Norway to reduce F-35 order?

Sweden is going back to the dispersed operations model with its air force. BMD will have to rely mainly on passive methods.

Just wanted to point out that contrary to what was written in an earlier post (that Patriot is primarily meant for air or cruise missile defense), the Swedish armed forces seemed to have emphasized BMD capability while making their choice,and in requesting the system via the FMS case.

BMD via passive means? How will that even work? I don't think you can defend using passive. Maybe mitigate the impact but most definitely not passive intercepts.

The Swedes have looked at acquiring the Patriot system as part of developing their defenses. However, in their own studies, they have stated that a single system will not be able to respond to the threat posed by ballistic missiles

Did anyone suggest that this was the case? Certainly, if you want to protect something from all forms of ballistic missile attacks, you need layered point and area defense capability. This is not much of a revelation.

Yet, if you want to increase your capability to counter short to medium range tactical ballistic missiles, particularly around high value / importance military or civil infrastructure then something like a PATRIOT will go a long way.

Between the GEM-T and MSE's, and with the arrival of LTAMDS and the LTFI in the next 5-10 years there will be considerable organic capability to upgrade to to keep pace with the threats. Not to mention the cost imposition impact given what an adversary would need to bring a similar level of impact when the PATRIOT is employed compared to when just HAWK batteries are available.

BMD via passive means? How will that even work? I don't think you can defend using passive. Maybe mitigate the impact but most definitely not passive intercepts.

Perhaps read the article I linked instead of inventing strawmen like passive intercept.

the Swedish armed forces seemed to have emphasized BMD capability while making their choice,and in requesting the system via the FMS case.

These probably should be disregarded when there are better studies like the ones referred to in the article. I'd rather not try to assess Sweden's intentions from FMS jargon instead of the Swedish Defence Research Agency's report to their government Försvarsmaktens långsiktiga materielbehov aka The Defence Force's long term material needs. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dok ... sou-20187/

Here's another if you want to read a bit about passive missile defense from another perspective: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... e-defense/

These are not to be believed when there's better studies like the ones referred to in the article. Cmon reading Sweden's intentions from FMS jargon instead of the Swedish Defence Research Agency's report Försvarsmaktens långsiktiga materielbehov aka The Defence Force's long term material needs. https://www.regeringen.se/rattsliga-dok ... sou-20187/
/

Why would I prefer an article about what Sweden may think to what Sweden has actually done?

Sweden formally requested a PATRIOT package from the US Government. It was a direct Government to Government request with requirements of exact number of systems etc coming directly from the operators/armed-forces in Sweden.

In that package, Sweden requested 200 BMD optimized MSE interceptors. Double the number of GEM-T's they requested. The Swedish armed forces specifically mention the system's BMD capability while advocating for it. The government website is linked in my prior post.

Based on that Sweden signed an LOA for the system in 2018. They will field an ACTIVE BMD capability by mid 2020's.

Perhaps read the article I linked instead of inventing strawmen like passive intercept.

One cannot use an article/post from 2017 to conclude what you concluded in that :

BMD will have to rely mainly on passive method

When in 2020, we know that Sweden has become the 16th PATRIOT user and intends to operationalize 4 Fire Units.

So no, BMD (Sweden) will not just rely MAINLY on PASSIVE METHOD. 4 FU's of a capable tactical BMD system will be an integral part of their defense against this threat.

Here's another if you want to read a bit about passive missile defense from another perspective: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-sho ... e-defense/

I had read it earlier and understand what it is trying to say. That in no way claims that primary defense against a TBM threat needs to be passive. All it is advocating for is a combination of investments and capabilities, some kinetic, and others non-kinetic, some right of launch, and others left of it, some active, yet others passive, to deal with the growing threat. That is generally an accepted view and investments reflect that.

That article in no way supports ANY sort of argument that claims that Sweden acquired its PATRIOT for non BMD roles, or that it views active BMD defense as a non-starter. In fact, if anything is clear, from both their FMS request and subsequent activity to codify it, they seem to want a capable active TBM capability and want so in the next 3-5 years.

I suspect Norway, much like Sweden, will come to a similar conclusion and will be a future PATRIOT operator.

I suspect Norway, much like Sweden, will come to a similar conclusion and will be a future PATRIOT operator.

As I wrote in a previous post: The Norwegian armed forces already reached this conclusion, and they asked the politicians to fund a system like that however the Norwegian government chose to not allocate money at this point it time. It is already high on wish list of the Norwegian military.

If and when the money is made available I guess they will evaluate SAMP/T and Patriot, and most likely pick the Patriot.

Kongsberg and Raytheon are closely partnered on a number of systems now. With IBCS coming online in 2022, it is not difficult to imagine Kongsberg making NASAMS compatible with it over time.There are also other things to come out of US Army funding that will be viable candidates for NASAMS modernization (particularly aiming at the HAWK replacement market). One such capability would be the Sentinel A4. There is some sense in integrating the Tamir into the NASAMS as well, if the US Army pursues that weapon as part of its SHORAD capability. Its cost (1/3 or less compared to AIM-9X) would make it an ideal weapon for C-UAS upgrades to NASAMS. Even some of Raytheon's high energy laser sub-systems could feature in a future NASAMS upgrade.

Once that happens, then Patriot becomes a pretty easy choice between it and SAMP/T given both IBCS and IBCS to F-35 compatibility. Patriot is undergoing some fairly deep modernization at the moment. Sweden acquired the system right at that transition point (it will receive the system starting 2023 IIRC) so will have to upgrade later. But anyone ordering now or in the next 3-4 years can go straight to LTAMDS, and IBCS. By 2024, even the new interceptor would be under contract.

'“When it comes to securing stability and predictability in the Arctic, 5th generation airpower will be a key enabler” - Col Egil Soerstroenen, Norway’s F-35 National Deputy

https://twitter.com/theF35JPO/status/13 ... wsrc%5Etfw

F-35 is Cornerstone of Norwegian Defence Strategy with JSM Nov 2020 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYksk-hPNW8