Swedish Neutrality

Merkava · Dec 21, 2007

With reference to Lenin assassinated in 1917 thread.

Just how neutral does another country have to be before Sweden agrees to sell military hardware / licences, etc to it?

In the AH fiction book I am trying to write there is, lets say Country X, which is big and powerful. Say it has bought into SAAB predecessors in the 1920's and 1930's sufficient to at least have a major say / control. Country X provides technical help that Sweden was looking for to expand its defence industries.

Could County X design J29 and give design to SAAB and then work jointly to build A32, J35, J37 in later years?

In reality exports were (are?) severely curtailed because of neutrality stance and what the Swedish expectations of the third party should be. Could someone expand on what Sweden would look for in another country and how far this situation could be 'warped' by Country X assistance in high technology transfer in exchange for agreement?

Grey Wolf · Dec 21, 2007

Merkava said:
With reference to Lenin assassinated in 1917 thread.

Just how neutral does another country have to be before Sweden agrees to sell military hardware / licences, etc to it?

In the AH fiction book I am trying to write there is, lets say Country X, which is big and powerful. Say it has bought into SAAB predecessors in the 1920's and 1930's sufficient to at least have a major say / control. Country X provides technical help that Sweden was looking for to expand its defence industries.

Could County X design J29 and give design to SAAB and then work jointly to build A32, J35, J37 in later years?

In reality exports were (are?) severely curtailed because of neutrality stance and what the Swedish expectations of the third party should be. Could someone expand on what Sweden would look for in another country and how far this situation could be 'warped' by Country X assistance in high technology transfer in exchange for agreement?

Does it depend on WHEN ?

IIRC Sweeden had no neutrality officially pre-WW1 as it was considering its options

WW2, I still dont think it definitely had made any statement ?

I don't know, but I think different eras would have different answerrs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

stevep · Dec 21, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
Does it depend on WHEN ?

IIRC Sweeden had no neutrality officially pre-WW1 as it was considering its options

WW2, I still dont think it definitely had made any statement ?

I don't know, but I think different eras would have different answerrs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I know that Sweden sold a fair bit of weaponry to Britain before/during WWII so don't think they had any policy then restricting weapons sells.

Steve

DuQuense · Dec 21, 2007

Sweden also sold their Lynx armored car to France, Belgium, Denmark Holland and Austria, Ie both sides, and neutrals,
so no sales ban.

Lynx was still in use in the 60's --second best armored car of the WW 2.

Lord Insane · Dec 21, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
WW2, I still dont think it definitely had made any statement ?

Sweden did declare neutrality, together with Denmark and Norway.

Grey Wolf · Dec 22, 2007

LordInsane said:
Sweden did declare neutrality, together with Denmark and Norway.

That's different from what I meant

Declaring neutrality in a war is a statement of intent, that your current position is what you intend to keep on with

I was asking whether there had been any formal statement that Sweden's position was ALWAYS going to be neutral, a permanent neutrality, which is what the original post implies with regards to weapon sales etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Susano · Dec 22, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
I was asking whether there had been any formal statement that Sweden's position was ALWAYS going to be neutral, a permanent neutrality, which is what the original post implies with regards to weapon sales etc

To give example, you mean (as I understand you) like Switzerland or Austria during the Cold War.

And yes, without that it follows naturally that no strict weapone xport laws were yet in place.

Merkava · Dec 22, 2007

Grey Wolf said:
Does it depend on WHEN ?

IIRC Sweeden had no neutrality officially pre-WW1 as it was considering its options

WW2, I still dont think it definitely had made any statement ?

I don't know, but I think different eras would have different answerrs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I was thinking the following periods:
- inter-war
- post war until 1990
- post 1990
The last is only on the assumption that the J39 seems to being exported quite widely.

Merkava · Dec 22, 2007

Issues of legislation...

Some of you are talking about legal issues.
I do not know whether the Swedish restrictions on the sale of weapons is / was enshrined in any form of legislation. I could do with some enlightenment on this matter.

Berra · Dec 22, 2007

Without beeing an expert, on this particular thing. I'm not sure if the Swedish arms industry was all that impressive pre-WWII with the exeption of Bofors. I know that Sweden brought Italian stuff to rearm, both ships and and aircrafts IIRC.

The war and the relative unpreparedness of the Swedish armed forces and the problem of getting arms during the war lead to a relativly strong military/industrial complex after the war. It was followed by export regulations, most importantly not to anyone fighting a war but I think it was more of a moral rule then one caused by neutrality even if they tended to be intermixed ("our neutrality is moral").

