Sweden has a long and proud history of building and maintaining an air force capable of dispersed operations. Launching fighter jets from hidden bases using ordinary roads has been considered critical to surviving in a war against an enemy that outnumbers us. Today, the Swedish Air Force consists of various platforms that can disperse from main bases to smaller runway-independent bases, which will likely continue to be a capability for Sweden’s next air transport platform and the next generation fighter.[1] In a recent interview, the commander of the Swedish Air Force, Major General Wikman, not only highlighted Sweden’s experience of using dispersed bases but also stated that being a small country has resulted in not being able to invest in capabilities like strategic unmanned aerial platforms[2], a message that he has previously conveyed in interviews.[3] With Sweden’s entry into NATO and a deepened air cooperation with our neighbouring allies, that seems to be about to change.
Sweden has previously joined the United Kingdom’s initiative of an MQ-9 international support partnership, with Denmark and Norway as observers.[4] The Swedish government has also instructed the Swedish armed forces to investigate the possibility of procuring MQ-9 and running it with our Nordic allies. This indicates that Sweden is leaning heavily toward procuring a class III unmanned aerial system with our neighbouring countries, likely pooling resources like infrastructure and personnel.[5]
This initiative allows Sweden to develop dispersed operations for large unmanned systems further. United States Air Force has been developing methods and equipment to utilise unmanned systems like the MQ-9 Reaper on a “dirt strip” or highway in dispersed operations.[6] Likewise, the United States Air Force and the United States Marine Corps have refuelled MQ-9 platforms on the ground from another aircraft.[7] [8] These methods and procedures are already exercised by the Swedish Air Force but with manned platforms. As such, the organisation already has the basic knowledge of setting up forward arming and refuelling points (FARP) or establishing a temporary landing zone (TLZ). Suppose Sweden chooses to procure the MQ-9 platform together with our neighbours. In that case, we have a golden opportunity to lead the way in further developing dispersed operations with unmanned systems along the same path as our aerial platforms.
Now, one could ask why we should bother with class III systems in a peer conflict when looking at the war in Ukraine. Although Ukraine was able to operate its fleet of TB2 and Russia was able to operate Inokhodets (aka Orion)[9] at the beginning of the war, smaller, more agile tactical systems have overshadowed these systems. However, Russia still operates its Inhokodets within Russian airspace, observing the Ukrainian advance in Kursk, and, at least until recently, it seems to have operated its new UCAV, the S-70, near contested airspace.[10] As such, I argue that class III systems still have a part to play in war. Especially in the future when the Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T)[11] is expected to become a reality among several air forces where the unmanned platform can enhance the survivability of the fighter pilot. If Sweden aims to be still able to land on runway-independent bases, then it would follow that we also need to have the capability to use unmanned platforms in the same manner. Spreading between and utilising hidden bases and underground facilities would add to the survivability of larger unmanned systems in a peer conflict. Furthermore, countermeasures are still to become a standard in protecting these platforms in the same manner as the manned platforms.
Operating large systems requires resources. Not just financial but also personnel, available infrastructure, and regulations permit this airborne platform to operate within our airspace. There is also maintenance and keeping platforms up-to-date with the latest block upgrade. Splitting the cost in a joint venture with our neighbours not only lowers the cost of resources but also opens up possibilities of gaining knowledge and sourcing innovation from several countries. Additionally, we now have several allies within NATO that have procured MQ-9 systems fairly recently or have used the platform for quite some time. We are looking at the possibility of conducting persistent operations where allies can relieve each other or support with spare parts through a vast network of users. Again, opening up for others to land on our dispersed bases where Swedish maintenance personnel can refuel and conduct repairs on unmanned platforms if needed further adds further value to our allies.
However, swift decisions and resource allocation are needed for this to become a reality. Historically, both the former and the latter have been in short supply. Still, with an ongoing war on the European continent and a deteriorating security situation worldwide, I would argue that now is the time to act before the window of opportunity closes.
