affairs in Asia.
[0] - https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/thailand-...
[1] - https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/thailand-f35-02162022...
[2] - https://www.reuters.com/article/business/autos-transportatio...
[3] - https://asia.nikkei.com/politics/turbulent-thailand/thailand...
It could just be tariff backlash—aircraft have historically been the US' largest export. But I do wonder if the recent tests of US military tech in Russia/Iran had any hand in this
fighter jets are unicorns on the same level as chips you cant just procure 3nm chips tomorrow because you want too. I'm not super knowledgeable on them, but its interesting to see how difficult maintaining and making new gens are for example gripens still rely on US engine, china relies on Russian engines etc and the US seems to be always ahead
Not to mention there are key areas that the US is widely considered to be behind on (e.g. hypersonic glide vehicles and drones) compared to the "Second World" powers. And there's been lots of talk—even from within the US—that drones have become more important to modern warfare than manned jets.
When you buy a fighter plane you should expect to not be able to fly for the full duration of a single conflict the manufacturing country disagrees about.
This seems like it’s being revisited.
https://www.theverge.com/news/719697/nvidia-ai-gpu-chips-den...
We've made great strides in reliability over the years, but planes are anything but solid-state like integrated CPUs are.
Do we know this to be true still? There's a lot of new modern equipment that other countries have that have not gone head-to-head against to really know that any more.
Israel quickly found out when trying to shoot down “cheap” $30k Iranian drones.
That's a funny thing to say on the very day that Trump might've brokered a peacedeal that instantly would end the war.
Seems obviously more valuable to me than selling weapons to Ukraine for many years to "help its ally"?
Ukraine also is not our only ally - the current administration constantly makes fun of our other ones
God, a warmonger is currently dealing with someone who cosplays as a strongman/world-leader, and poorly.
I can't imagine the stupidity to imagine he's going to make a good deal. But then again, that Koolaid is going to make you believe that it will be a good deal, and if Zelensky or the EU don't want it, they're ungrateful losers...
With whom is he meeting on each side of the conflict such that he might have brokered a peace deal?
The fact his response was not an immediate yes response to supporting Article 5 is destabilizing. As a result, the other NATO members are hedging their bets.
There are many more trees in the world than the Ukraine shaped tree that you can't seem to look around.
There's no other way Trump can broker a quick end to the war. He doesn't have the kind of leverage to persuade a peace deal without giving Putin what Putin wants, and even if he did, there's a good chance the calculating manipulator Putin would still play him like a fiddle due to Trump's egotism.
Even if Trump were to be able to broker a quick peace -- which he has been promising since day one but obviously not achieved -- he would not be doing that for the sake of the allies of the US.
who are livid after orangeman applied 39% tariffs because he doesn't understand the triangle trade of gold
Do we really think Spain and Portugal are going to fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere? I don’t. Isn’t Switzerland a neutral country? This isn’t a slight against any of these countries but let’s be realistic.
Canada is going to buy still*
* https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/canada-to-buy-all-88-f-...
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
And just to make sure the record is very clear I am very grateful for our allies and their contributions, particularly to the war in Afghanistan, but that’s Afghanistan, it’s not Russia or China. And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
2) The linked article doesn't say what you claim it says. The Cdn. military is advising the government to go ahead with the entire F-35 purchase. That doesn't necessarily mean the civilian government will agree. We just don't know yet.
They’ll buy. Also the OP said
“Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.”
Did they lose interest? Doesn’t appear to be the case for Canada.
It's a perfect argument. You declared that Spain (and Portugal) would likely not help in a NATO action. Yet, recent history proves you directly and unequivocally wrong. Spanish blood was spilled to prove that point, so maybe have some respect?
>How many times has Spain been attacked? Not a great argument.
>...
>And Spain in particular is unwilling to increase defense spending - why is that?
You answered your own question. Well done.
Note: I'm not supporting their decision, just pointing out that it's arguably quite rational from a certain point of view.
Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.
Not all wars are created equal. It’s not the same thing. You either are unrealistic about how the world works or you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.
> Lastly, the linked article still doesn't say what you claimed it said. If you were responding to a falsehood, that doesn't excuse confidently posting another falsehood.
OP
> Portugal and Canada also both lost interest in American F-35s recently.