There was also some chaeting to get around the rules. And spare parts where also a big exeption.

Merkava · Dec 30, 2007

Merkava said:
I was thinking the following periods:
- inter-war
- post war until 1990
- post 1990
The last is only on the assumption that the J39 seems to being exported quite widely.

For clarity I offer the following examples:
- would Sweden have allowed the USA to build the J37 under licence?
- similarly France after it left NATO?
- similarly UK?
Is NATO membership not neutral?
Would France outside NATO be considered neutral enough?
Does the recipient country have to have made a clear policy statement of neutraility.

The above are hypothetical examples only to make answering the question more easy.

Berra · Jan 1, 2008

- would Sweden have allowed the USA to build the J37 under licence?
Yes. It would have been hard to avoid it since a lot of the parts are American anyway. The height of the Vietnam war might be an exeption, both for political and legal reasons. Sweden do sell weapons to the US. As an exapmle, see the AT-4: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-4 (Wikipedia, not sure if they got everything right).
- similarly France after it left NATO?
Yes, as long as they don't fight a war.
- similarly UK?
Yes, at the same rules so I dubt it would happen during the Falklands war.
Is NATO membership not neutral?
Weapons export are commercial. They are regulated heavily but every country has the right to defend themself (According to the UN) and that implies the right to purchase weapons. Sweden do limit to whom it sells weapons to and living in peace and good human righst record improves the chance of buying. Exeptions might be made for spare parts on already ordered weapons.
Does the recipient country have to have made a clear policy statement of neutraility.
No

mattep74 · Jan 1, 2008

Merkava said:
With reference to Lenin assassinated in 1917 thread.

Just how neutral does another country have to be before Sweden agrees to sell military hardware / licences, etc to it?

In the AH fiction book I am trying to write there is, lets say Country X, which is big and powerful. Say it has bought into SAAB predecessors in the 1920's and 1930's sufficient to at least have a major say / control. Country X provides technical help that Sweden was looking for to expand its defence industries.

Could County X design J29 and give design to SAAB and then work jointly to build A32, J35, J37 in later years?

In reality exports were (are?) severely curtailed because of neutrality stance and what the Swedish expectations of the third party should be. Could someone expand on what Sweden would look for in another country and how far this situation could be 'warped' by Country X assistance in high technology transfer in exchange for agreement?

We sell Carl Gustaf weapons to USA now and they use em in Iraq(If you want an idea what they are, look at the final battlescene in War of the Worlds

Merkava · Jan 2, 2008

Berra

Many thanks. Useful link.
I have always been left with the understanding that Sweden had difficulties trying to sell combat aircraft because of its policy(ies). Everything you are all telling me is that it would have been hypothetically possible for Swedish industry to have sold licences to western or third world countries.

I'm still not sure whether in a possible story theme that my Country X (twice the US population and at least as advanced) could have co-produced through control of key Swedish industries to produce these aircraft. The story line would go something like:
- Country X designs the J29 and puts into service 1946 and gives Sweden the design for domestic production (support for Swedish neutrality)
- co-designs A32
- R&D input to Saab J35 and then co-production
- licence J37
- licence J39
All above with substantial Country X differences (eg electronics, weapons systems, even engines).

This could lead to another thread but if you're OK with discussion on the aircraft types in question it can continue here.

eg
J37 is built for aircraft carrier type steep approaches with undercarriage built to withstand these types of landing. Has any design ever been undertaken to produce a carrier version? Could the J37 be easily modified for carrier operation?

eg
How do the J29 / A32 / J35 / A37 compare in combat manoeurveability with their contemporary fighters?

In my proposed book Country X would use a dispersed system (eg road sections for runways, hidden dispersal facilities) similar to Sweden / Switzerland hence an interest in Swedish aircraft design which could be hypothicated to be Country X and / or Swedish design - common requirements.

Lord Insane · Jan 2, 2008

Merkava said:
I have always been left with the understanding that Sweden had difficulties trying to sell combat aircraft because of its policy(ies). Everything you are all telling me is that it would have been hypothetically possible for Swedish industry to have sold licences to western or third world countries.

Well, we had the added problem of not having the political clout behind us that the Soviet Union and the USA had. Being friends with small Sweden wasn't as important as being friends with mighty Russia/USA.

Merkava · Jan 3, 2008

LordInsane said:
Well, we had the added problem of not having the political clout behind us that the Soviet Union and the USA had. Being friends with small Sweden wasn't as important as being friends with mighty Russia/USA.

