Home » Foreign Forces » U.S., Sweden Sign Agreement To Collaborate On Anti-Sub, Anti-Air R&D, Exercises


U.S., Sweden Sign Agreement To Collaborate On Anti-Sub, Anti-Air R&D, Exercises

Then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert is piped ashore after touring the Swedish submarine HMS Uppland at Karlskrona Naval Base on July 14, 2015. US Navy photo.

Then-Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Adm. Jonathan Greenert is piped ashore after touring the Swedish submarine HMS Uppland at Karlskrona Naval Base on July 14, 2015. US Navy photo.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter signed a Statement of Intent with Swedish Defence Minister Peter Hultqvist that aims to increase military capability and interoperability between the two nations.

The document “sets out our strategic resolve to increase the understanding and cooperation between our respective Defense Ministries, Armed Forces, and defense agencies; to build on current cooperative activities; to identify and prioritize new initiatives; to work together to develop our defense capabilities; to enhance our interoperability and ability to deploy alongside each other operationally and thereby improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our defense efforts.”

Noting that “regional powers are testing their strength against neighbors” and that terrorism and extremist violence remains a threat, the documents states that the U.S. and Sweden will conduct more training and exercises together, deepen their armament cooperation, conduct research and development together and participate in multinational operations.

Specifically, they will conduct training and exercises with an eye to the “distinct political signal” that combined operations will send. Armament cooperation and research and development of future technologies will focus on undersea warfare and air defense, the document notes.

This military agreement was preceded by a late April visit to Sweden by Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work that included bilateral talks as well as meetings with Nordic and Baltic state secretaries to discuss regional security and defense cooperation. Afterwards, Swedish State Secretary Jan Salestrand made clear that “there is broad political consensus that closer cooperation in the region and with the United States is essential to enhance Swedish capability,” according to a Swedish government news release.

Sweden, not a member of NATO but considered a NATO partner, has the longest coastline along the Baltic Sea – a body of water seeing increased Russian military activity. Russia is fielding newer and more sophisticated submarines and cruise missiles, the outgoing Commander of Naval Forces Europe said in October.

The Baltic Sea was the site of an aggressive move against the U.S. Navy in April, when Russian fighter jets buzzed USS Donald Cook (DDG-75). In 2014 a U.S. Air Force reconnaissance plane had to deviate from its planned path and fly into Swedish airspace to avoid an aggressively maneuvering Russian fighter jet, and Russian warships have harassed a Swedish-Finnish research vessel and ships laying cables between Sweden and Lithuania, USNI News previously reported. And most mysteriously, the Swedish navy spent six days in 2014 searching its territorial waters for what was believed to be a Russian mini-sub, possibly in distress.

With increased Russian aggression, and particularly with increased Russian submarine activity in and around Europe, closer cooperation between Sweden and the U.S. makes sense. Sweden has a small fleet – down from 34 surface combatants and 12 attack submarines in the Cold War to just nine ships and five subs today – but it is considered to have one of the best conventional submarine fleets in the world. The U.S. is looking to increase its presence in Europe, with talks of putting more surface and amphibious ships in the region and buying more attack submarines to support growing needs in Europe. The partnership would help increase capacity and capability in the area while also giving U.S. forces access to Swedish airspace and waters, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) visiting fellow Carl Hvenmark Nilsson noted in an article this week on U.S./Sweden collaboration.

  • Ed L

    we could fund the Swedes to build more of there excellent Submarines. When I was on Staff if anyone ever mention Diesel-Electric and Submarine in the same sentence. A Certain Group of Officers would have a fit. I serious doubt that would ever happen in the American Navy.

  • Andre

    This will provide wider opportunities to evaluate how the USN fares against the latest conventional submarines, as well as how US-led surface and undersea A2/AD zones can be created against high-end adversaries, with implications for US commitments not only to NATO but in East Asia.

  • Secundius

    Thank you for another Fast REDACTMENT by the USNI News “FO”-Police…

  • redgriffin

    You asked why Sweden and Finland should be allowed to join NATO. I said who says they are being blocked… if one was to read a Thesaurus on would see that blocked is another way of saying what you seem to be implying actually Sweden refused to join NATO in the 50’s when it was asked siting neutrality while Finland has not joined as they had a treaty with Russia not to.

