Sweden's stealthy submarines are lethal. NATO's newest ally says it brings 'unique capabilities' to strategic waters.
Its defense minister singled out its submarines to Business Insider.
They are quiet, small, and can stay down for a long time, ideal for the Baltic Sea.
Sweden's defense minister told Business Insider that his country, the newest NATO ally, has "unique capabilities to strengthen the alliance."
Pål Jonson highlighted Sweden's "sub-arctic capabilities" and singled out Swedish submarines operating in the Baltic Sea.
Sweden joined NATO in March 2024, abandoning decades of neutrality in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Its military has been largely built with a threat from Russia in mind, and it is now one of many European countries warning Russia could attack elsewhere on the continent.
Sweden's navy has three advanced Gotland-class diesel-electric submarines and a fourth older one due to be retired when it gets two new models expected starting in 2027.
Though they aren't nuclear-powered like US submarines, these submarines are quite capable. They have proven themselves against Western navies in exercises.
Professor Basil Germond, a maritime security expert at the UK's Lancaster University, told BI that in the case of war, with Sweden now a part of the alliance, "NATO will be in a much better position in the Baltic Sea than Russia because of the concentration of power around the sea and their ability to close the sea to Russian activities."
Sweden's submarines are small, silent, and can stay underwater for long stretches. The capabilities of the boats allowed one to "defeat" an American aircraft carrier, assets that are normally well-defended, in a military exercise.
Sweden's HSMS Gotland "sank" USS Ronald Reagan in a 2005 wargame that pitted a carrier task force against the Swedish boat in an anti-submarine warfare exercise.
Sweden operates conventional Gotland-class submarines, which Steven Horrell, a former US naval intelligence officer and now a naval warfare expert at the Center for European Policy Analysis, described to BI as "quieter than even a US nuclear class submarine."
Bryan Clark, a former submariner and naval operations expert at the Hudson Institute, described Sweden's submarines as "very quiet."
"That means they can operate undetected," he said. "They can patrol areas like the Baltic in particular, without the adversary forces knowing they're there."
Clark called the submarines a "big asset" for NATO.
Many NATO allies around the Baltic Sea have far less maritime capability. Sweden's Submarine Flotilla Commander Fredrik Linden told Reuters in 2023 that Sweden's navy has "regional expertise, which fills a critical gap, expertise that NATO doesn't have."
Jonson said Sweden has "unique capabilities to operate in the Baltic Sea under the surface, on the surface, and in the air." He added that the waterway is "a rather unique operational environment."
"The number of vessels at any time is about 4,500," the minister said of the strategic waters of the Baltic Sea. "That has increased significantly during the last decades and after the full-scale invasion broke out."
Sweden knows the Baltic Sea well. Jonson said that operating there is "something we've been doing for hundreds of years, and we like to think that we know the Baltic Sea inside out."
Located in northern Europe, the waterway is surrounded by Russia and NATO allies Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland and is strategically important both to NATO and the Russians.
It is a key trade and telecommunications route. Jonson, Sweden's defense minister, described the sea as "an important lane of communication."
Russia's war, which Moscow purportedly started with the intention to limit NATO expansion, has seen the Baltic become what some alliance members have called a "NATO sea" with Finland and Sweden joining as allies.
In the Ukraine war, Russia has used its warships and subs to launch missiles at cities and critical infrastructure. Ukraine has, however, been able to damage many of Russia's vessels using its naval drones, driving away Russia's Black Sea Fleet from its headquarters in Crimea.
That has made St. Petersburg more important as one of only a few Russian ports that don't become inaccessible in the winter. If Russia wanted to threaten Europe, the Baltic Sea could become a strategically significant battleground.
For NATO, maintaining a greater maritime deterrence posture in the Baltic Sea is critical.
The Gotland class submarines have been around for a while now, but they have been repeatedly updated to maintain their top-tier combat capabilities.
The Swedish boats feature a unique air-independent propulsion system powered by Stirling-cycle external-combustion engines, an X rudder for maneuverability, and four heavyweight torpedo tubes and two lightweight torpedo tubes. They're stealthy assets that can combat surface ships and subs, as well as lay mines.
Horrell called them perfect for a sea with "smaller inlets, small islands, small shallow waters."
"When you throw in there that it's home waters that someone has been operating in for years and years as an individual, individual officers, individual crews, crews as a team, you know, that makes a huge difference and brings a lot of capabilities," he added.
Clark said Sweden tends "to operate primarily in that Baltic Sea, North Sea region, which is a lot of relatively shallow water and a lot of coastline, a lot of little inlets and fjords."
He said Sweden typically focuses on "submarines and coastal warfare" while Finland focuses more on sea denial, with assets like mine layers. "Between the two of them," he said, "they could pin Russian forces inside of Russian waters pretty effectively."