Canada’s military
> we Strongly recommend and encourage buying F-35s
But hey you know at least I provided a source… so I’ll just throw the OP’s claim away since they are unable to provide a source.
> You answered your own question. Well done.
Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made. QED
It's very simple. You said you didn't think Spain would ever "fight alongside US forces in Europe or elsewhere". I pointed out that recent history unequivocally proves you wrong. But instead of conceding the point you're changing the criteria to some imaginary scenario that makes it impossible for anyone to counter-argue.
So yes, you're right... I have no idea how Spain would respond to some imaginary scenario playing out in your head right now. But I do know what their actual, historical record is. There are dead and maimed soldiers that prove it.
It's such a disgrace for American civilians to make up some vague hidden criteria for why allied deaths and injuries don't "count". Furthermore, it's exactly this kind of demeaning talk that might makes allies not want to help in the future.
>Yes, and it demonstrated the point that I made.
Lol. Sure.
But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example. So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.
That's ok.
> nor why we would selectively exclude the most important war which requires the most contributions from any nation
Because the United States from back then is completely gone now.
All that's left is people who had nothing to do with it claiming the heritage while acting in the opposite spirit.
> But let’s take a step back - I specifically mentioned Spain, Portugal, and Switzerland. I didn’t say France or the United Kingdom wouldn’t fight alongside the United States, for example.
Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.
> So let’s not lump all European countries together unfairly.
No, let's not.
Aaaand Europe from then is different too? Poor argument.
> Switzerland shouldn't even be in that list and Spain and Portugal are just about able to stay afloat, a little bit ahead of Italy, Romania and Bulgaria on some dimensions and at party on others.
Please do us a favor and read the OP. I didn’t bring up Switzerland, I responded to the OP.
> No, let's not.
So don’t do it?
Now it is.
I don't think anybody fears that the US will cease to be a country. Or even that it will cease to be an important country. The question is whether they will be your reliable ally in 25-40 years, or even in four years. Or will they start some pattern of being your friend for a couple years, then cutting you off for a few years, then trying to re-friend you? That is not a relationship on which anybody wants to build their national security support.
From the POV of the time? Sure, we can see with the benefit of hindsight that even 40 years was true up until at least 1985, but did people plan that far ahead at the time?
25 years, sure, I think that was true for most of it, with only a handful of exceptions like France and the UK being upset about what happened in response to their actions in the Suez Crisis. IMO correct call by USA there, and I say that as a British citizen by birth, but still means "can we rely on them?" resolves "no", and this loss of de facto independence in what they could do explains much of British foreign policy since then.
But Gripen has Meteor and can fly really well. Now, I'm a Swede, but there are claims of practical experiments in Norway trying out old some Gripen planes vs F-15C and F-16 have shown that the Gripen is simply better at air-to-air stuff.
The F-16 is obviously bigger though, so if you want to bomb somebody a lot and whoever that is doesn't have anything to put up against it then maybe it's reasonable to get one of those instead, but I don't think that's a problem Thailand has. I think they want an air force that can challenge another air force if required.
It's also nice since one can actually fly with it without breaking the bank.
China is a non starter, even a next gen aircraft is no match for their entire military.
A competent air-to-air capability will be a deterrent.
A country like Cambodia is screwed against Thailand whatever Thailand buys.
W.r.t. the comparison, maybe. The F-16V doesn't have Meteor though and probably has a much larger radar signature, probably also much larger IR signature, probably also worse close-in performance since the Gripen has so low wing loading.
“An important factor in the purchase of the F-35 by European governments was the idea that European defense would be built on a transatlantic basis in terms of strategy, institutions and capabilities,” she said, adding that “the Trump administration is in the process of dissolving the transatlantic link, and the purchase of American systems will therefore no longer have any added value for Europeans.”
“If you keep punching your allies in the face, eventually they’re going to stop wanting to buy weapons from you,” said a Western European defense official, granted anonymity to discuss the matter candidly. “Right now we have limited options outside of U.S. platforms, but in the long run? That could change in the coming decades if this combativeness keeps up.”
[1] https://www.politico.eu/article/punching-allies-in-the-face-...
"I could change in the coming decades."
"The most stable rock formation could change in the coming decades."
"Even under the best possible leadership, EU and US relations could change in the coming decades."