    • Secundius

      Let’s put it another way. In 22 March 2015, Danish Foreign Minister Martin Lidegaad was Handed a Handwritten Letter from Russian Ambassador Mikhail Vanin from Vladimir Putin. Which THREATENED Denmark with NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION if they Adopted the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) system. After that Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania received SIMILAR Letters. WHAT WOULD YOU DO, WHEN FACING ONE OF “PUTIN’S” THREATS. Keep in Mind, Russia was ASKED to Join NATO after the Fall of the Soviet Union. PUTIN Refused in 1997…

      • redgriffin

        Well they seem to have missed Romania and the Czech Republic so it all come out in the end. I think you will find that Russia and NATO formed a working group with the end idea being maybe NATO membership for Russia but it has been rejected by all Russia Governments.

        • Secundius

          I ONLY Listed the Countries I Knew About! Romania, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic and ANY OTHER may have Gotten Similar Letters too…

          • redgriffin

            Well Romania just opened it’s Missile Shield Station so the Russian threats didn’t take and I think they just broke ground on Poland’s.

  • Ed L

    I glad I am not tie to a computer doing stuff like this all day.

  • John B. Morgen

    The United States Navy should purchase some Swedish submarines, and then based them in European waters.

    • Secundius

      It depends on Congress, Either Modifying or Eliminating the “Jones” Act of 1920. McCain want to Eliminate it Altogether, but Other Members in Congress are Taking a More Cautious Approach. And Just Want to Modify the Act…

      • John B. Morgen

        Congress needs to catch-up with the 21st century.

        • Secundius

          Or put the Countries NEEDS before THEIR OWN Needs…

          • John B. Morgen

            Sooner or later Sweden will be joining NATO, and along with Finland.

          • Secundius

            WE (the USA) have Reversed-Engineered Blueprints of the Swedish Gotland class SSK acquired in 2007…

          • John B. Morgen

            All we need to do is to get the defense contractors’ lobbyist on board, so we can start building modified Gotland class submarines.

          • Secundius

            That and a “Ton” of Money and Political Favors the Current Owner of those Plans, want FOR THOSE Plans…

          • John B. Morgen

            It is [not] impossible because the Swedes would like export whatever weapon systems to the West as much as possible. Already, the Swedes are exporting their Gripen fighters to Brazil, and other fighters to Denmark, etc. We do need their submarines.

          • Secundius

            Current Owner is NOT in Sweden, but Wyoming…

          • John B. Morgen

            What! Please explain?

          • Secundius

            “Scooter” Libby’s Immediate BOSS? Beyond that, the Actual Name will Get Me REDACTED…

          • John B. Morgen

            Do you mean the VP?

          • Secundius

            YES!

          • Secundius

            It’s NOT Illegal for Taiwan to Buy Submarines from Other Nations? And Yet because of the Proximity to the PRC, NO Nation States including the USA will Sell Submarines to Taiwan.

            In 2005, the 43rd Administration, LEASED a SSK from Sweden for Testing in the United States for One-Year. At which time it was Suppose to be Returned to Sweden. EO 43-02 and SD 43-06, with the aid of 43-04 extended the Lease for another year to 2007. During that time, the Swedish Gotland class SSK was SENT to Barking Sands Missile Test Range on the Hawai’ian Island of Kauai. Where a Submarine Support Base is Located, and subsequently Dismantled and Reverse Engineered including the Saab V4-275R AIP (Air Induction Power Stirling Steam Power Plants). The Submarine was Reassembled and Sent Back to Sweden with a Thank You by the 43-02, and an Added Note Stating NOT INTERESTED. The Plans were Presented to Taiwan, by Either 43-02 or 43-06 as a Means to Help Guide the ROC’s Shipwrights into producing an Indigenous Submarine of Their Own Design. Soon after that the (Proverbial SH|T Hit the Fan). The Swedes, sent the Submarine to One of the Port Maintenance Facilities for a Scheduled Updating of Equipments. At Which Time the Swedes NOTICED Differences in Welds on the Submarine Hull with Particular Differences of the Type of Metal Flux used in making the Welds. Also NOTICEABLE Differences were Found Internally, as far a Placement of Certain Equipment. When Conforted with the Differences and Varying Excuses were Made about the Differences. The 43-01 Found Out about the BREWHAHA, and the LACKADAISICAL Responses coming from BOTH 43-02 and 43-06. To Keep 43-02 from Going to Prison for Treason and Espionage on a GRAND Scale. A Compromise was given to the Swedish Government to KEEP it Out of the World Press. In return ALL DATA ON and OF the Northrop F-20A Tigershark was Given to Sweden (aka Saab JAS.39 Gripen)…

