Estonia

News and discussion threads on defence in other parts of the world.
Post Reply

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Estonia

Post by arfah »

................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Base on the earlier skirmishes, the Estonian e-defences are now so strong that a Russian invasion would have to be carried out with T-55s (that do not rely on any electronics)
- hence the NL versions of CV90 are good enough (35mm)
- whereas the 30mm that was on the Norway model would not penetrate, and the turrets (and the guns) have been discarded in the purchase
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Estonia

Post by arfah »

..................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by RetroSicotte »

I honestly find following the development of the Baltic Nations fascinating. They present a very intriguing view on a nation trying to make itself as big a roadbump as possible to deter through stint of simply doing as much as they can before the end.

It's an incredibly fatalistic, and yet strangely logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defences.

I am always eager to see what they develop next. Gotta wonder if we missed an oppurtunity to have things ready to market to them.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defence
SPGs this time, 40 km range
- a joint purchase with Finalnd, to save on transactional costs (4-5% saving estimated across the combined quantities)
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/est ... rocurement

I wonder what the Norgies bought in the end (their field testing helped to expedite the process)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RetroSicotte wrote:logical path they set for their development, tied in with them taking new steps into more advanced equipment with larger vehicles, ATGMs and more organised defence
I wonder what the Norgies bought in the end (their field testing helped to expedite the process)?
Well the competition is still ongoing , but they have narrowed it down to 2 contenders....K9 Thunder and a modernized M109 upgraded by RUAG. Unsurprisingly the Norwegian army is said to favor the K9.

Interestingly, they also evaluated the PZH 2000 earlier in the process, and were generally very dismissive of it. Apparently it showed a less than impressive performance in the Arctic mountain environment, breaking down often and struggling with mobility issues. According to Norwegian army sources i know, the PZH was deemed to expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.

I guess it just goes to show that german engineering doesn't always live up to the hype.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited

Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited

Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.
Is it just niggles (does't stabilise quickly enough ...perhaps putting in a bigger spade... or might be called something else, to absorb the recoil; the protective citadel actually fills up with gun smoke residue... how did they manage that when it is all remote operation and automation?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: flog them off ...possibly to Latvia
The last time around when that was done (AT recoilless guns) one of them ended up back in Sweden, where the Hells Angels where planning to use it in an armoured (money) car heist - luckily the rounds had been better guarded than the weapon itself, so the police got to snatch it in time.
- arent the Latvian defence efforts a bit slack, compared to Lithuania and Estonia?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by abc123 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited

Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.
Why failed design?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote: flog them off ...possibly to Latvia
The last time around when that was done (AT recoilless guns) one of them ended up back in Sweden, where the Hells Angels where planning to use it in an armoured (money) car heist - luckily the rounds had been better guarded than the weapon itself, so the police got to snatch it in time.
Funny story....and kind of scary :) ....Something similar actually happened to us about a decade ago, where Hells Angels broke into a 20' ISO container filled with weapons and ammo....inside one of our army bases! :oops: Since it was unmarked they must gotten inside help and information from someone working at the base. Anyhow they got away with several C7 and C8 rifles and a couple of AT-4 anti tank weapons .....which were luckily all found by the police not long after. Needless to say it led to much tighter security measures being implemented.
- arent the Latvian defence efforts a bit slack, compared to Lithuania and Estonia?
Yes i think they used to be, but it looks like they are trying their best to rectify that situation :
http://www.leta.lv/eng/home/important/1 ... 542728C77/

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

abc123 wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited

Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.
Why failed design?
Well it would probably be more accurate to say that it is more a case of having bet on the wrong platform. Using a civilian dumper to carry the otherwise excellent Bofors FH77 gun, have resulted in a series of issues and problems that have proved difficult if not impossible to overcome.

The dedicated resupply vehicle developed to allow quick and automatic reloading was cancelled when its manufacturer went bankrupt. As such reloading now has to happen from a regular supply truck and takes much longer. While it is not a huge issue, it is exacerbated by the fact that Archer itself only carries 21 rounds .

The direct fire capability have also proven problematic since the combination of an extremely stiff/rigid platform and heavy recoil forces apparently causes frequent breakdowns and misalignment issues in the remote weapons system used for fire control in direct mode.