You start making yourself look unreliable now, then you prompt a transition away and by the time it's underway there's no reason to switch back anyway - i.e. traditionally stable companies "suddenly" are having trouble finding sales.
Boeing's string of disasters over the last couple of years isn't so much a concern for its short-term health as it is for Boeing's ability to land any long-term payouts. They hire people today to deliver a product twelve years from now. If there is no prospect for twelve years from now they start caving in today. You just don't see the dust cloud for a few years.
Because America is currently an untrustworthy ally who is 100% American first and thinks deploying the military on home soil and applying harsh tariffs to its allies is more important than anything else, it’s best to countries no longer rely on the USA for basically anything. That will probably mean the end of the USD as a global reserve currency at some point too. Which is fine because it’s what the majority of voting Americans wanted. Isolationist, American first policies.
Go look at how Zelensky was treated in the interview with Trump and Vance and how the literal red carpet is rolled out for Putin and other world leaders with a brain see that and say, no thanks…
Maybe the Ukrainians could have tinkered with these warheads and find out how to enable them.... but that is quite risky.
If they had nuclear weapons they’d be respected, like North Korea now. No one going to mess with them.
did they try 0000? https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/launch-code-for-...
If you have a warhead and a few months (definitely if more then a year) then you have a warhead.
Ukraine has rocketry expertise and nuclear scientists and powerplants. As a nation they were easily capable of reactivating Russian warheads - physical access is total access.
It's an open question among people who research these things whether the weapons stored in Ukraine even had the PALs you're referring to (Permissive Action Link). The literature is contradictory and while wikipedia insists they did, other (quite credible IMO) accounts indicate the PALs were only used on submarine devices at the time. In any rate, it is well known that the Ukranians could have reverse engineered and bypassed the devices; even the US State Dept contemporaneously estimated the PAL would last only "months".
I have no idea what was actually on those weapons but the popular notion that they had the PALs installed is not actually that well founded once you look at the primary sources. Whether it makes any difference is of course another story (I suspect not).
[0] https://russianforces.org/RussianStrategicNuclearForcesC2Pag... page 61-62 see references to authorization codes required for launch in retaliation . See page 64 for launching retaliatory strike when supreme command has been eliminated- again authorization codes are required.
[1] https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0297russians/ References the January 25 1995 incident when Boris Yeltsin activated the Kazbek command and authorization system as a result of a false alarm. Again: authorization from supreme command is required
[2] https://thebulletin.org/premium/2025-05/russian-nuclear-weap... section Russia’s nuclear strategy and its war in Ukraine again mentions authorization codes are required for nuclear strike
Reed, Thomas C. At the Abyss: An Insider's History of the Cold War. Presidio Press/Ballantine Books, 2004
relevant quote (from 1992):
> The Soviets were well aware of nuclear weapon safety issues. Even though that subject touches on the internals of weapon design, they were willing to talk and seek advice. They discussed the merits of their transportation containers, which they felt to be superior to U.S. models, and they confirmed that their weapons were “disabled” when in storage, whatever that meant. On the other hand, security (preventing theft or misuse) was a new subject to them. Throughout the Soviet system nuclear weapons had been secured by operational means: people watching people who watched still other people. The Soviets confirmed that there were no electronic or mechanical locking devices on their weapons (as there are in the U.S.), a subject that grew to be of enormous concern as the KGB disappeared, the army disintegrated, and well-financed terrorists infiltrated the country.
RAND corp - From Testing to Deploying Nuclear Forces The Hard Choices Facing India and Pakistan (1998) - https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_papers/IP192.html
> There are two ways to do this. One way is to use a mechanical device, which prevents the arming of the weapon unless the proper code is entered. In the United States, such devices, used extensively on U.S. weapons, are called Permissive Action Links (PALs). The other way is to use specially selected personnel in an organization separate from the military to maintain weapons control. This method was used in the old Soviet Union and is still used by Russia. India must decide on the combination of these two methods that it wants to use.
Interesting report from Sweden's defense research agency in 2005 - concluding that no-one knows if Russia's tactical nukes have PALs (majority of warheads in UA were tactical) - https://www.foi.se/rest-api/report/FOI-R--1588--SE
I hope this at least shows that it's not quite as settled a question as some make out! And I realize these aren't quite as "primary" as I had remembered; I thought they had more direct quotes, but I do find these sources quite credible.
