[Sardaukar]

http://www.mil.fi/pa...otteet/5061.dsp (in finnish)

Finland is buying Kongsberg-Raytheon NASAMS II missile system to replace Russian BUK M1 system. In addition, Finland is buying Thales-Raytheon Systems Company's mobile radar system and same company is also modernizing Finnish long-range radar network. Total cost is 642 million euros.

NASAMS II systems are going to cost 346 million euros, radar systems and upgrades 176 million euros. I think rest are going for purchasing the missiles.

About damn time. :)

[Josh]

Isn't M1 Buk a rather modern system?

[bd1]

Sardaukar, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 0900, said:

http://www.mil.fi/pa...otteet/5061.dsp (in finnish)

Finland is buying Kongsberg-Raytheon NASAMS II missile system to replace Russian BUK M1 system. In addition, Finland is buying Thales-Raytheon Systems Company's mobile radar system and same company is also modernizing Finnish long-range radar network. Total cost is 642 million euros.

NASAMS II systems are going to cost 346 million euros, radar systems and upgrades 176 million euros. I think rest are going for purchasing the missiles.

About damn time. :)

seems that Finns let us play with them too - local papers write that Finland buys 12 radars and Est. buys 2 Thales Ground Master 403.

My thanks to all Finns for their indispensable help to us. :)

This post has been edited by bd1: 29 April 2009 - 1258 PM

[Sami Jumppanen]

jua, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 1741, said:

Isn't M1 Buk a rather modern system?

M2 is already aviable and possibly even M3. So it may not be quite so new. Anyway, reason behind all this is that FDF found out that BUKs reliability can't be quaranteed in all circumstances. There is no precise info about this, but there are some theories: 1) Russians left somekind of backdoor or other kind of vulnerability to the system (possibly unintentional). 2) This has something to do with that raid to Syria by IDF. 3)Then there are theories about how Georgian BUK:s were upgraded in Ukraine and were supprize to Russians when their ECM didn't have any effect. 4) Finnish army wanted to get rid off any Russian equipment, so they just invented this whole thing. IIRC around 2000 there was complaints from the army about how high maintainance BUK was.

Edit: Deal includes 4 systems with 24 launchers total. Not sure about how many other components there is for those systems. Radar is MPQ-64F2 (also from Thales-Raytheon).

This post has been edited by Sami Jumppanen: 29 April 2009 - 1316 PM

[Yama]

Meh. It was predictable - NASAMS is cheaper and there may be some other defence co-operation linked - but it is a poor choice. It does not have performance we need, and it uses same missile and seeker head as AMRAAM. Meaning, if there is a counter developed for AMRAAM seeker, 95% of Finnish air defence capability is neutralized.

This post has been edited by Yama: 29 April 2009 - 1406 PM

[CV9030FIN]

Sami Jumppanen, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 2101, said:

M2 is already aviable and possibly even M3. So it may not be quite so new. Anyway, reason behind all this is that FDF found out that BUKs reliability can't be quaranteed in all circumstances. There is no precise info about this, but there are some theories: 1) Russians left somekind of backdoor or other kind of vulnerability to the system (possibly unintentional). 2) This has something to do with that raid to Syria by IDF. 3)Then there are theories about how Georgian BUK:s were upgraded in Ukraine and were supprize to Russians when their ECM didn't have any effect. 4) Finnish army wanted to get rid off any Russian equipment, so they just invented this whole thing. IIRC around 2000 there was complaints from the army about how high maintainance BUK was.

This what is know in publicly: (Note! This standard Google translation from Finnish language news...)

Quote

Vanhanen and Heinäluoma received info from military about the Russian AA-missile problems

published today at 00:31, updated today at 13:15
Leaving the use of medium-haul aircraft missile battery 96 BUK M1.

Photo: The Defense Forces

Armed Forces Commander Juhani Kaskeala and Defense Minister Jyri Häkämies (IOC) have today, Wednesday, pre-care practiced a briefing, which describes one of the last decades, the largest single arms deals.

The army ordered a new air defense missile system, the new medium range of air surveillance radar system and update to long range of air surveillance radar system.
Total value of purchases for verges around 700 million euros, and the current economic crisis, the government must be prepared for the political laine would. The last major acquisition was the Air Force Hornets, who farms in the middle of the worst recession. The voters were tough, and sent the leaders of the opposition in elections.