How about this idea as part of the storyline......

Country X does not get involved in WWI - they are not supporters of Royalty, have never had Royalty, and don't see any point in getting involved in a European war that can be viewed as largely intercine warfare between the branches of the Royal families (except France, although 19th century showed them going in and out of Republics) - but what some leverage in northern Europe as part of the World power game. Country X already occupies Greenland, Iceland, the Faroes. Support is given to Finland to ensure their independence. The other Scandinanvian countries also vulnerable particularly after the pressures put on them to stop trading with the Central Powers. Country X supports with much greater vigger the USA against British searches of neutral ships which also affects the Netherlands and Scandinanvia countries.

For context Country X occupies much of Africa (whole of east coast. Sahara, west and north coast - excludes Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, countries facing south from west Africa) plus much of Arabia, Brazil, various Atlantic islands and possibly Texas.

Post WWI Country X makes a point of buying control of Scandinavia companies and into Weimer interests. Versaillies Treaty seen as unjust and only storing up trouble for the future - some of the more enlightened politicians of the time also saw this. In may storyline this includes the German companies setting up in Sweden. the net result is country X takes the place of the US people helping Sweden develop aircraft prior to their withdrawal, only in this storyline Country X does not withdraw help and actually strengethens assistance. Previous posts have referred to earlier development of the J29 for eample.

I can now see that it would be reasonable the Country X has a much closer role in Scandinavian countries particularly Sweden because of its determination to build up self-sufficiency. Common needs produce common designs or at least air frames with different equipment fits.

Being friends with small Sweden / Finland is important for strategic reasons as well as technological reasons. Clearly there is a two-traffic / set of needs here.

Your comment has been helpful in making this element of the storyline more plausible.

Merkava · Jan 26, 2008

Still not convinced...

Just read an item in an aircraft book which says the Draken would have sold well if it had not been for the Swedish export laws.

Does anyone know of any documents that spell out these laws / rules, etc?

jeru · Jan 26, 2008

No, then again maybe, but probably unthinkable

Merkava said:
eg
J37 is built for aircraft carrier type steep approaches with undercarriage built to withstand these types of landing. Has any design ever been undertaken to produce a carrier version? Could the J37 be easily modified for carrier operation?

My father in law says no. And he claims to have been in the design team from start to end. First of all the J37 is a single engine design. Secondly the airframe was not built for the stress of carrier landings. Thirdly he got technical all over me and started to ramble about the undercarriage being incredible difficult to adapt. So the answer is yes, it COULD have been done

But it would have been very expensive, actually redesigning the entire airplane. SAAB would only have done that if someone else would have advanced the money. Something the Swedish Government hardly was interested in. No carriers in the Royal Navy, You see!

Merkava · Jan 31, 2008

jeru said:
My father in law says no. And he claims to have been in the design team from start to end. First of all the J37 is a single engine design. Secondly the airframe was not built for the stress of carrier landings. Thirdly he got technical all over me and started to ramble about the undercarriage being incredible difficult to adapt. So the answer is yes, it COULD have been done But it would have been very expensive, actually redesigning the entire airplane. SAAB would only have done that if someone else would have advanced the money. Something the Swedish Government hardly was interested in. No carriers in the Royal Navy, You see!

That was a VERT helpful reply. Single engine would not be a problem - many naval aircraft were / are single engine. I accept what you say about stress, but I bet the airframe was strengthened for the type of landings it does carry out, compared to other land based aircraft more conventional approach landings.

For the purposes of my AH this does open up the technical possibility of carrier use.

I am going to ask some questions now that you may not be able to answer for one reason or another.

1. Is there any information available about how the Viggen would do in air-to-air combat (dogfighting) with other countries fighters?

2. Is there any spare internal fuselage capacity for additional fuel tanks?

3. Would it be possible to design and fit a conformal fuel tank (like the F15) to increase range without affecting aerodynamic performance?

4. Any more clarification on export policy?

5. I seem to remember reading the Viggen was entered in various fighter purchase competitions. Was one of these US?

6. Could the nose accomodate the radar systems of the F15 or F14 with or without some modifications?

aktarian · Jan 31, 2008

Susano said:
To give example, you mean (as I understand you) like Switzerland or Austria during the Cold War.

And yes, without that it follows naturally that no strict weapone xport laws were yet in place.

Austria is different case. their neutrality was forced on them as per peace treaty and is (was?) guaranteed by all 4 major victors hence Austrian military is weak. Switzerland and Sweden just decided to be neutral and since nobody said they will respect this they are well armed to protect themselves.