EXPLAINED: These are the weapons Sweden is sending to Ukraine

[Celerity]

Last edited Sun Jan 22, 2023, 07:30 PM - Edit history (2)

Sweden has announced the largest ever delivery of heavy weaponry in its history, including the advanced Archer missile defence system, NLAW anti-tank missiles and CV-90 assault vehicles. Here's what you need to know about these weapons.

https://www.thelocal.se/20230119/explained-these-are-the-weapons-sweden-is-sending-to-ukraine/


The Archer artillery system is composed of a fully automated howitzer mounted on an all-terrain vehicle. Photo: Bezav Mahmod/Swedish Armed Forces

Sweden’s government said on Thursday that it was giving 4.3 billion kronor (€390 million) worth of weaponry to aid Ukrainian forces in their defence of the country, and in their efforts to recover territories lost to Russia since its invasion began last February. Here are the main weapons included in the delivery.

The Archer Artillery System



The Archer Artillery System, otherwise known as Archer FH77BW L52 or Artillerisystem 08, is a mobile artillery system developed by the Swedish company Bofors, and then ordered by the Swedish and Norwegian armed forces after Bofors had been taken over by BAE Systems. The weapon entered service in Sweden in October 2013. The howitzer has a range of of either 35 kilometres, or more than 50 kilometres, depending on whether it is using BAE Bofors/Nexter Bonus rounds or the Raytheon/Bofors guided artillery shell M982 Excalibur. It is mounted either on the back of a Volvo A30D 6×6 articulated all-terrain hauler vehicle or on the back of a Rheinmetall MAN HX2 tactical truck. Defence minister Pål Jonson told a press conference on Tuesday that Archer was “perhaps the world’s most advanced artillery system”, and that Ukraine had been asking to have it for “a long time”.

Jonson said that the reason Ukraine was so interested in receiving Archer howitzers was for their 50 kilometres range and high precision, which help give Ukrainian forces the edge over Russian artillery. M982 Excalibur shells are fitted with GPS systems allowing them to guide themselves towards their target. Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba during a visit to Sweden in August said that receiving Archer systems was one of Ukraine’s top priorities, but the Swedish Armed Forces were initially reluctant to do so due to its importance for Swedish defence, and the weapons’ complexity, which will mean extensive training for Ukrainian forces, and significant maintenance and reserve parts requirements. According to Dagens Nyheter, there are currently 24 Archer systems in storage, of which at least 20 could be upgraded so they can be put into use. It is unclear how many will be delivered to Ukraine, but an Archer battalion usually consists of 12 vehicles.

CV90 assault vehicles



Sweden will deliver Ukraine up to 50 of these assault vehicles, known in Swedish as Stridsfordon 90. The CV90 was developed by the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration in the mid-1980s in cooperation with the Swedish companies Hägglunds and Bofors, now both part of BAE Systems. It is designed to be a rapid all-terrain vehicle, sufficiently well armoured to withstand attack, and able to target both tanks and planes. The standard assault vehicle is armed with a 40 mm Bofors cannon, a machine gun, and six grenade launchers. It is manned by a crew of three with seats in the back for up to eight infantry soldiers. “With the CV90 the Ukrainians will get stronger firepower, better mobility and better protection,” defence minister Pål Jonsson said at the press conference. Sweden has 549 CV90s currently in service, of which 42 are the heavily armoured CV9040C variant.

snip

[ananda]

1. Europe is starting to come through!

Good

[3Hotdogs]

5. Ukraine is fighting their next war for them.

[Caliman73]

22. Kind of what I was thinking.

A bit cynical of me, but I think some of the thinking is that the weaponry is being provided as a testing ground for the effectiveness of systems against Russian systems.

The US seems to be sending systems that are nearing the end of their "cutting edge" phase, but these newer systems sent by some of the European countries are being tested on the battlefield in Ukraine.

[Dave says]

33. The Swedish CV90s are mis-eighties tech

Just sayin’ I don’t know about the other stuff.

[Lonestarblue]

2. Excellent news! I'm glad to see other countries helping Ukraine more.

It’s time to defeat Putin and turn Russia into a pariah country. As China turns to kore alternative energy, they’ll have to sell their oil and gas at reduced prices to find buyers. I doubt the EU countries will trust them again.

[Liberal In Texas]

3. Interesting.

It looks to me like a fairly complex mechanism. One wonders how prone they would be for breaking down and how quickly they can be brought back on-line.

Anything that could help Ukraine keep from getting pounded by Russia would be welcome.

[jaxexpat]

4. Complexity is indeed a drawback.

Especially if the enemy survives the assault and fires back.
Trick is to prevent their recovery. I believe the Ukraine military understands that on a truly profound level.
Mankind is fighting for it's own soul in this theater at this time.

