Baltic States Militaries

Lithuania eyes buying air defence system from Norway

Lithuania seeks to acquire the NASAMS medium-range air defence system developed by Norway's Kongsberg Gruppen and U.S. defence contractor Raytheon , the Baltic state's defence minister told the BNS news agency on Friday.

"We have decided to open negotiations with the Norwegian government on possible purchase of the NASAMS systems," Defence Minister Juozas Olekas was quoted as telling BNS.

Poland is also seeking to acquire the NASAMS system, Norwegian media has reported.

Poland and Baltic states explore anti-aircraft shield


The Baltic states and Poland are in discussions with defence contractors to create a regional anti-aircraft missile shield to protect against Russian aircraft.
Fearful of the build-up of Russian troops on their borders and in the Baltic Sea enclave of Kaliningrad, the four countries believe they must develop capabilities to restrict the Kremlin’s military manoeuvrability and tip the military balance of power in the region back in their favour.

“We are in discussions now with the Estonians, the Latvians and the Poles over how we can create some kind of regional air defence system,” Lithuanian defence minister Juozas Olekas told the Financial Times on Friday. It is hoped the system will be operational within two or three years. The quartet of countries is “evaluating procurement options”, Mr Olekas said.

The speed with which Russian forces could overrun regional military powers, aided by its overwhelming air superiority, will be one of the most pressing issues discussed by Nato at its biennial summit in Warsaw in July.

Nato will announce plans for four new battalions of troops to be permanently deployed to the region at the summit, but hawks in the alliance believe the measures may not be enough to deter Russian action.

“The [battalions] are a strong step forward,” said Mr Olekas “But we need to discuss how we can refine and continue this process.”



Estonia’s defence chief Lieutenant-General Riho Terras told the Financial Times last month that US patriot missiles — or a similar system — were urgently needed to give regional forces a “credible” chance against Russia, and to deter any provocative action by the Kremlin.

The move to acquire anti-aircraft missile systems is part of a broader push by regional powers to increase their air defences.

The Baltic states are also lobbying for Nato to recalibrate its Baltic air policing mission. They want a fully-fledged aerial defence mission, which would require the deployment of dozens of Nato jets.

“We are discussing very actively with SACEUR [Nato’s supreme allied commander] how to create an air defence system over the Baltic states — not only anti aircraft rockets but an air defence mission here, too,” said Lieutenant-General Vytautas Zukas, Lithuanian chief of defence. “This is a big problem right now.”

“We need to count how many aeroplanes we need, how many anti-aircraft rockets and which systems. We need to think about an air-based component, a ground-based component, having more fighters, having new rules of engagement, and command and control.”



Those changes are unlikely to be agreed by Nato allies swiftly. Lt Gen Zukas believes it is part of a process that will unfold over the coming years and would need political sanction from the North Atlantic Council, Nato’s principal political decision-making body.

That may prove difficult. Many within Nato are wavering at the prospect of triggering an escalation in hostilities with Russia, and fear eastern European alliance members are paranoid.

France and Germany, in particular, have pushed in recent alliance meetings for a more conciliatory tone towards the Kremlin. Nato defence ministers are due to meet in Brussels this week to finalise the agenda for the July summit.

Lithuania to buy Norwegian air defense system

http://echelon-defense.com/2016/09/28/lithuania-to-buy-norwegian-air-defense-system/

George1 wrote:Estonia will acquire 12 South Korean K9 self-propelled howitzers

http://bmpd.livejournal.com/2414339.html

But Why? It doesn't make any sense. It's two medium batteries for a country that would be within firing envelope of Russian rocket and tube artillery from outside the Estonian territorial border.

IMO the only good idea is ATGM stocking and light portable artillery assets.

Americans soldiers are showing pride due to the fact that they are now within the gates of Russia (background is Ivangorod castle in Leningrad oblast) 

Question is , better to fight defensive war close to own borders or offensive war near enemy borders ? Many complained about Iran geographic " encirclement " during Afghan and Iraq wars by yanks . But Iran could not take the war to yank borders even if it wanted to . In case of Georgia , the yanks would be trapped in a pond far far away from home . Logistics across the Atlantic ! Also offensive forces cost three times more than defensive ones in human losses alone . As long as they are not actually fighting on your territory . An upside for us . I guess . Who would win the American civil war ? Marx commented that the side with greater ability to move resources across the continent . Shorter distances , less resources . Less vulnerable . Pulling back across vast distances in soviet Russia against Germany advance . Streached their supply lines .

All that expensive kit on a shoe-string budget. From the most expensive manufacturers - South Korea, US, Norway, Germany.. Wunderbar!

Russia gets equivalent SP artillery, APCs, SAM complexes, etc... at a fraction of those prices.

All that expensive kit on a shoe-string budget.

They have a quota to meet when it comes to spending on their military... the stuff they are buying will likely only ever end up being used to support NATO operations in Iraq or Afghanistan or perhaps Libya or Yemen, so artillery would be useful for supporting Georgian troops deal with problems created by Washington... where the solutions create more wealth for the billionaires in the US... selling the weapons to countries that don't need it and then creating situations where they can use it that end up creating more income for those same billionaires when the conquested countries need to use construction companies also owned by the billionaires to restore life and damaged property the billionaires weapons destroyed... paid initially by US taxpayers through loans to the countries in question but paid back with interest to those billionaires banks...