Now the tasks of radar shops are part of the normal procurement cycle, when the technology is getting older and the equipment stops. Instead missile replacement is surprices outside experts.

Defense Forces' current-aircraft missile, a Russian Buk M-1 is still a relatively modern and, in principle, it should be the useful life remaining for many years. The missile was acquired at the mid-1990s that the payment arrangement in which Russia changed part of the Council during its debts to Finland. The gun is shown its abilities last in August 2008 in Georgia, the war, when it knocked down to the Russian aircraft.

Finnish magazine called Suomen Kuvalehti reported about a year ago that the Russian missile must be changed because it was the discovery of the enemy to go hole. Anonymous source from Defence staff confirmed information to the U.S. defense industry publication Defense News.

YLE news from various sources to the information available, at least according to their own policy-makers gave approval to the missile deal after obtaining military knowledge, that the Russian missile is vulnerable. Secrecy were married in a very small district the previous government.

Representatives of General Staff told verbally, and specifically Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen (Center Party) and Minister of Finance Eero Heinäluoma (SDP), the usefulness of Buk not be able to guarantee in all circumstances, the weapon is prone to outside influence. Due their position also Defense Minister Seppo Kääriäinen (Center) and President Tarja Halonen were adopted by resolution of the missile is replaced.

What is the external impact is, it is somewhat outside the impossibility to obtain more precise information. It is possible that today's briefing, even the defense minister does not permit to tell Buk problems, but the relevant issues must be forced to rotate. Outsiders do not want to give clues about where the "hole" lies, and the exchangeable missiles are still many years operational use.

A high-ranking source from Defence staff says without mention Buk that the problem may be, if the firearms to the range and extent of many users. International defense trade press has been some indication that Israel would be able to eliminate the Syrians used by the Russian air defense missiles, the two years ago in a military attack.

Finland took the missile deal pending, no later than three years ago. The acquisition of a public tender European arms agency, EDA's to maintain a register of attracting attention to midsummer, after June 26, 2006.

YLE Uutiset / Olli Ainola YLE News / Olli Ainola

Link

This post has been edited by CV9030FIN: 29 April 2009 - 1559 PM

[CV9030FIN]

Yama, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 2204, said:

Meh. It was predictable - NASAMS is cheaper and there may be some other defence co-operation linked - but it is a poor choice. It does not have performance we need, and it uses same missile and seeker head as AMRAAM. Meaning, if there is a counter developed for AMRAAM seeker, 95% of Finnish air defence capability is neutralized.

You should really stop reading what Suomen Sotilas writes...

[Sami Jumppanen]

CV9030FIN, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 1923, said:

You should really stop reading what Suomen Sotilas writes...

Suomen Sotilas was/is pro NASAMS. Anyway, NASAMS does lack range compared to SAMP/T, but aparently at the same prize they would have got only one SAMP/T system.

[CV9030FIN]

Sami Jumppanen, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 2244, said:

Suomen Sotilas was/is pro NASAMS.

...the point is that they write what ever they are paid to write...and they are still sitting in trenches of WWII...

[CV9030FIN]

Photos of system integrated to its forthcoming platform

http://sisuauto.mate...s...952&lang=fi

Deal includes 30 SISU 6x6 E13TP system platforms for missile BTY's, 12 SISU 8x8 E13TP system platforms for Thales-Raytheon Ground Master 403 Radar platforms and 40 SISU A2045 4x4 trucks for support roles of BTY's

http://www.sisuauto....uutinen/?id=127 (sorry only in Finnish)

[Sami Jumppanen]

CV9030FIN, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 2043, said:

Photos of system integrated to its forthcoming platform

http://sisuauto.mate...s...952&lang=fi

Deal includes 30 SISU 6x6 E13TP system platforms for missile BTY's, 12 SISU 8x8 E13TP system platforms for Thales-Raytheon Ground Master 403 Radar platforms and 40 SISU A2045 4x4 trucks for support roles of BTY's

http://www.sisuauto....uutinen/?id=127 (sorry only in Finnish)

For some reason those numbers don't add up. There is suposed to be 24 launchers, not 30 (are they keeping some as spares?).