Aside from having a very limited practical firing arc, the Archers biggest problem relates to its MRSI capability. While it IS quite capable of firing the 5-6 round "bursts" required for MRSI, the dispersion of the individual rounds in each salvo is apparently so great as to render the capability useless. The huge spread is thought to be a result of the articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point, particularly during burst fire.

The Norwegians found further deficiencies in the Archer before they cancelled it, but i cant remember the rest of them
However the above problems, taken together with its relatively high price tag, alone means it is unlikely to receive further orders.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote: articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point
They should have gone for a "proper" dumper truck, without such niceties:
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by abc123 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
abc123 wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
MikeKiloPapa wrote:expensive, overly complex, relatively fragile(whatever that means? ) and maintenance intensive.
It all comes down to decisions relating to over-automating:
- many tons extra, mobility issues and all the rest as per the quote above
- the King Tiger of our time, technically superb, but tactically limited

Next question> are the Swedes going to keep al the Archers previously bound for Norway (half of the total has already left the factory)?
I think the current plan is to keep half of them to bolster their own artillery units and then put the remaining 12 in storage. Maybe they will try to flog them off ...possibly to Latvia which unlike its baltic neighbours doesnt have a modern SPG yet. But personally i think it is going to be a hard sell, since the Archer is by now known as somewhat of a failed design.
Why failed design?
Well it would probably be more accurate to say that it is more a case of having bet on the wrong platform. Using a civilian dumper to carry the otherwise excellent Bofors FH77 gun, have resulted in a series of issues and problems that have proved difficult if not impossible to overcome.

The dedicated resupply vehicle developed to allow quick and automatic reloading was cancelled when its manufacturer went bankrupt. As such reloading now has to happen from a regular supply truck and takes much longer. While it is not a huge issue, it is exacerbated by the fact that Archer itself only carries 21 rounds .

The direct fire capability have also proven problematic since the combination of an extremely stiff/rigid platform and heavy recoil forces apparently causes frequent breakdowns and misalignment issues in the remote weapons system used for fire control in direct mode.

Aside from having a very limited practical firing arc, the Archers biggest problem relates to its MRSI capability. While it IS quite capable of firing the 5-6 round "bursts" required for MRSI, the dispersion of the individual rounds in each salvo is apparently so great as to render the capability useless. The huge spread is thought to be a result of the articulated design of the Volvo dumper platform used, which apparently "flexes" around its pivot point, particularly during burst fire.

The Norwegians found further deficiencies in the Archer before they cancelled it, but i cant remember the rest of them
However the above problems, taken together with its relatively high price tag, alone means it is unlikely to receive further orders.

Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

abc123 wrote:French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
Better, a trip to utube shows up firing trials and the "spade" arrangement used for stability. Soltam makes an even better one, but then the problem arises that not all team members can see each other and with fast firing you need to maintain second-to-second coordination
- so, either headsets (it is quite noisy so close to the gun) or lots of drill and practice

PS the 8x8 CAESAR has an autoloader, but is not in use yet, so I have not heard any practically oriented commentary
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

abc123 wrote:Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
My knowledge of the CAESAR is tertiary at best but i do know that ,unlike the Archer, it is a well proven system by now, seeing action in Africa as well as Afghanistan.
According to rumors from our evaluation of it (the old 6x6 version) the gun and FCS of CAESAR is supposed to be very good. However the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
In this context i think it is worth remembering that systems like CAESAR and ATMOS are not really true SPGs like the K9, but more like a traditional towed artillery piece,...one that just happens to be placed on a lorry. (self-towed gun ;-)....)
But for all their weaknesses and tactical limitations, they still give you an effective indirect fire capability and at considerably lower cost.
How well they would fare on a conventional battlefield is another question.

CAESAR or ATMOS 8x8 with automated loading and higher ammo capacity probably goes some way to bridge the performance gap though.
But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
They have more snow than you guys.
MikeKiloPapa wrote:But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?
Check how the Tatra suspension has done in off-road rally competitions.