          • John B. Morgen

            What we did to the Swedes was an abomination, and it should [NOT] have taken placed because there’s always other avenues the administration could have taken than causing amuck with someone’s submarine. I remembered about the Navy signing the lease for the Swedish submarine and conducting tests, but I never heard anything about the Navy taking apart of someone’s submarine. How did you heard about this? At least, Sweden received about $3 billion USD worth of Northrop R&D from their ill-fated F-20A Tigershark program, to support the Swedish Gripen project.

          • Secundius

            It wasn’t From ANY One Source, but Multiple Sources. My First Story Appeared in IHS Jane’s 360’s about a Year Ago. That’s a TOUGH CROWD to Work With. They Scrutinized Everything, but at the end they Posted It. That’s How My Story Started Actually, with WHAT Happened to the “Tigershark” Program. Which Segwayed into the Taiwan Submarine Story. That Probably WHY Sweden (Kockums) is One of the Shipbuilder’s in the Upcoming Frigate Competition Build in 2019. It Also Explains Somewhat to the RIFT Created between 43-01 and 43-02, during the Last Year of 43-01’s Administration…

          • John B. Morgen

            I applied for several positions at Janes’ Information Group but no avail; I just gave up applying for positions. It was a shame that the F-20A Tigershark was never put into production, it was a very fast small fighter. Maybe better than the F-16?

          • Secundius

            I guess the KISS Principle in Warfare has LOST Its Taste in the 21st Century. ALL the F-5’s and the F-20 were FAR Better Performers than the Current and Past Generation Fighters. “Bling & Blitz” replaced by “Glitz” and a Heftier Price Tag.

            As far as Jane’s, I’m NOT a Regular Writer. But a Contributing Writer. Me and the Editor have a Like/Hate Relationship…

          • John B. Morgen

            I agree. As for your working relationship, I have been there before, it’s like swimming with the sharks…..

          • Secundius

            M1 Abrams MBT may be getting a Gun Upgrade from BAE/Rheinmetall GmbH with a 5.118-inch 130mm/51-Caliber Smoothbore Gun…

          • John B. Morgen

            Such a modification can be done, but the M1 panzer’s ammunition lockers would have to be resigned, and rearranged in both the hull and turret. .

          • Secundius

            There was a 140mm Gun Tested too, But there were Mounting Issues, Barrel Length Problems and the Fact that Each Round Weighed between 84 to 94-pounds, depending on Round Used…

          • John B. Morgen

            I think any gun that is above 120mm the panzer should be designed with an auto-loader because the larger shells are going to caused serve physical stress upon the gun loaders; which will reduce the effectiveness of the panzer crews in combat.

            Therefore the United States Army should design and build a M1 Abrams II panzer. Its gun should not be more than 127 mm, and be designed with an auto-loader.

          • Secundius

            Preferably NOT Like the Russian Design! Or you’re going to Have A Lot Of Death Traps. The Germans in WW2 Fielded a 128mm Naval Gun in One of Their Tiger Tanks. Hitler, wanted the Field an 1,100-tonne Tank with Twin 11.1-inch Naval Guns…

          • John B. Morgen

            Hummm, the French Leclerc panzer was designed with an auto-loader, and I have [not] heard any problems with the loader system. As far as I know, the Leclerc is the only Western panzer that is designed with an auto-loader.
            As for the super large German panzers, Hitler came up with some really off the wall ideas for his military. He had the Kriegsmarine to drafted up plans for battleships that were armed with 50 cm guns, such capital ships would [not] be practical to build due to shallow waters of German harbors..