[CV9030FIN]

Sami Jumppanen, on Thu 30 Apr 2009 0046, said:

For some reason those numbers don't add up. There is suposed to be 24 launchers, not 30 (are they keeping some as spares?).

6 for BMC4I system containers (FDC)...? Besides according to SISU press release all those 6x6 system platforms trucks are equipt with The MULTILIFT demountables so every truck can carry any piece of BTY as everything is packed to container platforms...

This post has been edited by CV9030FIN: 29 April 2009 - 1746 PM

[CV9030FIN]

bd1, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 2055, said:

seems that Finns let us play with them too - local papers write that Finland buys 12 radars and Est. buys 2 Thales Ground Master 403.

My thanks to all Finns for their indispensable help to us. :)

It seems that Estonians are also buying 2 similar 8x8 E13TP system platforms for their Thales-Raytheon Ground Master 403 Radars and 2 SISU A2045 4x4 trucks for support roles that FDF announced to buy too...

[Yama]

CV9030FIN, on Wed 29 Apr 2009 1923, said:

You should really stop reading what Suomen Sotilas writes...

Didn't they write an "evaluation" of the systems which was hugely pro-NASAMS...?

Chief problem with NASAMS is that it simply lacks the altitude performance. It's ceiling of ~10km is not enough even against current threat of bombers armed with satellite-guided bombs. Also, it cannot intercept ballistic missiles.

[Lampshade111]

Isn't that a bit much to be expecting from such a smaller sized system? What about MEADS and it's PAC-3 MSE missiles, how close is that system to entering the market?

This post has been edited by Lampshade111: 30 April 2009 - 0108 AM

[Sami Jumppanen]

Yama, on Thu 30 Apr 2009 0543, said:

Didn't they write an "evaluation" of the systems which was hugely pro-NASAMS...?

They wrote an article about NASAMS and on the next issue they wrote another article about SAMP/T. Since they failed clearly enough to mention that next issue would have an article about the other system, many took that as a paid advertisement from makers of NASAMS.

IMHO NASAMS article was more positive than the one made about SAMP/T, but still they were quite balanced.

As for the range of NASAMS: it is a problem but it can be solved by bying longer ranged missile for the system and that is much easier done than trying to get funding for second SAMP/T battery.

BTW. I heard that it is not yet confirmed that Estonia will buy those radars, but if they do, then there will be 3% discount to the prize Finland would otherwise pay for those radars.

[Yama]

Sami Jumppanen, on Thu 30 Apr 2009 0624, said:

They wrote an article about NASAMS and on the next issue they wrote another article about SAMP/T. Since they failed clearly enough to mention that next issue would have an article about the other system, many took that as a paid advertisement from makers of NASAMS.

IMHO NASAMS article was more positive than the one made about SAMP/T, but still they were quite balanced.

As for the range of NASAMS: it is a problem but it can be solved by bying longer ranged missile for the system and that is much easier done than trying to get funding for second SAMP/T battery.

Range is not a problem, in fact NASAMS ought to give pretty good coverage. Ceiling is the problem. I believe NASAMS is in fact fairly good system in its class, problem is that when it is supposed to act as top of the line ADS, it is simply outclassed...

[m4a1]

Does the SL-AMRAAM-ER have the same problem with ceiling?

Sami Juppannen, did you mean a few posts ago that Syria has got Buks?

Regards,
Jakub

[Sami Jumppanen]

m4a1, on Thu 30 Apr 2009 2130, said:

Does the SL-AMRAAM-ER have the same problem with ceiling?

Sami Juppannen, did you mean a few posts ago that Syria has got Buks?

Regards,
Jakub

SL-AMRAAM-ER should have its range extended to 40-50 kilometers, so ceiling should have been increased also.

And nope, i have no idea if Syria has Buks, but radar AAM equipment comes from the same "source", so same faults may be in them.

[Sami Jumppanen]

http://www.suomensot...ams_english.php

I believe that this is that infamous article about NASAMS. (In english)

I also found that other article about SAMP/T in enlish: http://www.suomensot...T_en-uk_web.pdf

This post has been edited by Sami Jumppanen: 01 May 2009 - 0010 AM