[The Jungle 1]

9. I believe one of the advantages of this system is shoot and scoot

The equipment quickly folds up and you drive away.
The world seems to understands what is a stake.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

10. I was going to say the same thing as you,

these systems are especially designed to shoot and pack up very quickly and move to the next firing position.

[Alexander Of Assyria]

11. It's a human killing machine sucking life out of the economy and draining peace from the world.

[MarineCombatEngineer]

13. I'm going to assume that you mean the Russian weapons systems

used to kill innocent Ukrainians in your post also?

[mitch96]

17. +1

[Kaleva]

30. +2

[EX500rider]

14. So the Ukrainian's would be better off fighting off the Russian's with what? Rocks & sticks? nt

[Alexander Of Assyria]

15. The comment was a generalization regarding all killing machines, wherever

manufactured, paid for or deployed to kill humans.

[mitch96]

18. So what do you do when someone comes to kill you and your family and steal your goods?nt

[Alexander Of Assyria]

19. Argumentative and off topic.

[mitch96]

21. Yup, and a leading question also.. So to change the topic, what would you do? nt

[EX500rider]

23. Weapons used for aggressive attack: bad - used for self defense: good nt

[mitch96]

16. +1

[burrowowl]

6. Kick

[niyad]

7. Slava Ukraini! Thank you. This is heartening information.

[bullwinkle428]

8. I hope this helps to fast-track NATO membership for Sweden.

[Celerity]

12. Erdogan doesn't care about these weapons we send, he is too busy blocking us because he

claims (falsely) that we are backing Kurdish terrorist groups, mainly the PKK.

[Tommy Carcetti]

20. Yeah, but the instructions leave something to be desired....

[Beetwasher.]

24. It's also a Can Opener, Fish Scaler, scissor, nail file, and has tweezers and toothpick

n/t

[Celerity]

27. We are Sweden, not Switzerland

this



not

[Beetwasher.]

29. Close enough

J/k

[WarGamer]

35. Darn, I'd already bought my airline tickets to Stockholm to open a Swiss bank account.

[JudyM]

25. Tanks, Sweden.

I’m psyched thinking of the happy encouragement the Ukrainians will feel about this, and the damage it’ll do to Putin’s dreams.

[albacore]

26. It is hard for this peacenik to cheer weapons systems...

.. but..

There ARE just wars. Defensive wars.

We haven't had a justifiable - or winnable - war since 1945, but it seems like the Ukraine needs all the help it can get, and these hot new weapons system are what is needed.

[DFW]

28. The math needs a check

4.3 billion kronor is about €390 million, not €3.9 billion. Off by a factor of ten.

By the way, my brother, who is now retired from his "I can't tell you" clearance job, mentioned a stupid standoff with respect to high tech tanks from the USA and Germany. The Germans have promised to supply some of their best tanks, but only if the USA will send a certain kind of their own tank.

The problem with with that is the American tanks run on a special kind of rocket fuel that can't be supplied to the Ukrainian front, where the German tanks run on diesel, which is available everywhere in Europe. The Germans know this, but it gives them a great excuse to drag their feet on supplying their own tanks, and thus pissing off Putin even more than they do now. Europe is as Europe does.

[leftstreet]

31. Thanks for that explanation

Lots of click-bait headlines over Germany and those tanks, but article authors seem to be guessing about the controversy.

[DFW]

32. I had a talk with my brother about this. More clarification:

The American tank, the Abrams M-1, apparently DOES have an adaption to run on diesel fuel. I missed that. But it has extremely sophisticated software that the Ukrainians don’t know how to operate. The German Leopard tanks are standard throughout NATO, BUT—there is a stipulation in the use contract that none of them may be used outside the country of delivery without German permission, which they are not granting. So, standstill while the Ukrainians wait in frustration.

[Emrys]

36. The Abrams M1's gas turbine can run on basically any fluid that can burn,

from jet fuel to sunflower oil, some more efficiently than others, which is one catch. Its fuel consumption is astronomical, which is another.

That adaptability comes with overheads in terms of maintenance, which is more likely to be a major hitch than software complexity.

If they were to be deployed to Ukraine, I'd suggest basing them around Lviv, to act as a deterrent to any idea of Russia attacking from Belarus, which it's been heavily flagging. That would place them nearer to supply lines and Poland, so maintenance and supply lines would be less of an issue, and they'd likely just sit there lurking way beyond the current front lines.

Their value would arguably be more symbolic than essential to the war effort. The UK's 14 Challenger 2s should be more formidable and useful if and when they see action - they've proven to be verging on indestructable in the field. The Leopards would be the real gamechanger all round if and when deployed, including in terms of sheer numbers potentially available. If Germany doesn't play ball soon, Poland will likely deploy them anyway and argue about it afterwards.