Western officials have raised concerns about Baltic Sea security in response to severed undersea cables.
Sweden is stepping up its actions there, buying more surface vessels. Other allies are, too. Denmark is buying dozens more ships amid rising threats in the Baltic Sea and the Arctic.
Sweden and many of its neighbors warn Russia could attack elsewhere in Europe, beyond Ukraine.
It has increased its defense spending and wants allies to do the same. Jonson said "we doubled our own defense investment in five years, and we're now 2.4% of GDP and we have a trajectory going up to even further."
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Nearly two million more casualties': The numbers that show Russia is years from victory
Donald Trump's message – or rather, the message he transmitted from Vladimir Putin – to Volodymyr Zelensky in Washington on Monday was stark: accept the deal Russia is offering, because otherwise you'll lose the war. But if Moscow appears strong now, Ukraine and its European allies believe, it's partly because Trump's choices have made it stronger – namely, his decisions to curtail US military aid, interrupt intelligence sharing and, above all, accept Putin's insistence on a peace deal before a ceasefire. And in fact, Russia is far from battlefield supremacy. Just hours before the Oval Office discussions, the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) declared it would take 4.4 years of fighting at current rates of advance for Russia to capture the remainder of territory it has 'annexed'. It would also, according to the MoD calculations based on Ukrainian estimates of Russian casualties, cost Russia an additional 1.93m killed and wounded to achieve Putin's goals. That would be on top of the more than one million casualties it has already sustained. In other words, Russia could be headed for breaking points of its own. How long can Russia last? All of which raises the question, if Trump chose to throw his weight behind Ukraine, could he change the tide? Should the US president be asking not how much Ukraine must surrender, but how long Russia can last? Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, points to two potential Russian breaking points: the military and the economic. Predictions about when either will come has become something of a mug's game, he cautions. Nor should we underestimate Russia's capacity to keep going. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point: there are strains on the economy. There are strains on the military. A breaking point will come,' he says. 'Because Trump is in a hurry, Putin has the ability to sort of shift that sense of emergency, so that, all of a sudden, it feels like this sort of political breaking point for the West – whereas, if there was a little bit more strategic patience and consistency from the White House, the opposite would actually be true.' The British Defence Intelligence assessment about the Russian rate of advance is meant for public consumption rather than real strategic analysis. Applying the same crude logic to British military performance in the First World War, one might have said in early 1918 that the Allies were decades from victory. By the end of that year, Germany had suffered a devastating defeat, and arguing about rates of advance and attrition in the previous four years were not much use to German negotiators at armistice talks. 'The problem is, wars are not linear,' points out Rob Lee, senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute and an expert in the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. Nor are they boxing matches to be decided on points. Nonetheless, Russia's advance is indeed painfully slow. Even a recent 10-mile infiltration near Dobropillia, while initially alarming for Ukraine, failed to achieve an operational breakthrough. It ended instead with hundreds of Russians being captured or killed. 'Limitless manpower is a myth' In the Oval Office, the US president led Zelensky over to an easel holding a large map of Ukraine showing the current line of control. The implication: to stop the conflict, the map will have to be redrawn. There was little progress on Monday, however, partly because Zelensky and his allies see that map in a very different way. Speaking after the talks Emmanuel Macron said that in the past 1,000 days of war Russian forces 'took less than one per cent' of Ukrainian territory. 'Those who are saying… 'The Ukrainians are lost. They will lose'. It's total fake news,' the French president said. As the Institute for the Study of War has pointed out, Russian forces are currently struggling to complete the encirclement or envelopment of Kupyansk despite 22 months of offensive operations. It took them 14 months to cover the 6.4 miles from the eastern to western outskirts of Toretsk, and 26 months to advance 6.8 miles from western Bakhmut to the western edge of Chasiv Yar. And yes, says Michael Kofman, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment and veteran watcher of the Russian military, it is true to say that Russia faces increasing risk as the war goes on. 'The question is not how much territory is Russia gaining per day. The only question that's actually being tested in the fighting in 2024 and 2025 is which proposition is more likely to be true: is Russia able to sustain its offensive effort and eventually put Ukraine in an untenable position? Or is Ukrainian defence more viable and more likely to exhaust Russian offensive potential, if not this year then next?' he says. 'This is what both parties are looking at to try to inform their decision on the questions of how much time they have and whether they can hope to attain a better and different outcome.' At the moment, Kofman says, time seems to favour Russia. Ukraine is not facing either imminent defeat or a collapse of the front line that would force it to sign a humiliating surrender, but the Russians are accelerating. Year-on-year, their pace of advance has picked up in 2025 compared to 2024. And while Ukraine has serious problems with manpower, Russia still has a steady supply of men to replace battlefield losses, which, according to Britain's Defence Intelligence, currently stand at 1,060,000, including 250,000 killed or missing presumed dead. The recent Russian infiltration at Dobropillia shows that Ukraine's drone units, despite their remarkable effectiveness, cannot stabilise the front alone in the absence of sufficient infantry. For now, however, the Russians are struggling to translate their dominance in infantry into decisive advantage. 