Norwegian Armed Forces

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
Take two:giggle:. Mostly pictures, sometimes news (new howitzers! K9!!) and of course I'll answer questions if anyone has any.

Dragoons from Panserbataljonen's Stormeskadron 3 train during Exercise Snøanser in Troms in February, 2018.













In military parlance Dragoons are mechanized infantry - move on vehicles, fight on foot - and are supported by heavy armor such as Norway's A4NO main battle tanks, such as this during February's Exercise Snøanser.



Supporting the heavy armor and mechanized infantry are combat engineering vehicles such as the Norwegian Army's new CV90 STING shown here during a parallel exercise in February 2018 called Exercise Snøpanser.



And med-evac M113s.
 

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
Swedish and Norwegian border guards train together earlier this year.

Here we can see an interesting contrast in the equipment of the two sides with the Norwegians being outfitted with more modern HK416 rifles and Op-Core helmets (for the most part) while the Swedes use the older AK4, often without optics. Granted the Norwegian-Swedish border isn't exactly a conflict area.



















 

vsdoc

Banned
Feb 14, 2018
1,840
330
my cave
I have a basic question.

Why do countries such as Norway or other smaller EU countries maintain a standing army?

Who is the enemy?

Cheers, Doc
 

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
I have a basic question.

Why do countries such as Norway or other smaller EU countries maintain a standing army?

Good question, Doc. It's one I've actually had posed to me quite a few times and people generally ask why we don't rely on France, the UK or even the US who stations troops and equipment in Norway and the answer is simple - they aren't in a position to defend Norway, Sweden or Finland or the smaller EU states (a combined NATO force defends the Baltic nations. This is known as the Enhanced Forward Presence initiative. Norwegian forces are part of the eFP in Lithuania).

The UK and US are around frequently, but their equipment is some 1600km away from our principle adversary Russia at the closest, in long-term storage in underground facilities pockmarked throughout the Norwegian countryside. Their equipment isn't really made for fighting in Norway either, but is stored here for deployment elsewhere in Europe such as Poland, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. No naval or air force assets are assigned to the US contingent in Norway, but the USAF and USN do frequent our air and waterspace for major exercises (several destroyers, submarines and on occasion P-8MPAs and Nimitz class carriers, but never in large numbers). The UK doesn't have any assets in Norway permanently, but their Royal Marines train in Norway on a yearly basis for cold weather training, as do the US Marines.

Norway actually borders Russia, but at sea and on land, and with the closest allied forces over 1500km away from that border and undersized and under-equipped to fight Russian forces in Norway, rather being used to reinforce a combined NATO force on mainland Europe, it's incumbent on Norway to fight for Norway. This is the Norwegian-Russian border, shown from the Norwegian side. It's mountainous, forested and our countries are separated by two rivers along 2/3s of the border providing a natural barrier from one another and blunting the threat of an armored or infantry assault (Norway places greater emphasis on air and sea control).











While Norway's Army isn't strictly for fighting in Norway, being currently deployed in Mali, the Sinai, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Norwegian Border Guard and Norwegian Home Guard provide the bulk of our homeland defence against external threats. They operate heavy armor, air defence assets, naval and air units too, and act as an extension of the Army when necessary.

But while there are forces to defend cities and our land, our primary threat doesn't come across our shared land border. These photos of the Russian Navy were taken by the Royal Norwegian Navy and Air Force in the Norwegian Sea as they were en-route to participate in the Russian intervention in Syria.











The Russian Northern Fleet - complete with multiple ballistic missile carrying submarines, numerous nuclear and DE attack submarines, a Kuznetsov and a Kirov class backed by additional destroyers and ASW frigates, not to mention the sizable 51st Kirkinesskaya Red Banner Marine Brigade, and 317th and 318th Marine Battalions of Russian naval infantry.

That's our enemy and it's a sizable one. We accept help from our NATO partners, the UK and US mainly, especially as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 which is comprised of Baltic and North Sea nations (meaning Turkey, Italy, France and others aren't part of it, but contingents of SNMG 2 instead), but as their contribution to Norway's defence is limited we have to do our part to keep the Russians at bay as our partners will do for their countries too.

...

Sweden doesn't border Russia, but it has a standing army just in case. It's Air Force is sizable, but its navy small (35 ships, half patrol boats versus 70, the majority large armed OPVs, for Norway). Finland does border Russia and has a large air force and army as a result, but it's navy is smaller and focused mostly on harassing Russia in the Baltic with mine-layers and light corvettes. While Sweden's national defence strategy is to be able to defend itself, Finland's is that any conflict with Finland will spill over and involved NATO, and its navy's size reflects this, meant to slow down Russia while allied forces from the rest of Europe mop up the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Iceland doesn't have a military and is instead defended by a combined NATO forces of mainly Canadian British, American and Norwegian forces. Germany, Italy and France all provide a smaller level of support alongside the Czech republic, Denmark and Portugal.

