The Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, FMV, has issued a briefing on the ground forces’ part of their Materiel Plan 20 (hat-tip to HenrikJ on Twitter, FF as we say over there). In short, this is a look at a number of weapons and systems the Army will need in the next few year. Notable is that they are funded inside the current budget and quantities correspond to the current size of the Swedish Defence Forces. And because everyone loves a spirited calibre war, the thing that caught my eye was the plan to swap out all firearms at the squad level.
The weapons includes Ak 4 (H&K G3), Ak 5 (FN FNC), Psg 90 (AI Arctic Warfare/L96A1), and the Ksp 90 (FN Minimi). In addition, a designated marksman rifle is to be acquired. Of these, the Ak 4 is the old main service rifle, currently it is mainly used by the Home Guard. The other four weapons are the main squad level weapons of the regular force.
The most prolific weapon of the Swedish forces is without doubt the Ak 5. Contrary to the earlier FN FAL, the 5.56 NATO chambered FNC was a limited success, with Sweden being the only western country to acquire it outside of its native Belgium. In Swedish trials the FNC beat a modified Galil SAR and was adopted in the winter of 1986/1987, making Sweden a pioneer when it came to switching from 7.62 mm to 5.56 mm. The Ak 5 was license-produced in Eskilstuna, and from the get go it has been featuring unique Swedish modifications, spawning a family of it’s own compared to the baseline FNC. In total, approximately 27,500 of the latest version Ak 5C/D were ordered.
The other weapons have scored more notable export successes. The Minimi, or M249 SAW which it is still best known as (although the ‘SAW’ has officially been changed), was the outcome of the decision to create a light machine gun able to use the same ammunition as the rest of the squad, i.e. the 5.56 NATO round. It is not a bad weapon per se, but it certainly lack the firepower of light machine guns chambered in 7.62 NATO. The Arctic Warfare is your basic sniper rifle in 7.62 NATO. Accurate, big power optics, costs an arm and a leg, but crucially makes it possible for a trained sniper to hit individual targets out to 1,000 meters.
The interesting part is that the briefing emphasised that the requirements are to be focused on the “system”. While this shouldn’t be read as a single weapon doing everything, it does offer an edge to any supplier able to cater to all or several of the four weapons needed (assault rifle, designated marksman rifle, light machine gun, and sniper rifle). However, a split buy likely isn’t ruled out (especially when it comes to the sniper rifle). The programme, including trials, will take place during 2019 to 2024 with the main deliveries starting in 2025. A total of 2.2 billion SEK (210 million Euro) is allocated for the 2021 to 2030 period.
If we start from the most basic weapon, the assault rifle (likely in full-length and carbine length versions) will likely be a new 5.56 NATO weapon. For quite some time there has been new wonder-rounds appearing with tiresome regularity, but despite the praise calibres such as .300 BLK or 6.8 SPC has garnered from firearms aficionados, love is waiting to blossom out when it comes to these wildcat(ish) rounds and the greater defence community. The reason is not that they would be bad, but rather that the task of switching away from 5.56 NATO which has become the de facto western standard to something else causes major disruptions when it comes to logistics and interoperability. As such, I don’t foresee a shift away from the 5.56 NATO for most Swedish soldiers.
In the same way it would be very surprising if the designated marksman rifle is anything else than a 7.62 NATO weapon. The round excels in combining a relatively manageable recoil and a reach out beyond that of the 5.56 NATO, while at the same time being in widespread use both amongst military, law enforcement, and civilian users.
The light machine gun is a more interesting one. The FN MAG is in Swedish use as the Ksp 58, though the versions available are quite old (read: heavy), and in its current guise likely won’t migrate down to fill the squad level-role. However, stepping up from 5.56 NATO to 7.62 NATO is entirely possible, especially as the designated marksman weapon likely will bring the calibre into widespread use anyhow (though sharing ammunition between the DM and the machine gunner will likely stay an emergency measure only).
For the sniper rifle, while 7.62 NATO has long been the standard round, I find it highly likely that the new weapon will follow international trends a go up a notch to .338 LM. It does allow for longer shots compared to the 7.62 NATO, but the big benefit is that it is more forgiving at the ranges beyond a few hundred meters, thanks to the better ballistics and higher hitting power. On the downside both weapons and rounds are significantly more expensive, and it would mean adopting a completely new round into Swedish service.
To begin with, let’s not pretend that there is any single obvious choice for any single one of the weapons. With that said, some weapons certainly would be less surprising than others. Notable is the fact that there are no Swedish gunmaker able of handling even license production of the order following the closure of the Eskilstuna rifleworks in 2012.
FN Herstal has an interesting arsenal to offer. The FN-SCAR is widely seen as one of the best assault rifles currently in use. It is offered in numerous configurations, including the basic SCAR-L (available with both 14.5” and 10” barrels) and the sub-compact SCAR SC (7.5” barrel), as well as the SCAR-H in 7.62 NATO (available in the PR designated marksman/semi-auto sniper version). FN Herstal also has a number of options for the machine gun, offering the modernised MINIMI Mk3 in both 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO as well as numerous versions of the earlier mentioned FN MAG in 7.62 NATO. The SCAR has received several orders, but mostly from elite units (including the Finnish Special Jaegers) and scoring noticeably worse when it comes to larger orders for general service rifles.