'Russia's vulnerability is simply that they are far too slow and they don't have the force quality, nor do they employ the tactics, to achieve a major breakthrough. So their overall approach is deeply inefficient and costly in terms of manpower,' says Kofman. 'The political leadership doesn't care about this, but Russia does not have limitless manpower either – that's a myth. It also does not have limitless time. That's another myth.' Russia 'on the verge of recession' There are other constraints on Russia too, Kofman argues. 'The reality is that the war is a significant strain on the Russian economy. Despite outwardly projecting the ability and willingness to keep fighting for many more years, if the war enters 2026 and Russia doesn't appear to be winning decisively on the battlefield, it is eminently unclear that they, too, will not run into significant sustainability problems that could force them to a much weaker negotiating position,' he says. That explains why Putin may be keen to seal a deal now: he feels comparatively strong, but knows the moment of apparent dominance may not last. For two years, Russia's economy appeared to defy gravity, turning massive military spending into rapid GDP growth despite Western sanctions. But the sugar high appears to be over. And the signs of the comedown are everywhere. In June, Maxim Reznikov, the minister of economic development of the Russian Federation, warned the St Petersburg economic forum that the country was 'on the verge of recession'. The following month, the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, the country's second largest steel producer, reported a 21.1 per cent collapse in profits and a sharp drop in output that it attributed to high interest rates and a general slowdown in the Russian economy. Indeed, at the end of July, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) cut its 2025 growth estimate for Russia to 0.9 per cent, down from an initial 1.5 per cent forecast it made in April. Even that was a dramatic drop from the 4.3 per cent growth the IMF estimated in 2024. And inflation has prompted the ministries of agriculture and of trade and industry to draft a law for price caps on vegetables, poultry and dairy products, according to a report in Kommersant, a Russian business daily, earlier this month. 'The economy is an interesting thing because there's an objective standpoint to it, which is, frankly, that they do have considerable fiscal and monetary headroom, and they remain very good at managing the economy, albeit at increasing cost,' says Greene. 'But eventually they do reach a pinch point.' 'If you remember back to January, the very last thing the Biden administration did was to impose some new sanctions, somewhat unexpectedly, on the Russians. And that sent Russian markets into a tailspin for two or three weeks. If the West were interested in manufacturing those sorts of moments of unpredictability, then it would bring some very real risks, including near-term risks, for the Russian economy.' 'They're playing with fire' None of these factors mean Russia is facing imminent collapse, says Ian Bond, deputy director for the London-based Centre for European Reform. There is no sign that the casualty rate or the economic strains of the war have created any kind of serious domestic political challenge to Putin so far. 'But Russia is strong until it's not. It looks mighty, and then mental fatigue sets in, and things fall apart quite quickly,' he says. 'Is that going to happen this time? We simply don't know,' Bond adds. But, he argues, it is a reason for Europe and Ukraine to resist acquiescing to a bad deal – like surrendering Donbas – that would leave them much more vulnerable. These are the considerations that Russian, Ukrainian and European leaders will be weighing up as Trump shepherds them into more negotiations in the coming weeks. In the final analysis, 'war is very much an uncertain business, and even though some things may be in Russia's favour, there's a great deal of uncertainty', says Kofman. 'And keep in mind the external factors: at the end of the day, much for Russia depends on things, like the price of oil, that they can neither predict nor control. The longer things go on, the more they're playing with fire.' Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Israel approves settlement plan to erase idea of Palestinian state
Israel approves settlement plan to erase idea of Palestinian state JERUSALEM (Reuters) -A widely condemned Israeli settlement plan that would cut across land that the Palestinians seek for a state received final approval on Wednesday, according to a statement from Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich. The approval of the E1 project, which would bisect the occupied West Bank and cut it off from East Jerusalem, was announced last week by Smotrich and received the final go-ahead from a Defence Ministry planning commission on Wednesday, he said. "With E1, we are delivering finally on what has been promised for years," Smotrich, an ultra-nationalist in the ruling right-wing coalition, said in a statement. "The Palestinian state is being erased from the table, not with slogans but with actions." Restarting the project could further isolate Israel, which has watched some Western allies frustrated by its continuation and planned escalation of the Gaza war announce they may recognise a Palestinian state at the United Nations General Assembly in September. "We condemn the decision taken today on expanding this particular settlement, which ... will drive a stake through the heart of the two-state solution," said U.N. spokesperson Stephane Dujarric. "We call on the government of Israel to halt all settlement activity." The Palestinian Foreign Ministry also condemned the announcement, saying the E1 settlement would isolate Palestinian communities living in the area and undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. British