          • Secundius

            Seventy Leclerc’s are deployed by the UAE in Yemen. Mostly in the Peacekeeper Role, of those ~3(?) have actually seen Combat. AZUR Defensive Packages were used, ALL were hit by RPG’s. NONE were Destroyed.

            I think the German Thinking at the Time of the 19.685-inch (50cm) Naval Gun Uber Battleships, were to be Home Ported in CAPTURED Deep Water Ports…

          • John B. Morgen

            Hitler had some grandiose schemes during his time while in office, three major super battleship designs were drafted but never put into action. Norway would most likely be the ideal spot for basing such battleships, without any harbor modifications.

          • Secundius

            You’re RIGHT? I forgot about Norway, and their DEEP Water Fjords. The US Navy, should Reconsider Reactivating the Mk.71, but to the Original Gun Standard of a 6.889-inch 175mm/60-caliber Gun. Which could in “Theory” Propel a Projectile out to 400-Kilometers. The 8-inch 203.2mm/55-caliber Naval Artillery Gun. Produced Too Much Torque on the Recoil of the Gun Mount. THAT’S what KILLED the Gun Program…

          • John B. Morgen

            Are you referring to the gunnery tests that were conducted on the USS Barry (DD-933)? If so, then the 8-inch gun should have been mounted on the X or Y positions; instead of the A position. Furthermore, the Navy should have tested a 6 inch gun version; instead of the larger gun caliber which was not suited for destroyer size warships. A 152mm, or 155mm, is the best suited large gun for the post-World War II era destroyers [corvettes].

          • Secundius

            NEITHER the Rifled 6-inch (152mm/47-caliber) Mk.16 Naval Artillery Gun or the M114 6.1-inch (155mm/23/24.5-caliber) Field Howitzer were EVEN being Considered. And the Project was Cancelled in 1978, BEFORE the M198 6.1-inch (155mm/39-caliber) Field Howitzer EVEN went in to service in 1979.

            That’s the OTHER Fallacy? What was a Destroyer in WW2, was a Corvette/Destroyer Escort in 1975!/?

          • John B. Morgen

            A World War II destroyer which I would classify it as a corvette, and an escort destroyer as a sloop; for United States Navy and other navies during the time period. Unfortunately, the world navies were following the Royal Navy as the paradigm for having a naval service. The problem gotten started when the Flower class corvettes were designed and built. The British Admiralty should have classified them as sloops, since the Royal Navy had many warships in service that matched the size and gun armament. The British Admiralty simply gotten too [LAZY] when the Flowers were classified. Since then, the whole classification order has gotten into disarray and confusion from that point of time to the present. We need logical structure when classifying warships—period!

          • Secundius

            NO, Just No Uniformity in CLASSES. “An INCH is not an INCH” The Navantia F100, Alvaro de Bazan class in the Spanish Navy is Classified as (FFGHM) Air Defense Frigate. While the SAME design DDG-39, Hobart in the Australian Navy, is Classified as a (DDGHM) Air Defense Destroyer. EXACT SAME SHIP Design, but Different Classifications…

          • John B. Morgen

            Both warships are really corvettes, which I would classified them as CCHG and not this bloody nonsense of classifying them as FFGHM or DDGHM. For one, it is incorrect to classified them with double designations; for example, G stands for guided missile and same for M. Some people from both nation-states do not understand warship designations too well. I’d too have known this problem about these two warships because I’d have spotted the same problem when I went through my Janes’ Fighting Ships yearly reference book. The art and science for designating warships have gone amuck in a hand basket, I’m sorry to say…..

          • Secundius

            You’re going by a US Designation Code Index of Ship Classifications. Every Country is going to have THEIR Standard of Designated Coding. What Applies to One is going to Differ to Another. A an Example, in Star Trek III: The Search For Spock. NCC-1701-A, USS. Enterprise. By Star Fleet Standards, she was Designated a “Heavy Cruiser”, While the Klingons referred to her as a “Battlecruiser”. The Deutschland class of the Kriegsmarine in WW2 was Designated as an “Armored Cruiser”, while the British class her a “Pocket Battleship”…

          • John B. Morgen

            I watched the original Star Trek TV series when it first came out during the last century, and I have two most important books about Star Trek: The Making of Star Trek; and the World of Star Trek. Both books are the Bibles that all Star Trek fans [SHOULD HAVE]; of course, both books have been out of print for many decades, but maybe copies could be found on E-bay. I have watched every Star Trek series, including the animation series along with my kids; plus, movies including the last two movies which I felt were bastardizations of Star Trek.