In the same way, Heckler & Koch has an impressive array. The HK416 (5.56 NATO) and HK417 (7.62 NATO) is a duet that has secured an impressive string of orders. The biggest gem in this string of pearls is without doubt the decision by France to replace their homemade FAMAS with the German design. Closer to home, Norway has adopted them as well. The weapons are based on the classic AR-design, but feature a short-stroke piston. For the German G36C replacement, H&K has offered the newer HK433 instead, which is available in numerous configurations. So far it has failed to receive any orders, but in case it does become the main German assault rifle the outlook for the rifle could change overnight. HK also have the MG4 in 5.56 NATO and MG5 in 7.62 NATO when it comes to machine guns, and the G28 designated marksman rifle version of the HK417.
Haenel MK 556 is the other contender for the German contract. The company has a more civilian portfolio, with machine guns being absent. They do however, offer a number of 7.62 NATO chambered rifles which are suitable for marksman duty.
Other obvious contenders are more traditional versions of the AR-family which are available from numerous manufacturers, including the Lewis Machine & Tool Company which recently secured the contract to replace Estonia’s Ak 4s (though the order has been challenged in court).
As is evident from the rundown above, the one weapon missing is a bolt-action sniper rifle, with the others usually having the option of being found from a single manufacturer. Quite a number of .338 LM sniper rifles are found on the market, with the Sako TRG-42 likely being the market leader, but there are several others in use such as the AWM in British service as the L115A3 (the AWM is now replaced by the AXMC, which likely will be the contender for a Swedish order) or the McMillian TAC-338.
Meanwhile, in Finland
Tumbleweeds. Crickets. The ghosts of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid riding by in the distance.
During a century of Finnish Defence Forces, a total of two platforms have been the main weapons of the Finnish infantry: the Mosin-Nagant M91 (that’s 1891) and the AK-family of assault rifles. And while the M91-family is slowly being retired (a sniper rifle built on the original receivers is still around), the AK-clones are set to overdo their stay.
“But wait”, my trusty old Rk 62 says. “Don’t you remember when we scored a perfect 20 on the rifle qualification? That was how I made you love me!”
The Rk 62 and the newer Rk 95 TP are arguably some of the best AK-clones available in 7.62×39 mm, being machined and featuring details such as the rear sight being moved further back for a more accurate sight picture thanks to tighter tolerances. The weapon is accurate enough when you have time to find a good firing stance and shoot at 75 meters. Still, there’s no denying that both the platform and calibres are getting old. The updated Rk 62M is better, especially thanks to the improved stock and the Aimpoint
Comp M4 Micro T-2 sight combining to make quick shots and recoil management easier. Still, it is largely a question of coating a dated design in a liberal amount of sugar and calling it sweet. And to make matters worse, a large number of wartime Finnish troops would not get a Finnish-built weapon, but one of any number of East German and Chinese AKM-copies which have been bought in droves to equip the second and third line troops. Edit: It seems I was wrong on this one, and while there are significant stocks of AKM-copies left, the current size of the Finnish wartime force is covered (with some margin) by the estimated number of Finnish-built weapons available.
For a long time I have been arguing against introducing a new assault weapon for the Finnish Defence Forces. Rifles generally age well, and if one has to choose between introducing a new rifle with a new main calibre against something like the 155 K9 Moukari artillery system, the new SPGs are the obvious choice. However, we are moving towards the point in time when waiting is no longer an option. As such, we could certainly do worse than ensuring an option to piggyback off the Swedish firearms trials in the same way the Estonian Defence Forces bought their K9s under the same contract as the Finnish artillery. Buying the same assault rifles, designated marksman rifles, and machine guns as Sweden would allow us to phase out a large number of the worst AK-clones, the Dragunovs and possibly the last 7.62 TKIV 85, as well as the 7.62 KvKK 62 light machine guns. The 7.62 PKM is still a modern weapon, so there is no need to replace those. However, additional buys are a no-no after Crimea.
I hereby suggest a study into how piggybacking upon the Swedish firearms program with a 450 million Euro program of our own could increase the lethality of the Finnish infantry. This ought to be funded outside of the normal defence budgets, in line with other ongoing strategic acquisitions.
14 thoughts on “Weapons & Ammunition”
In Afghanistan the Swedes used 5.56 NATO standard anno for AK5s. You mentioned it. I cannot say that I was present in the Swedish batallion in ”Affe” which is a nickname for Afghanistan. But from what I have seen on Swedish war documentaries and from what I have read, the Talibans used to shoot at the Swedish troops with either the larger caliber Kalashnikovs or machinegun from what they hoped to be a safe distance from our handheld guns. But since the distance was longer the accuracy of their Kalashnikovs were conciderably lower. That meant that the Swedish soldiers, who usually were vehicle mounted, could stop and get out if they were not already outside of their vehicles and with optics or ocularly assertain from where the shooter was localized, and respond with a vehicle mounted heavy machinegun. It sometimes happened that our soldiers found holes in their clothes after enemy fire and I guess it could happen that some of ours got hit by a bullet. But the Norwegians had a saying in Affe, ”God is a Swede”. Since we had so few casualties in the war. But I say as Clausewitz did, ”luck has only the skillful in the long run”.