Not really. What do you expect to happen, exactly? Do you think they're designed to detonate if some tamper sensor is triggered, like in a movie?
Trump and Vance first, then their families, then America on a distant third place
See what a coincidence that Trump becomes a president and few months later Patriots can't intercept Russian missiles.
Siding with two war criminals. FTFY
If the trade negotiations are any indication, I wouldn't count on a magical solution to a global coordination problem.
Those countries you are expecting to commit suicide to defend your sovereignty are much more likely to appease the US either because they depend on the US for energy, trade, or military defense (or some combination of those) and have no good alternatives; or because a war with the US would be so devastating--potentially even escalating to nuclear warfare--it is only worth risking for core national security interests.
Of course, geostrategically speaking, Canada is already just America's hat. Direct US control over Canada is not a threat to the core national security interests of any nation with a capability to intervene. So I wouldn't count on foreign intervention if I were you.
Anyway the balance of forces between the US and Canada is so lopsided that any invasion would likely be a fait accompli before any substantive foreign intervention could be launched. Certainly Canada's ports and airspace would be blockaded and closed in any opening action.
In the case of (an IMO very unlikely) US invasion, I think Canada could be isolated, have its energy infrastructure destroyed and internal logistics disrupted, and ultimately the population could be starved into submission if necessary without much difficulty. And no other nation would do anything about it.
Canada would be much better off just surrendering and trying to maintain a national identity post-annexation in the hope of a future peaceful secession.
I think the difference between American values and real values is that there’s nothing tolerable about surrendering to Nazis in hope of some sort of better deal. For a nation that’s been a freedom and liberty cosplayer, I can understand why this idea seems sensible, logical even.
If you really believe Americans are Nazis coming for Canada, you presumably believe the US has the capability and will to force that choice upon you. If so, posting on a US forum about how you'd resist US forces to the bitter end seems like a poor choice. Unfortunately, being dead makes it difficult to defend your values. Peter Thiel says hi.
I understand that jimmies have been thoroughly rustled and that Canadians are frightened. But this "elbows up" false bravado is a bit ridiculous. The US isn't going to invade Canada--and if they did, Canada has no real capacity to resist.
Have you ever looked at a map?
If the threat comes from Russia, EU would struggle mightily merely to defend themselves; they're not crossing the Atlantic to come to Canada's aid. And Canada already has existing military partnerships with many EU countries through NATO... which is a creature of the US. Canada's defense against Russia relies upon integration with the US and NATO.
If the threat comes from China, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on China for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the world against China. Canada's defense against China relies upon integration with the US.
If the threat comes from the US, there is zero chance EU nations will declare war on the US for Canada's sake. Even if they did, they have zero chance of projecting meaningful force across the Atlantic against the US. And if they did, they'd probably end up getting double-teamed by both the US and Russia. Canada's defense against the US is hopeless.
No other nation has the geographical position or force projection capabilities to pose a serious threat to Canada's sovereignty. I'm sure you're very emotional about Trump's annexation comments and tariffs on Canada, but you can't base national security strategy on your fee fees. You ought to get real about Canada's position and options and act accordingly.
(somewhat /s)
Building nuclear weapons specifically to use against the US would also--in some measure, at least--justify any claims that such an invasion is a national security imperative.
Canada shares a border with the US and is an ocean away from anybody else.
DPRK is an ocean away from the US and shares borders with and enjoyed very credible security guarantees from both China and Russia. DPRK also shares a border with US ally South Korea, whose capital and millions of residents they already held at risk from thousands of hardened artillery positions and mobile launchers.
I am not advocating an invasion of Canada. I deplore the annexation rhetoric coming from POTUS. I don't believe there is a serious intention to annex Canada through military force, but I do believe loose talk like what we've seen harms our national security interests and understandably frightens our utterly vulnerable neighbors.
However, I also believe that in this new Great Game it's important to understand the actual state of the board and the likely actions/reactions of the other players.
Deluding oneself that Canada can resist a full-scale invasion by their only neighbor with overwhelming military, economic, industrial, financial, and diplomatic advantages because foreign nations will be obliged to join the war on Canada's side is unwise.
