The U.S. State Department has approved a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Norway for AIM-120C-8 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAM) and related equipment, with an estimated cost of $1.94 billion, according to a press release from the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA).
Norway has requested to purchase “three hundred (300) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAMs and twenty (20) AIM-120C-8 AMRAAM guidance sections.”
The sale also includes “AMRAAM containers and support equipment; spare parts, consumables, accessories, and repair and return support; weapons software, support equipment, and classified software delivery and support; transportation support; classified publications and technical documentation; training; studies and surveys; U.S. Government and contractor engineering; technical and logistics support services; and other related elements of logistics and program support.”
This proposed sale aims to bolster the foreign policy goals and national security objectives of the United States by enhancing the security of Norway, a key NATO ally known for its role in promoting political stability and economic progress in Europe.
The sale will enhance Norway’s ability to address current and future threats by supplementing and replacing its existing AIM-120B AMRAAMs with the latest AIM-120C version. Norway, which already possesses AMRAAMs and F-35As, is expected to integrate these new missiles seamlessly into its armed forces.
The missiles will primarily be used for ground-based air defence within the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System (NASAMS), though they may also be employed with the F-35A.
According to the DSCA, the sale “will not alter the basic military balance in the region” and “will not require the assignment of additional U.S. Government or contractor representatives to Norway.” RTX Corporation, based in Tucson, AZ, will be the principal contractor for this sale.
After your country has been turned over by the Nazis, you ain’t inclined to have the experience repeated by the equally savage Russian degenerates.
Just a shame it isn’t Meteor….which has only been in development for 100 years…….
It’s ready to order Lee and has been in RAF service for a while now. It’s far superior to AMRAAM.
Not integrated into the F35 yet though right? At least not till block 4
Wondering if the Meteor or ASRAAM works with NASAM? We know a twin ASRAAM works off the back of a Supacat!
That can’t be right, that’s over 6 million dollars per missile! There can’t be that much support added beyond the missiles themselves to add up to that much surely?
Waa just doing sum. Agree. Cannot be right.
Expensive. But the price of freedom has gone up. Plus Norway can easily afford it. They are now the largest supplier of gas and oil to the EU. (Replacing Mad Vlad’s Russia)
Why countries aren’t opting for the superior meteor I don’t know? It’s cheaper and has better performance characteristics then AMRAAM
AMRAAM is used in NASAMS and no one has managed to make a ground launched Meteor. The Norwegians probably just prefer commonality to having that extra bit of range and it might also save them money in the bulk buy.
Because as the article says, AMRAAM is already integrated onto F35 and the wider Norwegian Armed Force’s.
Hmmm…quite interesting that the Nordic countries as well as the eastern border states (w/ one exception) have determined that it is indeed time to rearm. Whereas, some countries which are relatively sheltered as a consequence of geography, have a complacent attitude toward rearmament. Geography may indeed be destiny. 🤔
Hi FormerUSAF,
Yeh, its frustrating ain’t it. Thing is geography may not stay as sheltering as everyone thinks and may be even less so in the not too distant future and it can take years to rearm… but try explaining the implications of that to some politicians.
Cheers CR
Yes. Maybe its complacency. A bit of GBAD for the UK with shared inventories shouldn’t too hard to invest in and implement. Other countries are doing it and isn’t there the European Sky shield program that the UK is now part of? There’s got to be stuff going behind the scenes and learning from Ukraine, well hopefully,
Of course there’s Sky Sabre. Just looking at the NASAM’s 6 box launcher. This might be a bit silly but does CAMM necessarily have to be launched completely vertically – 5 degree’s? Can it be fired diagonally up to a point? Could the NASAM’s launcher be adapted to fire 2-3*4 CAMM? Worth exploring, Anglo-Norwegian relations and all that and especially if they get the T26 and adopt CAMM. And with Sweden adopting CAMM onto their Visby’s maybe there’s an opportunity their for Sky Sabre sales and development there, even a jv with Saab?
From T23 at least the CAMM tubes are deliberately tilted so that in the event of a motor misfire the missile falls into the sea rather than back onto the VLS. I don’t know how often that happens.
What’s the point of launching CAMM at an angle? With AMRAAM it is necessary so that the missile has enough energy to reach 40km, but CAMM orients itself so it is always pointing in the right direction.
I was just thinking that it could then be fired from different launchers like NASAM’s and not have the efflux of other missiles.
Interestingly if CAMM is ever going to be fired from MK41s there’s no option of tilting though the ExLS 4*6 CAMM launchers on the Canadian T26s are tilted.