7.62 caliber rounds means that you can carry less rounds than you can with 5.56 caliber rounds.
I am in no way advocating the smaller caliber but there is a reason why we switched to it.
piggy backing on swedish order is a good idea in general
logistics is half the battle
but pragmatic finland could get access to tavor based personal service rifles and dm systems
and the best light and medium machine guns on the planet (negev ng7 and ng5)
after all the tavor has :
the reliability of an ak
the accuracy of an ar-15
a large government and private user base and accessory market
and our prices are 15% cheaper on average then fnc and heckler
our native sniper rifles are trash
the idf uses french and american system and refusess iwi offers in that category
Are the weapons you mention highly functional in archtic conditions? Have they been tested in archtic environments?
are the himalayan mountain ranges in nepal and india cold and inhospitable enough for you ?
indian sf uses the tavor as their main service system
for some reason they favor the full size version over the new X95
turkish sf is also a tavor user and their mountain ranges are brutal
Sounds good enough for me, if they are as good as you say. Though these deals often involve political considerations. Usually when purchasing heavier systems at least, is my understanding. At least here in Europe. Unfortunately.
Of course I am not a Finn. But I think the Finns are smart enough to buy the best handheld weapons to the cheapest prize.
You are probably correct with regards to 5.56 and 7.62 but several of the 6.8 calibers being tested primarily in the US are clearly superior to both. Especially to 7.62 as you get a weight reduction combined with better accuracy and hitting power at a distance. It would IMO be really interesting if e.g. the sniper and machinegun replacements were 6.8 instead of 7.62.
Poland is stil making PK in both 7.62 NATO and 54R.
Reblogged this on vara bungas.
Decide how you mean to fight; then determine what weapon suits that. Piggybacking on the Swedes would make sense, if you’re going to fight the same way they are. If not, it’s idiocy–No matter what logistics conveniences you might enable by doing so.
Most military forces do this backwards–The design or buy a new weapon/system, then try to figure out how to use it effectively within their tactics and operational intents. This is not how a rational organization operates.
Case history–Look to the Swiss. If you examine the StG57, you will note that it is basically an LMG/rifle hybrid, rather than a submachinegun/rifle hybrid like the AK47 or StG44. Why is that? What possessed the Swiss to call that thing a “Sturmgewehr”, and buy it?
First, it was conceived and designed as the ideal rifle for the war the Swiss intended to fight: Abandon the populated lowlands, and withdraw into the mountains while keeping the enemy at arm’s reach and annihilating them at leisure with long-range fires. Thus, the StG57–A weapon optimized for long-range mountain warfare. Imagine being Soviet infantry, going unsupported up a Swiss valley lined with a battalion or so of infantry equipped with those things, and you’re carrying an AK-series rifle… Not something that’s conducive to confidence, at all–The Swiss would have turned most such attacks into charnel houses for the attackers. And, that’s what the weapon was designed to support–A near-perfect implementation of “design to suit tactics/operational intent”.
Now, look at the StG90–It’s not just an updated rifle, it’s a reflection of the fact that the Swiss changed their operational intent from abandoning the lowlands to defending them, and the new rifle was reflective of that, optimized not for range in the mountains, but fighting in built-up areas and in conjunction with armored vehicles.
You want to know what weapons to procure, examine how the Swiss made their determination, and then implement something similar. Issuing what the Swedes chose is a fool’s game, unless you intend to adopt the Swedish defense plan and rationale in its entirety. While there may be similarities and congruencies, the odds are that the Finns are not going to want to make the same choices the Swedes did–And, should emphatically not.
Figure out how you intend to fight, procure to support same. Do not slavishly copy what the other idiots are doing, especially the US–Our small arms procurement process seems to be predicated upon the theory that God takes care of fools, drunkards, and the US soldier. Because there’s just no damn way you can even begin to ascribe anything that went into the success of the M16/M4 family to any form of planning or foresight–It’s all divine providence, all the way down.
I agree. You have first got to know if you are defending an Island or a mainland for example. One of Sweden’s main defensive objectives is an island like Gotland in the middle of the Baltic Sea. The island has special constitutive natural environments. But we also need to contribute in the North and defend our south and protect the western port of Gothenburg. Of course we cannot do all those things today. But we should be able to.
The finns need to defend their mainland and a few small islands in the bay of Finland.
When it comes to America. Nobody can fight everybody at once. The Americans reshape their military or prioritize differently depending on who is the main enemy for the time being. In the 40-ies it was the Germans, in the double zeros it was al-Qaida and now it is China. They all require different priorities.
Pingback: 2019 in Review – Corporal Frisk
Pingback: The Return of the Sako – Corporal Frisk
Pingback: Continued Imbalances – The Swedish Defence Forces towards 2030 – Corporal Frisk
Comments are closed.