Deluding oneself that developing nuclear weapons would not be an easy casus belli for an actually hostile US is similarly unwise.
The threat already came from russia, and all trump can manage are "two more weeks" TACOs
ridiculous politics, open bribery and extortion... which impacts other countries. The decoupling has begun, spurred by Americas adversaries and our own abhorrent behavior
Planes like this quickly become paperweights if you can't get replacements parts, support and ammunition. And most buyers won't be able to get significant parts of the construction into their countries. So you must trust the political stability of the country you're buying from, that they're still your friend in a decade or a few and support your planes.
Trump and his administration are anything but reliable partners.
With respect to everybody reading this, I'm not prepared to read anything into a purchase of four jets.
From what I've gathered there's some work being done on new engine designs within the FCAS program, but I have no idea how it's going.
California—the world's 4th largest economy—'s biggest export is airplane parts.[4] Is California in for a reckoning as the world seems to be increasingly rejecting US weapons technology?
[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/spain-rejects-f-35-for-europ...
[1] https://breakingdefense.com/2025/08/switzerland-weighs-cuts-...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-slashe...
[3] https://web.archive.org/web/20210317192541/https://www.washi...
[4] https://www.worldstopexports.com/californias-top-10-exports/
This is so misleading. They cut this year's orders of the F-35 in half. That's not even close to the same thing as cutting funding for the program in half. Part of that funding was even reallocated towards streamlining the supply chains and improving maintainence practices.
It seems clear that the plan is to game the system as much as possible before then so Republicans never have to win an election again. If they can do that, they don't need Trump - the Trump administration will live on.
Republicans aren’t some consistent viewpoint. It’s a big tent that’s (somehow) united by Trump. Even if Republicans came to completely dominate politics, they may have their own schism and we end up back in two party land.
Thought that may still be a more chaotic two party land than we have today. Who knows what the future brings.
(There are many models, and all models are wrong, yadda yadda)
Please note I am not planting a flag here, just making an observation.
Are you American? I don't think you understand our culture if you go down this road. Trump operates in the gray -- gray enabled in part by two Democratic presidents doing things like keeping the minimum wage low while painting themselves as progressive as being "soft" on immigration. Is it a kindness to create instability in one's homeland, then look the other way if they flee as long as they don't insist on the same legal protections as others?
Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps, and one that is difficult to put into words without sounding theatrical or shrill.
Biden proposed and backed a boost of the federal minimum wage to $15/hr, it was defeated in Congress (he also unilaterally implemented a boost in the minimum wages under federal contracts, which did not require legislation, to create upward pressure on wages.)
Prior to that, President Obama also backed a federal minimum wage increase which, as well as boosting the wage would have indexed it to inflation going forward, this also was defeated in Congress (President Obama also unilaterally boosted the minimum wage under federal contracts.)
(OTOH, people pretending the President is a dictator and blaming him for failure to implement legislation when the President pushed for it but Congress refused to allow it to be passed is not entirely unrelated to the status quo where the President simply refuses to be bound by the law in his actions, though its not the main reason for that problem.)
> Anyways, the two term limit is a very basic rule, one that would provoke an overwhelming response the likes of which I do not think anyone who contemplates such a move fully grasps
The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line or another is, perhaps, one of the significant reasons why people do not, in fact, rise up in any way that is effective as Trump crosses every red line that exists.
I don't have time to get into the specifics with you, but to put it in poker terms, the democrats play a "tight-passive" strategy - they make piddling bets then fold when called, when faced with an opponent who will C bet them to the river.
Combined with the documented kneecapping of candidates further left than neoliberalism, it's the height of entitlement to fail to govern well, repeatedly, and demand votes because the "other guy" is worse.
>The degree to which people are confident and complacent that other people will spontaneously rise up and do something if Trunp crosses on red line
Maybe spellcheck your own post before assuming I speak for anyone but myself?
>Trump crosses every red line that exists.
You have not spoken to the victims of totalitarianism, and your histrionics will make it sound less dire when folks like me announce with deadly seriousness it's time to go into your condo, lock the door, and get in the bathtub.
Nope, but have spent my time in the Bay and Massachusetts. Born European and currently in Canada. But, guess what, every country looking at their trade deals in the world are not American either. If you need to be American to have confidence in it as a trading partner, there are no such American trading partners on the international stage. Welcome to what the majority of the world is actively thinking about the state of the US right now. The borders can remain the same while the paperwork governing those borders can be changed, just ask the Fifth French Republic.
