| 1. |
- Bull, Peter, et al.
(författare)
-
Förstudie obemannade farkoster
- 2012
-
Rapport (populärvet., debatt m.m.)abstract
- Obemannade farkoster används allt oftare, och i allt fler roller, i dagens kon- flikter. Denna rapport ger en bred överblick över området militära obemannade farkoster, samt rekommendationer för inriktningen av framtida FoU-satsningar inom området.Överblicken över området har fokus på både system, förmågor och verksam- heter som är relevanta för Försvarsmakten. Genom att låta de insatsförmågor som definieras i FMUP (Försvarsmaktens utvecklingsplan) gå som en röd tråd genom rapporten, både när specifika system diskuteras och när möjliga scena- rier där obemannade farkoster kan vara till nytta beskrivs, har vi försökt hålla både bredd och relevans i dokumentet.Rekommendationerna vilar på en genomgång av de inriktningsdokument som producerats i Försvarsmakten, t.ex. Perspektivplanneringen och FMUP, besök vid de enheter som dagligen använder obemannade farkoster, UAV-enheten i Karlsborg och Swedec i Eksjö, samt den områdesöverblick som nämns ovan. Slutsatserna är att den effektivaste kompetensuppbyggnaden och kunskapsöver- föringen fås om man skapar breda tvärvetenskapliga projekt inom respektive systemkategori (UAV, UGV, etc) med nära kontakter till materielförsörjnings- processen och perspektivplaneringen. Dessa kan samla kompetensen inom FHS och FOI, övervaka forskningsfronten genom att bevaka tävlingar, konferenser samt delta i internationella samarbeten, samt överföra det samlade resultaten till Försvarsmakten genom demonstrationer av verkliga eller simulerade delsy- stem och interaktiva simuleringar av hela system. Just systemsimuleringar kan göras särskilt realistiska, eftersom interaktionen med de riktiga obemannade systemen till stor del sker igenom kontrollstationernas datorer. På så sätt ska- pas en känsla för både hot och möjligheter med de nya systemen, vilket gagnar både taktikutveckling och materielprocesser.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Nilsson, Mikael, 1976-
(författare)
-
Tools of Hegemony : Military Technology and Swedish-American Security Relations, 1945-1962
- 2007
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This doctoral thesis analyze the process whereby Sweden gained access to American guided missiles during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It also tracks the Swedish efforts to develop guided missiles domestically. The concept of hegemony is used to interpret these processes, the dynamic in the Swedish-American relationship, and its consequences for the Swedish policy of neutrality.Sweden’s domestic guided missile development program, begun in the end of World War Two, met with great difficulties already by the end of the 1940s, and had entered a cul de sac by the early 1950s. The reason for this was a contunuous lack of funding and personnel, as well as a lack of foreign hardware and know-how. By 1947 the United States had largely established its hegemony in Western Europe, and the U.S. government then sought to gain the consent of the Swedish government as well. The U.S. government used its preponderant position, and pressured Sweden to adapt its policies by withholding vital technology from the Swedes. The U.S. refusal to deliver arms to a neutral Scandinavian Defense Union was significant in this respect. Sweden gradually gave its concurrence through a series of steps, most importantly the participation in the Marshall Plan in 1948, and COCOM in the summer of 1951. The confirmation of the U.S. government’s acceptance of Sweden came in the summer of 1952 when was made eligible to buy armaments in the United States under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (MDAA).However, Sweden was not granted access to American guided missiles. This was an experience shared with most of the NATO countries (with the limited exception of Britain and Canada). During the course of the 1950s the United States was forced to change its position, due to prodding from the nato allies. The annual nato meetings were used as a platform by the nato countries in this endevour. The U.S. government reversed its non-disclosure policy in 1957 because of worries that its hegemonic position was threatened if it did not provide these weapons to its allies. Guided missile deliveries to Europe was used as a means to keep the alliance together, and to preserve U.S. hegemony in Western Europe.Because of its consent to U.S. hegemony Sweden gained access to U.S. missiles at the same time, and many times even before the NATO countries. Sweden was the first Western European country to purchase Sidewinder (1959) and Hawk (1962), and license manufactured two versions of the Falcon missile. Because of these deliveries the development of Swedish surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles was halted. Sweden was dependent upon the U.S. for deliveries of additional missiles in wartime, and this could have become a problem for Sweden’s ability to defend its territory against Western intrusions, since Sweden’s defense was based on help arriving from the West if Sweden was attacked by the USSR. The Swedish government, using the Royal Air Force Board as a proxy, signed a memorandum of Understanding in 1961 which gave the U.S. government the rigth to any improvements to the Falcon missiles, as well as the right to use them anywhere in the world. Sweden had thus de facto become a part of the U.S. military’s supply line.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wallinius, Martin, et al.
(författare)
-
Enhanced Training by a Systemic Governance of Force Capabilities, Tasks, and Processes
- 2013
-
Konferensbidrag (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Swedish Army has transformed from 31 brigades in to two in 20 years. At the same time the Swedish area of interest has increased from 60 km from the Swedish borders to 6000 km from Brussels. The type of missions for the armed forces has changed from invasion defending operations to international interoperable operations. This overall change also has increased the necessity to become more interoperable with the partners in the Nordic, European Union, NATO and PfP countries. The NATO methods (OCC) and Core team Effectiveness (CTEF) together with the alignment of the Swedish MARTA provides the basis to assess, evaluate and accredit the Swedish forces. This paper presents a Systemic Governance of Capabilities, Tasks, and Processes applied to the requirement specification for the core battalion in Nordic Battle Group 2015. The method consists of analyzing and compiling the battalion's capabilities, tasks, activities and processes in their context and in relation to each other down to platoon level. The paper then continues to describe the development of a system providing support for assessment, evaluation and accreditation which entail that the commander and staff better can govern the education and training efforts for the force. Authors note: This work is conducted with funding and support from the Swedish Armed Forces and Swedish Strategic Foundation (grant SM12-0052). The information in this publication is the one of the authors and is not the official voice of the Swedish Armed Forces, Combitech, SAAB, Swedish National Defence College, George Mason University and University of Skövde.
|
|