I think for T23 it was the first time they were firing CAMM from a ship so would have been nervous about reliability.
I’ve never heard anything about a CAMM launch failing so they will probably be more confident with mk41 that the launches will be reliable
The tilt is slight & is intended to stop the missile from landing back on deck if the main engine doesn’t fire. On most hot launched missiles, if the engine (or booster), doesn’t fire, the missile goes nowhere. A more severely tilted launch is not a good idea on a cold launch missile like CAMM. The main engine doesn’t fire until the missile is tilted over to the required direction & angle. The more you tilt over the launcher, the less height the missile has to play with. You increase the chance of it falling into the sea or hitting… Read more »
I think you want GBAD for the UK homeland? Sky Sabre is of course only for the deployed Field Army.
That’s a yes and a yes… Lol 😁
Sky Sabre order should be doubled and given to reserve regiments in the UK for GBAD. Able to quickly deploy to key sites if needed. It’s not hard. Ben Wallace was saying it’s hard to spend a big increase in Defence Budget quickly… It really isn’t. There are always people saying ‘but you need the personnel to operate them’ blah, blah, blah. It’s called strategic reserve of equipment. Something the Treasury is terrified of. ‘Oooo for goodness sake don’t increase the stock of TLAM, the Navy may be tempted to test fire a few for training at £1m+ a pop!!!… Read more »
Agree, more Sky Sabre, more SHORAD, more TLAM, more NSM, should be doable. Even putting the cannister NSM on the RN T26s as on RAN and RCAN ships which will free up the MK41s for other goodies. And a few more T31s while cheap and in build, help the RN to patrol international shipping lanes and free up the rest of the fleet.
Hi Quentin, Yeh, a few more Sky Sabre for medium range and an Aster based system with ABM capability, the latter is already deployed by France I think, so we should be able to get onboard with that part of the Aster program. We also need much more AEW capability to cover the Western Approaches. It would take only one SSN getting through NATO ASW screens for the UK to have a really bad day especially for a country that has not had a conventional attack on its shores for nearly 80 years. So we need to be able to… Read more »
👍
What is needed to be worked on is making missiles cheaper. While AMRAAM is great not every target of NASAMS requires the latest expensive amraam.
With drones if anti air missiles are part of the solution they could potentially need thousands of them.
I would love to see some stats on how some of the various options compare when used live in the gulf. And not just the kill rate, but cost per kill and volume fired per kill. For example is RAM, CAMM, ASTER 15 missile system better than CIWS, 30mm, 40mm or the Italian 76mm gun options. I always thought Italy was a bit backwards by sticking to medium Guns for Shorad but now I’m not so sure. They did tests against the most modern 40mm option and stuck with the 76/62 Strales. Nice thing is you can replenish at Sea… Read more »
I always thought we should have Gepard or similar as well as Rapier, back in the day.
Isn’t that what the new 40mm is for?
3P is probably a huge improvement over Gepard and E/O means no emissions to give yourself away
I was referring to my point of view from the mid-70s. Gepard was fielded from 1976 – no surprise that a more modern system is better.
UKR using Gepard, hopefully to good effect.
That’s fair- my point of view starts around 2020.
I didn’t pay attention to the “back in the day” bit.
Ground based triple-A is having a real comeback because of drones.
I know that they did trials on a similar system to Gepard on a Chieftain chassis going back in the 80s ,but think at the time no Ambition for it 🤔
I was thinking it might have been called Falcon? Not sure.
It was probably not the lack of ambition but the lack of cash that meant that we did not introduce a modern AA gun system in addition to Rapier.
That’s probably the case always down to money. Where theses days it’s still down to money 💰added with manpower 😞
Manpower is money too. The only reason the army has been cut repeatedly from 120,000 to 73,000 regulars in the post-Cold War era and since the early 90s is to save money – no other reason.
There was a British developed Gepard-like system called Marksman which served in small numbers with Finland until recently.
Cheers mate will check it out 👍
Yes Marksman was the System developed but never adopted by the MOD. As Finland bought it in limited numbers I’d presume it actually worked ok, unlike the abandoned US M247 Sgt York fiasco.
Millions of them. Ukraine is expected to build 1M drones this year. And that is not an industrial powerhouse.
Can anyone explain the difference(s) between AMRAAM C8 and D (and D3?) models? Struggling to find anything reliable; some sources say the C8 was just renamed as the D model, whereas others say the C8 is a downgraded export version of the D. Both seem to have orders lately so I’m guessing there must be differences.