[WarGamer]

37. That's right... real gas guzzlers lol...

And re: how they should be used...

I wouldn't put them anywhere static. They'll be a BIG target once they're in Ukraine. Pretty much any missile, rocket, bomb or artillery projectile from above will destroy them with ease.

If you were to put a dozen of them near the Belarus border they're prime targets for artillery fire or rockets.

I'd keep them on the move where they're best suited, which is in breakouts and offensive operations. Tanks are not optimal for defense.

So... I'd have them run around in the East and Southeast.

Keep them dispersed as not to present an easy target. Keep them hidden where possible.

This isn't WW2, there won't be any Leopard vs Armata tank to tank battles... nowadays the guy in the attic with a Kornet or Javelin is the real danger to a tank.

[Aristus]

38. What Emrys said.

The Abrams didn't have an adaptation; the engine just naturally ran on diesel, as well as any number of other fuels. We tankers used to joke about the range of fuels - "From jet fuel to Jack Daniels". In actual fact, while I was in at any rate, we never used anything but diesel. I hated diesel; it stinks and leaves an oily film on everything if you spill it. We never used gasoline, which smells sweet and evaporates quickly.

I will say I feel confident that the Ukrainians will learn the targeting computers of Western tanks very quickly; they're certainly very well-motivated to do what it takes to win the war and drive the Russians out.

Whether the Ukrainians end up with German Leopard II's or American Abrams tanks, I think they will like them much better than their own Russian-designed tanks. The Leo and the Abrams are very roomy inside, relatively speaking, easy to live in for long periods, and much more suited to be a home away from home for the crewmen. The ammunition is kept separate from the crew compartment by armored doors that the loader only opens when feeding the main gun. This way, catastrophic ammo explosions of the kind that are popping the turrets off of Russian-made tanks and killing entire crews can be avoided.

The turrets of the Russian-made T-72, T-80, and T-90-series tanks that both sides are using were designed with no kind of crew comfort in mind. The gunner and commander crew positions are more like the cockpit of a fighter jet, cramped, and almost impossible to move around in. The contributes greatly to crew fatigue, which in turn lessens combat capability.

[DFW]

39. The almost unbelievable Russian design of keeping their ammunition next to the crew was fatal

Anything close to a direct hit means the crew is, quite literally, toast.

My brother said that training the Ukies to use the M-1 hasn't been easy. The Leo would be ideal, but as long as the Germans get to veto the transfer of them to the Ukrainians from other NATO members like Italy or the UK, politics will continue to rear its ugly head, and cost time that could mean life or death for Ukrainians units in the field. And nothing says delay like German bureaucracy. I live in Germany. Believe me, I know.

[Aristus]

40. In the initial design stages of the T-64, the first Soviet tank to use an auto-loader,

designers seemed to understand the risk of having ammunition propellant charges in such close proximity to the crew. But since the carousel of the automatic loader was located very low down in the hull of the tank, the risk of the whole thing taking a direct hit in combat was assessed as very low. One of the perceived benefits of eliminating a human loader, who has to stand up inside the tank to load the gun quickly and effectively, is that this would lower the overall profile of the tank, making it a harder target to hit.

I think they called that one wrong, and we may soon see a stark comparison in the relative levels of survivability between Western-designed tanks and Russian-designed tanks.

[Emrys]

48. Germany now says if Poland wants to send Leopard 2s to Ukraine, it won't stand in its way

Germany will not keep Poland from sending tanks to Ukraine
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-germany-will-not-keep-poland-from-sending-tanks-to-ukraine/a-64480279

If that logjam's broken, I can't see any reason to block other countries doing the same.

[DFW]

42. I missed that, sorry!

If the Krona were worth that much against the euro, Sweden would have bought up the rest of the EU like a post-Thanksgiving sale!

[Celerity]

43. They put the wrong figure in again, ffs, you were right, 390 million euros is correct

The writer needs his editor back, lolol

[Celerity]

44. SEK has been shit against the USD for a long spell, and versus the Euro it's not great

[DFW]

45. I haven't been up there in 4 years or so.

Everything seemed expensive (still), no matter how weak the Krona was. What is the MOMS these days? 24% or so? That has to bite into the everyday cost of living.

[Celerity]

46. 25%, 12%, 6% or VAT exempt. Here is a list from Skatteverket.

https://www.skatteverket.se/servicelankar/otherlanguages/inenglish/businessesandemployers/startingandrunningaswedishbusiness/declaringtaxesbusinesses/vat/vatratesongoodsandservices.4.676f4884175c97df419255d.html

[DFW]

47. OMG!! Kakor? Det kan inte vara allvarligt!!

I got a laugh out of that. Of all the internet advisories I get from around Europe, Sweden is the ONLY country I have seen to use their own word for "cookies" instead of just calling them "cookies."