For the first time as a NATO member, the Swedish Air Force participated in NATO operations over the North Atlantic, deploying an ASC 890 aircraft and support staff to Keflavik, Iceland, for airborne surveillance and combat control flights during the NATO Summit in Washington from July 9-11, according to a press release.
Sweden’s ASC 890 aircraft contributed to NATO’s Recognised Air Picture in the region northeast of Iceland, under the command and control of the Combined Air Operations Centre (CAOC) at Uedem.
This marks a significant step for Sweden, which joined NATO in March 2024, in integrating its air capabilities within the Alliance’s operations.
Major General Jonas Wikman, Chief of the Swedish Air Force, expressed pride in Sweden’s rapid contribution to NATO’s air operations.
“We are satisfied and proud that within months after joining the Alliance we have been able to take our responsibility and contribute such a qualified capability to NATO’s air operations in connection with the Summit,” Wikman said, quoted in the news release.
In addition to the ASC 890, two Swedish Air Force transport aircraft delivered support personnel and materials to Keflavik Air Base, ensuring a robust Swedish presence for NATO’s air surveillance mission. This deployment, say the Alliance, underscores Sweden’s commitment to NATO’s deterrence and defence posture, as highlighted in the press release.
Under a formal Transfer of Authority, the Swedish aircraft conducted surveillance flights, enhancing NATO’s air picture over the North Atlantic.
“A reliable air picture of the situation is necessary to be able to make the right decision at the right time. We have very competent staff with extensive experience in this field, and I felt completely confident that our crew were able to accomplish our task in the very best way contributing to NATO’s air surveillance posture” concluded Major General Wikman, in the news release.
Since joining NATO, Sweden has closely coordinated its quick reaction alert duties with NATO’s CAOC at Uedem. According to the press release, this mission confirms that the Swedish Air Force, after years of close cooperation as a NATO Partner, is now fully integrated and interoperable within NATO’s air and space power activities.
Let’s hope labour see sense in their defence review and add back the two more E7’s. With the limited purchase by the USAF and NATO not to mention the usual cluster f**k in procurement between the DoD and Boeing our E7 fleet will be even more important than our E3 fleet was.
It’s also starting to look like the platform will be able to do long range jamming and electronic warfare as well as ground target indication making it a true multi role platform. Five should be the least we look to purchase.
I don’t think anyone with any knowledge would say additional E7’s and P8’s don’t make sense.
They are true force multipliers.
Reason I bang on about P8 is that it is relatively cheap and going from 9 -> 12 wouldn’t be crazy expensive or hard and can probably be shoehorned into existing facilities.
The extra three allow us and independent capability to overwatch QEC (allowing for rule of three) BUT we need sovereign AAR for these vital assets.
Your talking common sense SB, if we get the 2 additional E7’s we’ll be doing well. Shoehorned would be an understatement if they approved the purchase of an extra 3 P8 and 2 E7. The real issue would be crew and maintainers to fly and fix them. Parking them up would be a nice problem to have.
On the plus side a training pipeline has been established for the frames so it is a marginal increase in capacity on the E7 side which won’t be stretched.
A lot of the frame maintenance, leaving aside the electronics, is pretty much commercial on the base frame.
Additional infrastructure should be a relatively less complicated proposition. Additional trained aircrews and maintainers? Perhaps not deliverable in as timely and straightforward a manner. 🤔
Agree infrastructure is a straight forward process, but space is tight at Lossiemouth, as it was never designed with the what is currently stationed there.
OMG, unfamiliar w/ Lossiemouth, but forming a mental image of a base so overflowing w/ assets that it would be practically impossible for incoming to miss. 😱 (And no definitive plan to deploy effective GBAD. 😳😱)
I would imagine it’s significantly less busy than the average USAF base although smaller. It’s busy by RAF base standards
16 serials have been allocated for the RAF in a “spotters” book a mate has.
No idea what that actually means.
Probably the aspirational buy?
The real number needed. Sounds about right to me TBH.
Although even 12 is getting to be a pretty decent fleet if we are working with Norway.
Perhaps, when defence expenditures reach 2.5% of GDP. 🤔🤞 No promises; significant forecasted black hole in existing 10 yr. equipment acquisition plan. Three percent? Should clear the bar w/ ease. 🤔
Specifically: 2 additional E-7s and 7 additional P-8s. Believe those are the originally specified requirements?
The thing is that it is the accumulated 10+ years of acting like we spent 2.5% but not spending 2.5% that have done damage. Whilst fighting various wars.
So the reality is that you have 10 years of under spending so they budget 2+ years of full MOD budget worth of spending hollowed out.
Cling onto that very, very large scary number.
You could buy the whole RN fleet for that money and replace the RAF fleet and buy all the Army kit as well as fixing service housing.