            Every time the Starship Enterprise gets into a fire fight with a Klingon D-7 class battlecruiser, neither side gets destroy because both are really evenly matched. By nature and design, a battlecruiser is a superior warship than a heavy cruiser, so one should be expecting a Klingon battlecruiser would be defeating Constellation class Starship for many times over. Consequently, Gene Roddenberry and his staff do not know much about warship classifications. I based my guess on two possible factors: one the term battlecruiser sounds sexy and very ominous or war-like; two, the term battlecruiser fits the Klingon race and culture very nicely for the Klingon Empire. I have never seen Klingon heavy cruisers nor battleships, just battlecruisers, and Klingon War Birds which are more like corvettes or sloops.

            The Deutschland class warships were designed as Armored Ships (Panzerschiffes) and not as cruisers. Both battlecruisers and heavy cruisers were prohibited by treaty. The Panzerschiffes were never classified by the German Navy as [pocket battleships] because the term was coined by a British newspaper journalist, which it stuck. The Deutschlands were designed around the battlecruiser concept, and were deployed against British and French Trade. In February 1940 the Deutschlands were reclassified as heavy cruisers, which they should have been reclassified as light battlecruisers (leichte schlachtkreuzers). Such a classification would not be first time because the Royal Navy built three such light battlecruisers during World War I, but later converted them into aircraft carriers after the war.

            I’m using the United States designation classification codes, but only partially because I’m also using the sailing warship designations based from rates of each warship categories: frigates; corvettes; sloops. However, I’m also the designations from the Washington and London Naval Treaties.

          • Secundius

            The Problem with the TV Series or TOS (The Original Series), was the Bible NOT the Template of the Star Trek Franchise. In the TOS, the Klingons Drell (D-7A) class Battlecruisers had Two Torpedo Tubes (Fore and Aft) with Two Sonic Disruptor Banks. While Enterprise, has Three Twin Phaser Emplacements and Two Ventral Torpedo Tubes. In the Blueprint Specifications, the Klingons mounted Two Torpedo Tubes (again Fore and Aft) and Six Sonic Disruptor Mounts and Enterprise, Two Ventral Torpedo Tubes and Three Twin Phaser Emplacements and Two Single Phaser Emplacements. With the Movies Enterprise Got Faster and Mounted More Weapons. In the Original Movie, Enterprise, mounted no less the Six Twin Phaser Emplacements and Four Single Phaser Emplacements. While STILL Being Referred to as a Heavy Cruiser by Star Fleet and a Battlecruiser by the Klingons. The Klingon K’T’Inga (D-7M) class Battlecruiser STILL Mounted Two Torpedo Tubes and Six Disruptor Mounts (Note: Sonic being deleted). In the TOS there were at Least Five class Variants of the Enterprise in different Tonnage Displacements. Klingon were about the Same. By the Time of the First Movie, the were at least Ten class Variants of the Enterprise. With Differences in Number of Armament Carried.

            Unlike Star Fleet which Developed their Own Technology, The Klingon “Acquired” there Technology by Defeating an Alien Race in their Far Past, called the “Herc’s”…

          • Secundius

            I don’t Recall, the Klingon EVER referring to their Ship Design as a “Battlecruiser”. The Star Fleet Designation of the Ship’s Design, was a “Battlecruiser”. The SAME with the Enterprise, You’re “Fruit” MY “Vegetable”…

          • John B. Morgen

            Hold on! The Klingons have never referred the Enterprise as a battlecruiser in all of the Star Trek episodes. Yet, the Federation considered the D-7 Klingon star ship as a battlecruiser, which it has been mentioned several times in many episodes.

          • Secundius

            Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, was a Movie made in 1984. Both Christopher Lloyd and John Larroquette were in it as Klingon’s…

          • John B. Morgen

            So a referrence was made by Klingons that the Enterprise is a battlecruiser. Alright I will check into it because I do not recalled anything was said as such. I think one of my kids has the movie, Star Trek III The Search for Spock.

