The Norwegian Armed Forces have signed an agreement with Saab for the Carl-Gustaf M4.

Saab has received an initial order for Carl-Gustaf M4 weapons with deliveries in 2021.

The recently signed framework agreement allows the Norwegian customer to place orders for Carl-Gustaf M4, associated equipment and training systems during a 7-year period.

“We welcome the latest user to the Carl-Gustaf M4. It’s a great success to continue to support the Norwegian Armed Forces, this time with our future ready Carl-Gustaf M4”, says Görgen Johansson, head of Saab’s business area Dynamics.

According to Saab.

“Carl-Gustaf M4 is the latest version of the portable, shoulder-launched, multi-role weapon system. It gives users a wide range of engagement options and allows troops to remain agile and effective in any scenario. It builds on the system’s formidable capabilities, offering a higher degree of accuracy, lighter construction and compatibility with future innovations.

The M4 is also compatible with intelligent sighting systems and future technology developments, such as programmable ammunition. Since the launch in 2014, Saab has signed contracts with fourteen different nations for Carl-Gustaf M4.”

The Norwegian Armed Forces has been a user of the Carl-Gustaf M2 system since early 1970’s. Today the M2 and the M3 versions are used within the Norwegian Armed Forces.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
21 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pacman27
Pacman27
5 months ago

I do like this system and it just reinforces the fact that you don’t need a massive defence budget to have an industrial capability. Perhaps the MOD should take a good hard look at our Scandinavian cousins and try and replicate what they achieve across all the nations within the UK. I could be wrong but I think the UK spends more than them all put together. If these countries can create amazing platform like the Carl Gustav, Gripen, JSM, NSM, Absalon, Huitfeldt, Gotland, Viking, etc, why can’t the UK with a far bigger budget. Seems to me we need… Read more »

dan
dan
5 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

I agree that the Scandinavian’s produce some top notch military hardware. Just look at what the Swedes produce. But remember that those countries for the most part only have to worry about their own borders and not about sending them forces abroad in defense of NATO or other allies. The Brits like the Americans must be able to fight and win on any place on earth and must be able to support the enormous logistics system to support those forces. Also, the Scandinavians forces are mainly designed to buy time until NATO forces can arrive and support them.

AlbertStarburst
AlbertStarburst
5 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

Exactly Packman. I always use the phrase: “use the right level of technology for the job.”
i.e. don’t keep re-inventing the wheel. With small-scale/low-cost UK-owned design teams and facilities, we could do so much and save a fortune. Sort of low-tech stuff in quantity, and still have hi-tech stuff if absolutely needed

Ryan Brewis
Ryan Brewis
5 months ago
Reply to  Pacman27

They’ve kept domestic manufacturers. We haven’t for the most part. Plus our defence sector has been a shambles for years.

Rob
Rob
5 months ago

What a smoke ring….

dan
dan
5 months ago

A great weapon system!

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
5 months ago
Reply to  dan

And relatively inexpensive per shot in comparison to Javelin.

dave12
dave12
5 months ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

The Carl Gustov is not considered a anti tank weapon any more as armour nowadays has surpassed it. Its more of a anti material weapon. The Javlin can do both from what a read.

Douglas Newell
Douglas Newell
5 months ago
Reply to  dave12

Yes. But there was a lot of Talk during the Iraqi and Afghanistan “insurgencies” that using a Javelin to hit a fortified house or hut was a rather expensive way of dealing with that problem.

While Javelin would be needed for Peer Conflict – most actions carried out by western militaries have not been against peer opponents. :o)

Watcherzero
Watcherzero
5 months ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

Thats what Mortars and SA-80 underslung grenade launchers are for.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Watcherzero

I always found that to destroy a compound, it needs more kinetic energy than a UGL or an 81mm. The mud walls were like concrete and we always used whichever air asset we had on standby to drop a paveways or the like…. also GMLRS gave us a good end state, collateral damage dependent. Cheers.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Douglas Newell

Problem with Jav is that while effective to go through a walled compound, being an anti tank warhead it was not ideal to use to destroy the target, more so to put big fuck off holes in walls, make a lot of smoke, kill guys very close to impact but not much else. Best way to smash a compound, 24/7 was a fire mission using the 105mm, using PD (point detonate) fuse to smash shit down, closely followed by a PH (proximity high fuze) mission to smash the ones running. Air strikes were great, but could never be relied on… Read more »

Mike O
Mike O
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

A good write up. One other thing with air strikes was they are bloody accurate. When they bomb a square/rectangular compound they drop it right in the middle. If there was anyone still inside by the time the airstrike turned up they were dead of course but often it left the walls and it’s murder holes/fire positions still standing. Ready to be used again at a later date. Did a few jobs to bring walls down the old fashioned way. PE, barmines and sledgehammers. Good stuff.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

Cheers mate, ah barmines, now there was a bit of kit which could mnock decent holes in compound walls and clear areas left right and centre. Mate airstrikes were first option if on station and allocated, but as soon as there was a TIC anywhere I would lose the assets overhead. At least the 105mm lads in the FOB were 24/7 and bloody good at what they did. They were usually a little slower, getting the rounds down, than the 81mm due to the nature of their targeting system and ammunition types, but only by a minute or so. However… Read more »

Mike O
Mike O
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

Got to be honest I never experienced much 105. I was always savagely impressed by the mortar teams though. With likely firing points pre plotted and time of flight of about 30 seconds I saw 81mm rounds on target less than 40 seconds after contact reports. My admiration for the infantry skyrocketed in Afghan. Almost transferred ?.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

Mate that speed is all down to the super great MFCs, JTACs and FOO party lol being on the ball lol!!!!!!!!! 81mm will generaly be quicker due to the nature of the weapon, but severely limited in kinetic effect and options of use. While the 105mm guns use the APS system computer, so much more accurate and has fuze options of Point detonate (1 sec delay as it enters the ground/target) Proximity Normal (if memory serves me 7m above ground) Prox Low 1m above ground, prox high 14m above ground using the excellent electronic fuses and fuse setter. It would… Read more »

Mike O
Mike O
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

It is interesting to hear about the positives with the 105s. You know your stuff ?.

There is often talk of 120mm mortars but the 105s seem to be able to do that job and more? Can’t be too big of an engineering challenge to have vehicle mounted 105s if mobility is an issue. Shit I think 432 variants existed with 105s on the back.

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

The good thing about the 105mm is that it’s close support, accurate, limits collateral, and lightweight, however peer on peer it’s known that the 105mm shell doesn’t have the effect anymore and 155mm is the way forward, certainly with a bit of investment in guided munitions. The 120mm mortar is the way forward. Again the 81mm is useful, as was the 60mm, but we are sticking with the 81mm more to do with money and laziness within the MOD than any tactical thinking. Get the boxer, with a 120mm mortar variant, and we are onto a winner. Keep the 81mm… Read more »

David Barry
David Barry
5 months ago
Reply to  Airborne

You remind me of Fallschirmjäger on another website.

In your humble opinion, Chally should have been on call or not, in Afghanistan?

Airborne
Airborne
5 months ago
Reply to  David Barry

I would have given it the chance, a couple of troops worth, but totally understand why it wasn’t as small numbers, and our allies provided the heavy armour. But it might have shown it’s relevance and it could have gave it the headlines it needed so it’s upgrade may have been a little more forthcoming. Whats your thought process on the matter?

Daveyb
Daveyb
5 months ago
Reply to  Mike O

Or as I had, a pair of Canadian Leopard 2s on call. Best door knocker in Afghan.