Denmark is somewhat in between Sweden and Finland in terms of overall capabilities, also facing the threat of the Russian Baltic Fleet.
 
Last edited:

vsdoc

Banned
Feb 14, 2018
1,840
330
my cave
Good question, Doc. It's one I've actually had posed to me quite a few times and people generally ask why we don't rely on France, the UK or even the US who stations troops and equipment in Norway and the answer is simple - they aren't in a position to defend Norway, Sweden or Finland or the smaller EU states (a combined NATO force defends the Baltic nations. This is known as the Enhanced Forward Presence initiative. Norwegian forces are part of the eFP in Lithuania).

The UK and US are around frequently, but their equipment is some 1600km away from our principle adversary Russia at the closest, in long-term storage in underground facilities pockmarked throughout the Norwegian countryside. Their equipment isn't really made for fighting in Norway either, but is stored here for deployment elsewhere in Europe such as Poland, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. No naval or air force assets are assigned to the US contingent in Norway, but the USAF and USN do frequent our air and waterspace for major exercises (several destroyers, submarines and on occasion P-8MPAs and Nimitz class carriers, but never in large numbers). The UK doesn't have any assets in Norway permanently, but their Royal Marines train in Norway on a yearly basis for cold weather training, as do the US Marines.

Norway actually borders Russia, but at sea and on land, and with the closest allied forces over 1500km away from that border and undersized and under-equipped to fight Russian forces in Norway, rather being used to reinforce a combined NATO force on mainland Europe, it's incumbent on Norway to fight for Norway. This is the Norwegian-Russian border, shown from the Norwegian side. It's mountainous, forested and our countries are separated by two rivers along 2/3s of the border providing a natural barrier from one another and blunting the threat of an armored or infantry assault (Norway places greater emphasis on air and sea control).











While Norway's Army isn't strictly for fighting in Norway, being currently deployed in Mali, the Sinai, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Norwegian Border Guard and Norwegian Home Guard provide the bulk of our homeland defence against external threats. They operate heavy armor, air defence assets, naval and air units too, and act as an extension of the Army when necessary.

But while there are forces to defend cities and our land, our primary threat doesn't come across our shared land border. These photos were taken by the Royal Norwegian Navy and Air Force in the Norwegian Sea as they were en-route to participate in the Russian intervention in Syria.











The Russian Northern Fleet - complete with multiple ballistic missile carrying submarines, numerous nuclear and DE attack submarines, a Kuznetsov and a Kirov class backed by additional destroyers and ASW frigates, not to mention and sizable 51st Kirkinesskaya Red Banner Marine Brigade, and 317th and 318th Marine Battalions of Russian naval infantry.

That's our enemy and it's a sizable one. We accept help from our NATO partners, the UK and US mainly, especially as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 which is comprised of Baltic and North Sea nations (meaning Turkey, Italy, France and others aren't part of it, but contingents of SNMG 2 instead), but as their contribution to Norway's defence is limited we have to do our part to keep the Russians at bay as our partners will do for their countries too.

...

Sweden doesn't border Russia, but it has a standing army just in case. It's Air Force is sizable, but its navy small (35 ships, half patrol boats versus 70, the majority large armed OPVs for Norway). Finland does border Russia and has a large air force and army as a result, but it's navy is smaller and focused mostly on harassing Russia in the Baltic with mine-layers and light corvettes. While Sweden's national defence strategy is to be able to defend itself, Finland's is that any conflict with Finland will spill over and involved NATO, and its navy's size reflects this, meant to slow down Russia while allied forces from the rest of Europe mop up the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Iceland doesn't have a military and is instead defended by a combined NATO forces of mainly Canadian British, American and Norwegian forces. Germany, Italy and France all provide a smaller level of support alongside the Czech republic, Denmark and Portugal.

Denmark is somewhat in between Sweden and Finland in terms of overall capabilities, also facing the threat of the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Thanks Fox! Very informative.

I actually have a Finnish pediatrics professor with whom I share a love for fast cars and driving fast and global politics and the clash of civilizations.

He did tell me in great detail about their love for the Russians and how good they've been inspite of their size all the way from WWII (some great snipers?)

Cheers, Doc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fox

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
What’s the active and reserve military size of the army?

The Army has 3725 active, full-time soldiers mostly within the Norwegian Army's Telemark Battalion which is strictly professional. 4400 conscripts provide a sizable contribution to His Majesty the King's Guard, the Norwegian Border Guard and elements of Brigade Nord (the Norwegian Army's only brigade) outside of Telemark Battalion such as the mechanized infantry unit 2. Battalion and Panserbataljonen, an armored unit. 700 civilians are also included in the Army's force total.

Telemark Battalion (TMBN) is Norway premier frontline unit. It currently has troops deployed in Mali, Afghanistan and Iraq in support of combat operations and also in Lithuania as part of NATOs Enhanced Forward Presence in that country. These two members of TMBN are supporting Iraqi forces in Anbar during 2017's offensive against ISIS.