That I’m afraid is the simple maths outputs that we need to hold onto…..
🤔😳😱☹️ Uncertain re any recommendation(s), other than to advise politically feasible, incremental budget increases, in conjunction w/ probable longer-term, technological advancements via participation/investment in AUKUS initiatives (Pillar I and especially Pillar II). The West collectively embraced the “peace dividend” far longer than warranted by the real geopolitical environment.
The issue for both E7 and P8 to provide a CSG overwatch, is the lack of a Sovereign air to air refueling capability. I’m pretty certain the RAF would have had that on the options list for installing a boom for drogue refueling. But knowing Boeing, they would have ramped up the design and integration costs.
However a company such as Marshall’s have the design and manufacturing knowledge to modify the aircraft. Which could be done via a UOR or a service mod. Which would not only satisfy the MAA’s regulations, but also be a shed load cheaper than if it was done by Boeing.
The other obvious and probably cheaper modification option, is to add the capability to our PPI A330 MRTT Voyager aircraft. Sadly the PPI contract would need amending to have the aircraft modified. But would it be an unrealistic cost?
Much better off upgrading the tankers.
Post Hadden Cave I’m pretty sure desks are versus if signing off AAR mods.
That way the E7 & P8’s are kept as factory frames and the tankers are also factory frame specs.
I agree upgrading the tankers would be the better option. As it would mean our tankers could also refuel other USAF aircraft.
Hadden-Cave was a necessary evil. But I do fear that the desks have become too risk adverse and become overly reliant on the advice from the OEM/DO.
TBH it was the Mull Chinook crash that started the change.
Trying to blame the pilots wasn’t clever as there were a lot of influential people on board with an awful lot of very influential friends who made sure that a stop was put to that behaviour.
I have a vested interest in the crash. But that’s a story I will tell only over a few pints.
What I will say is that another Chinook nearly did the same thing a week later. The pilot flew the same profile. But recognized the danger. As the Mull due to how the sun was reflected off the sea generated a mirage. Where it looked like the Mull was further away, where in reality it was much closer. He apparently pulled emergency power to clear the Mull. If the aircraft had a radar capable of terrain avoidance. I’m certain the crash would not have happened.
In Afghan there were similar incidents during both the day and night. When flying really low over the Red Desert. The tops of the dunes would merge together. Which caused a number of Chinooks to have their undercarriage ripped off. Similarly when at night wearing NVGs, it’s very easy to loose depth perception. Leading to some very close calls.
The Nimrod crash was the feather that broke the camel’s back though. There was a continuous catalogue of mistakes, poor record keeping, a lack of configuration control. But also an atmosphere where there was no responsibility taken for certain decisions made.
Jamming really!! and where did you get that little glimmer of intel from??
The USAF have reached a deal with Boeing and its for 26 E7s. Typically the USAF have grown their requirements and the US E7 has moved ahead of the UK varient on comms and integration of other data sources ( space based?). They will retain an unspecified nUmuber some E3s whilst the E7s force builds up. A sensible decison as delays are likely in the testing of the E7 with the added new systems. Its a pity the RAF didn’t follow a similar approach.
Vi välkomnar våra svenska bröder och systrar.
Er…Norwegian? Translation?
English translation according to google translate is We welcome our Swedish brother and sisters.
PS its in Swedish
Huh, thanks. 😊
Random thought: Has the RAF ever contemplated purchase of ASC 890 to supplement E-7? Fully realize the complications and ramifications of a mixed fleet, however, probably has the benefit of lower acquisition cost. 🤔
The RAF never considered it, the decision to buy E7 was not fully tendered as funding came out of an allocation to upgrade the existing E3.
E7 is much more than just an AWACS and I think the purchase of anything else just diminishes NATO capability.
The ASC890 is being replaced in the Swedish Airforce. As today there is a better option from Saab, which is the Globaleye platform. This marries the latest Erieye radar with the Bombardier 6000 business jet. But also fits the Leonardo AESA SeaSpray radar. The ASC890 is the older generation of Erieye and fitted to the smaller Saab 340 turboprop commuter aircraft. Saab have said the later generation of Erieye has a 50 to 70% better performance than the older version.
Having the long range S-band Erieye radar working in conjunction with the X-band Seaspray. Means that it can not only detect long range threats. But is also very good at spotting sea skimming threats via the X-band radar. So in some respects it has an advantage over the E7.
I believe the addition of a look down and horizon scanning radar, is something that the RAAF were considering as part of the capability growth of the E7. Which would significantly enhance the aircraft’s maritime surveillance capabilities.
Cost comparison vs. E-7 acquisition? Unfortunately, believe that for any unplanned acquisitions, available budget is the paramount arbiter of the selection process.