          • Secundius

            The reference is made as the Enterprises, is about to make orbit of the “Genesis” Planet. By the Klingons on the Cloaked “Bird-of-Prey” Ship. As they (the Klingons) Spot Enterprise…

          • John B. Morgen

            I finally got back my DVD from one of my kids, and yes the Klingons do referred the Enterprise as a battlecruiser. Strange as it seems, but if that is the case then the Enterprise should have been classified as a battleship because it takes three D-7 battlecruisers to defeat movement of the Enterprise.

          • Secundius

            The Klingon like to “Beethoven” their Ship’s, Stick to a Basic Design and Up-Gun them. Instead of Making THEM Faster. The Original TV Series Enterprise, had a Top Speed of warp 8 (512c), while the Klingons D-7 had a Top Speed of warp 7 (343c). And the Movie Version Enterprise, warp 12 (1,728c) to the Klingon’s D-7 of only warp 9 (729c).

            How WE (the USNI News Fellowship), like to Segway off Topic…

          • John B. Morgen

            Indeed, it’s easy to segway off topic for something that is interesting.

          • Secundius

            No Pun Intended…

          • John B. Morgen

            Puns are legal in my book because puns lighten up the (party). We’re humans…..

          • Secundius

            In the Movie Series, the Klingon’s developed a D-10 Heavy Destroyer class called the K’Tremeny. Which was Bigger, Faster and Bad’der then the D-7M K’T’Inga class Battlecruiser. In the Book Series, the D-10 was a Heavy Cruiser. Go Figure…

          • John B. Morgen

            It looks like both Klingon camps cannot come to their senses about classifying their warships correctly. Based from your information, the so-called D-10 K’Tremeny should have been classified as a battleship, and not as a heavy destroyer; and not even as a heavy cruiser. The basic rule of thumb, and that is any warship is superior of a battlecruiser is a battleship; excluding aircraft carriers. As for D10, being called a heavy cruiser in the book series was simply wrong of them to do so because heavy cruisers are default inferior to battlecruisers. Of course, this brings us to the topic down here to Earth about our problems of classifying warships. The main problem here, and that is, most humans do [NOT] know much about warships; including people from “Hollywood.”

          • Secundius

            Believe It or Not, But Even in the Star Trek Universe. They Had Aircraft Carriers and Their Version of the Littoral Combat Ships…

          • John B. Morgen

            I have never seen a (Star Trek) aircraft carrier. I would think they would be worthless in battles.

          • Secundius

            They came In ALL Shapes and Sizes, and were Either Referred to As Fighter Carriers, Shuttle Carriers and Through-Deck Cruisers. One Excelsior Variant, the Ingram class was Known as a Space Control Ship…

          • John B. Morgen

            Something like CVEs, CVLs, CVs and CVBs but in space.

          • Secundius

            It depended on Mission Profile and Requirements. They Ranged in Size from a 200-meters in Length to Well Over 2,000-meters in Length…

          • Secundius

            If you into Star Trek? Try YouTube. They have Continuation Stories Following the Original TV Series and NEW Star Trek Series that WERE NEVER Shown of Regular TV. Like Star Trek AXANAR, Star Trek ODYSSEY, Star Trek HELENIA. Or if you Really Want to get a Laugh? Try OSA (Outer Space Astronauts) aka Babylon 5 on Drugs…

          • John B. Morgen

            Although I’m a Conservative Trekkie, I’ll look into your suggestions, just for the fun of it. Thank you.

          • Secundius

            “Abridged” version or “Unabridged” version. BOTH VERSIONS, NO Names Are Used ONLY Numbers…

          • John B. Morgen

            Both versions…..

          • Ron Soderlund

            Yes John, you are absolutely right on that point. I listened recently to some defence debates in Finland, and most likely Finland will start a process with the aim to gather full membership in the defence alliance. Cannot see Sweden accepting the situation to stand alone and defenceless which eventually will lead to full membership in NATO

          • John B. Morgen

            Yes, the Baltic is getting quite hot now, and times have changed. Russia is under new leadership than what it was during the Cold War. President Putin is acting like a czar than an elected president.