Very basic rule indeed, and who upholds those rules? The army and police? ICE? The paper is only worth the systems that support them, and there are years to go in tinkering with the make up of those systems. A ruling or two by the Supreme Court, and it's a whole new ball game.
Let me be crystal. TL;DR Only babbling fools think America isn't capable of crossing any line right now on the international stage. The trust, is gone.
I think the babbling fools are the ones with multiple passports, ignorant of their privilege, who demand that the same untrained civilians they turned their noses up at when they tried to leave this place take risks for a type of global elite who's happy to float in wherever they can enrich themselves, then flee.
There are plenty of great unis in the EU and Canada. Why come here, if we're so terrible?
Times have changed..
Vance is the obvious candidate, but I don’t think the 2028 strategy will become clear until after the 2026 mid-terms.
I wonder if some major states like California will secede eventually .
Just yesterday federal agents were in California against the will of the California state government, and gathered outside a building where the governor was speaking, so threats of violence / force are on the table already.
Amazing.
Also, Texas politicians are hiding in other states, and politicians in those other states are acknowledging this and trying to harbor them. This is a situation involving violent force, since Texas and the FBI are trying to arrest the Texas politicians who fled. Just states openly aggravating each other in matters of violence.
President Trump has also done things like threaten to withhold federal funds and aid from states he does not like. There are multiple examples of this. A state could justly feel that they are not getting any benefit from paying federal taxes if that happens.
We're also seeing the US military being deployed on US soil for divisive political reasons, and Trump threatens to do more of this in the future.
Similarly, under the laws of the Kingdom of Great Britain, the 13 colonies also couldn't secede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proclamation_of_Rebellion
Famously, the laws didn't stop those colonies.
* T&C apply
Military hardware exists to achieve a certain mission. Having some insanely great engineering figures Mena's nothing if the hardware is too unreliable to get the job done.
You don't see the F-35 in deployment abroad too often because it's not really needed unless you intend to molest neighboring airspace. Unless you're Washington or Tel Aviv, it's hard justifying the cost.
Göran Persson selling JAS to south africa: https://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/Rx6p1r/ja...
magdalena andersson wants to sell JAs to phillipines: https://www.svd.se/a/y6lrBg/sverige-kan-salja-jas-gripen-til...
the current Ulf Kristersson government is making money under the table selling jas to hungary: https://www.placera.se/telegram/saab-statssekreterare-kopte-...
sweden also sold jas to brazil.
notice how sweden is selling arms to dictators and crap countries?
Unclear if this is some kind of reactionary retaliation for perceived favorability toward Cambodia or if Trump’s apparently favorability toward Cambodia is retaliation for what he may have already known about Thailand’s shift toward EU weaponry. They’re hardly the first country to start shopping around, so the latter wouldn’t surprise me.
Sweden should not make such deals with a country attacking their neighbor.
It’s very likely it played a significant role in the final choice — not necessarily as the only reason, but as a decisive tie-breaker.
Here’s why:
1. Timing was suspiciously close
Snowden’s NSA revelations came out in mid-2013.
Rousseff’s UN speech condemning U.S. spying was in September 2013.
Brazil announced the Saab Gripen NG selection in December 2013 — just three months later.
2. Boeing’s bid was politically radioactive Even if the Air Force had rated the F/A-18 highly, the president would have had to approve the purchase. After the scandal, a U.S. fighter buy would have looked domestically like ignoring a national insult.
3. Public and congressional pressure Brazilian media hammered the NSA issue for months, and opposition politicians would have used a U.S. aircraft deal as evidence of weakness or hypocrisy.
4. The other contenders were “good enough” Gripen NG wasn’t the cheapest in sticker price (Rafale was more expensive), but it was competitive in capability and far stronger in technology transfer terms. That made it easy to justify dropping the U.S. option without taking a big performance hit.
My assessment: If the NSA scandal hadn’t happened, Boeing would still have faced challenges on tech transfer, but it would likely have been the Gripen or F/A-18 in the final decision. With the scandal, the F/A-18 had near-zero chance — the scandal probably moved the Gripen from “contender” to “winner.”