Foreign Minister David Lammy said on X: "If implemented, it would divide a Palestinian state in two, mark a flagrant breach of international law and critically undermine the two-state solution." A German government spokesperson commenting on the announcement told reporters that settlement construction violates international law and "hinders a negotiated two-state solution and an end to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not commented on the E1 announcement. However on Sunday, during a visit to Ofra, another West Bank settlement established a quarter of a century ago, he made broader comments, saying: "I said 25 years ago that we will do everything to secure our grip on the Land of Israel, to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, to prevent the attempts to uproot us from here. Thank God, what I promised, we have delivered." The two-state solution to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict envisages a Palestinian state in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza, existing side by side with Israel. Western capitals and campaign groups have opposed the settlement project due to concerns that it could undermine a future peace deal with the Palestinians. The plan for E1, located adjacent to Maale Adumim and frozen in 2012 and 2020 amid objections from the U.S. and European governments, involves the construction of about 3,400 new housing units. Infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building in about a year, according to Israeli advocacy group Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank. Most of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law. Israel disputes this, citing historical and biblical ties to the area and saying the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Russia says talks on Ukraine's security without Moscow are a 'road to nowhere'
By Dmitry Antonov and Mark Trevelyan MOSCOW (Reuters) -Russia said on Wednesday attempts to resolve security issues relating to Ukraine without Moscow's participation were a "road to nowhere," sounding a warning to the West as it scrambles to work out guarantees for Kyiv's future protection. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov particularly criticised the role of European leaders who met U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House on Monday to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine that could help end the three-and-a-half-year-old war. "We cannot agree with the fact that now it is proposed to resolve questions of security, collective security, without the Russian Federation. This will not work," Lavrov told a joint press conference after meeting Jordan's foreign minister. U.S. and European military planners have begun exploring post-conflict security guarantees for Ukraine, U.S. officials and sources told Reuters on Tuesday. Lavrov said such discussions without Russia were pointless. "I am sure that in the West and above all in the United States they understand perfectly well that seriously discussing security issues without the Russian Federation is a utopia, it's a road to nowhere." NATO military leaders holding a video conference on Wednesday had a "great, candid discussion" on the results of recent talks on Ukraine, the chair of the alliance's military committee said. "Priority continues to be a just, credible and durable peace," Admiral Giuseppe Cavo Dragone wrote in a post on X. A Western official told Reuters that a small group of military leaders continued discussions in Washington on security guarantees shortly after the bigger virtual meeting. After Polish officials said that an object that crashed in a cornfield in eastern Poland overnight was likely a Russian drone, Poland accused Russia of provoking NATO countries just as efforts to find an end to the war were intensifying. "Once again, we are dealing with a provocation by the Russian Federation, with a Russian drone. We are dealing in a crucial moment, when discussions about peace (in Ukraine) are under way," Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz said. Lavrov's comments highlighted Moscow's demand for Western governments to directly engage with it on questions of security concerning Ukraine and Europe, something it says they have so far refused to do. Moscow this week also restated its rejection of "any scenarios involving the deployment of NATO troops in Ukraine." 'CLUMSY' EUROPEANS Lavrov accused the European leaders who met Trump and Zelenskiy of carrying out "a fairly aggressive escalation of the situation, rather clumsy and, in general, unethical attempts to change the position of the Trump administration and the president of the United States personally ... We did not hear any constructive ideas from the Europeans there." Trump said on Monday the United States would help guarantee Ukraine's security in any deal to end Russia's war there. He subsequently said he had ruled out putting U.S. troops in Ukraine, but the U.S. might provide air support as part of a deal to end the hostilities. Zelenskiy's chief of staff, speaking after a meeting of national security advisers from Western countries and NATO, said work was proceeding on the military component of the guarantees. "Our teams, above all the military, have already begun active work on the military component of security guarantees," chief of staff Andriy Yermak wrote on social media. Yermak said Ukraine was also working on a plan with its allies on how to proceed "in case the Russian side continues to prolong the war and disrupt agreements on bilateral and trilateral formats of leaders' meetings." Lavrov said Russia was in favour of "truly reliable" guarantees for Ukraine and suggested these could be modelled on a draft accord that was discussed between the warring parties in Istanbul in 2022, in the early weeks of the war. Under the draft discussed then, Ukraine would have received security guarantees from a group of countries including the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - China, Russia, the United States, Britain, and France. At the time, Kyiv rejected that proposal on the grounds that Moscow would have held effective veto power over any military response to come to its aid. Solve the daily Crossword