Is there an ATMOS 8x8? The normal ATMOS is not Nexter, but derived from the Finnish 155mm piece
-clue: solTAM has Tampella in its name
- Egypt bought 400 of them, too
- not to mention that Israel recycled the design to South Africa (heh-heh, in return getting uranium?), who then put a certain ballistics genius from Canada to work... Saddam bought a few, and his artillery outranged the OpFor in GW1... a pity they did not know how to use them

Patria did pitch an 8x8 design , which had done away with the CAESAR/ ATMOS 6x6 stability problems (the latter has less of them, hence the Polish have adopted that one,onto their own custom-developed chassis)
- Finland also has loadsa snow; hence tracked was chosen
- the Patria design is quite unique as it does not try to anchor or stiffen the chassis, but the whole gun is on a "plate" that is hydraulically lowered onto the ground . Here you can see what they sold to Israel first: mortars, that work with the same idea for recoil absorbtion. As a neutral nation they of course sold their surplus German panzers to Syria, to even out the odds.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

abc123
Senior Member
Posts: 2900
Joined: 10 May 2015, 18:15
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by abc123 »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:
abc123 wrote:Do you know anything about the French CEASAR system? Similar problems or better?
My knowledge of the CAESAR is tertiary at best but i do know that ,unlike the Archer, it is a well proven system by now, seeing action in Africa as well as Afghanistan.
According to rumors from our evaluation of it (the old 6x6 version) the gun and FCS of CAESAR is supposed to be very good. However the Norwegians didnt give it very high marks, probably because of its wheeled configuration.
In this context i think it is worth remembering that systems like CAESAR and ATMOS are not really true SPGs like the K9, but more like a traditional towed artillery piece,...one that just happens to be placed on a lorry. (self-towed gun ;-)....)
But for all their weaknesses and tactical limitations, they still give you an effective indirect fire capability and at considerably lower cost.
How well they would fare on a conventional battlefield is another question.


CAESAR or ATMOS 8x8 with automated loading and higher ammo capacity probably goes some way to bridge the performance gap though.
But why Nexter have chosen to base their upgraded CAESAR on a TATRA chassis is beyond me....it makes no sense at all ?
Not to mention better strategic mobility than say Pzh2000 or K9 and much better tactical mobility than say light howitzers like M777...
Fortune favors brave sir, said Carrot cheerfully.
What's her position about heavily armed, well prepared and overmanned armies?
Oh, noone's ever heard of Fortune favoring them, sir.
According to General Tacticus, it's because they favor themselves…

MikeKiloPapa
Member
Posts: 106
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:10
Denmark

Re: Estonia

Post by MikeKiloPapa »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: Check how the Tatra suspension has done in off-road rally competitions.
Yes i know , i have driven them...they are without a doubt some one of the most capable off-road trucks in the world.

But how many of them do you see on the roads in western/northwestern europe ?....somewhere around zero probably...and they have no local dealers what so ever either so access to spare parts and support is going to be a huge problem.
Renault,MAN, Mercedes, Scania or whatever might only provide 90% of the capability ....but they are already here in abundance and this is what matters. In a Danish context Nexter really should have paired up with Scania, which is the other contender in our truck project.
Is there an ATMOS 8x8?
Yep, based on a MAN HX81 chassis(in danish ,sorry) :
http://www.fmi.dk/materiel/udbud-i-gang ... dater.aspx
The normal ATMOS is not Nexter, but derived from the Finnish 155mm piece
Very interesting, i did not know that. The Fins have always been good with artillery so that is a good thing. Might explain why ATMOS is considered a favorite in the Danish competition.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

MikeKiloPapa wrote:MAN HX81 chassis(in danish ,sorry)
No worries, I read these defence blogs in 6 languages... add Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Italian (even French , sometimes with a little bit of help from Frenchie here)

When you say Scania, do you mean that the other one is this MAN? Arent they the left and right hands of VW in trucks?

That MAN thing may have been directed at the British army - we actually never heard what they made of the 6x6 after the trials
abc123 wrote: Not to mention better strategic mobility than say Pzh2000 or K9
- take the mktng materials with a pinch of salt
- the CAESARs in A-stan had to be reassembled, once off the plane (sure, A400M will change things from the Herc)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 5657
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Estonia

Post by SW1 »



Good on them for doing this

Post Reply