The Norwegian Home Guard and Sea Home Guard have 45000 active personal consisting entirely of volunteers. 10% of the Home Guard, or HV as you might see me write it as (Heimevernet = Home Guard), is organized into better trained, better equipped rapid response forces.

This is a Home Guard regular. Older rifle (the AG3 is being phased out completely though) and older uniform and helmet.



Rapid response teams are much better equipped then their regular counterparts. Not seen are armor units and naval vessels belonging to the HV. The Home Guard also has anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, advanced imaging systems and other heavy weapons such as the venerable LAAW and Carl Gustav.



You can compare the equipment of the regulars and rapid response forces in these pics.





The newest branch of the Norwegian Armed Forces is the Cyber Defence Force. It has 1100 personal including a direct action unit. The Cyber Defence Force like the HV is mostly conscripts.



It's direct action group the Communication and Information Systems Task Group (CIS TG) is equipped on par with front-line Army units and HV rapid response teams.



The Norwegian Air Force has 1500 full-time active personal and 600 conscripts and a surge size of 5500 during times of crisis. The Air Force is currently undergoing a major modernization with the P-3 being replaced by the P-8, Sea King and Lynx helicopters going out in favor of the AW101 and NH90 and the F-16 being superseded by the F-35, the first 3 of which landed late last year (52 planned)



Lastly the Royal Norwegian Navy and Coast Guard (not to be confused with the Sea Home Guard) have 4000 full-time and conscript forces manning some 70 vessels and helicopters and 830 active personal, 380 full-time, 18 civilians and 430 conscripts respectively. Surge mobilization pushes that total to 32000 persons.



The overall size of the NORSOC, the Norwegian Special Operations Command, is unknown. What is known is that the Norwegian Coastal Rangers are being phased out in favor of a newer unit while FSK and MJK are currently deployed overseas and have provided direct support to their counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Afghanistan MJK and FSK train the Afghan Crisis Response Unit 222, the crack counter-terrorism unit of the Afghan police.

 
Last edited:

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
Always nice to read about procurement hassle affecting countries other than India. NH90 is probably the only major aircraft worse than Tejas.

The NH90 is a basket case for sure, but still has nothing on the Tejas:p. I mean, the NH90 works and is in service, it's service availability per year is where the issue lies. Since the ASW role is going to be prioritized I suppose that means the Coast Guard SAR NH90s will be turned over to the Navy's frigate branch? Given the neighbors have been a bit uppity recently, I guess that's not a bad thing. ASW is definitely needed when you've this lurking off your coast.



I actually served on the NH90 while in the Norwegian Air Force while working with the Coast Guard during joint exercises. Nice helos, a definite step up from the aging Sea Kings.









While the NH90 is still a bumbling mess (when hasn't it been?) our other new toy hasn't had as many teething issues.









Still no stated replacement for the 412 SPso_O.
 
Last edited:

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.

The issue has been restrictions imposed by NH Industries, according to Kyst og Fjord, which first reported the problems with the NH90 such as an inability to perform in bad weather, which is an issue related specifically to Norway since other nations use the same model of NH90:

Forsvaret lar milliardhelikoptre stå ubrukt, frykter at de ikke tåler parkering på kystvaktfartøy i dårlig vær

Ifølge Kyst og Fjord skyldes situasjonen begrensninger som den italienske helikopterprodusenten NH Industries har lagt på bruken.

– Det betyr enkelt og greit at vi ikke kan ta det med til havs, sier kystvaktsjef Sverre Engeness til avisen.

Beslutningen om at helikopterne ikke kan brukes er særnorsk. Andre land som har mottatt samme utgave av NH90, har for lengst tatt dem i bruk.

According to Kyst og Fjord, the situation is due to the restrictions imposed by the Italian helicopter manufacturer NH Industries.

"It means simply that we can not take it to sea," said Coast Guard Manager Sverre Engeness to the newspaper.

The decision that the helicopters can not be used is special Norwegian. Other countries that have received the same edition of the NH90 have long used them.

Additionally we see Lt Colonel Ivar Dryland saying that the NH90 isn't used on smaller Coast Guard ships because it's just too big to safely store in their internal helo bays.

This isn't an issue on a larger ship like KV Svalbard (6500 tons).





But are on smaller Coast Guard vessels like KV Senja (3500 tons), which was build to accomidate the much smaller Westland Lynx, which the NH90 replaced. KV Senja does sail with the NH90 though.











Their ASW gear works, they are used for SAR - I can attest to that - but the issues we're seeing with the NH90 aren't really related to the airframe per say, but operational issues. The helos are too big for the Coast Guard ships they're meant to serve on. Due to restrictions imposed on them by their manufacturer they are unable to be used in the rough North Seas. They can be used in bad weather though, that's a misnomer and refers to usage at sea in rough sea states, not on land in snow storms where they've worked fine.

The article says they aren't used on frigates, but again that's not true. They are, often even, it's just that like with KV Senja and similar sized Coast Guard vessels, the Nansen classes hangers weren't made to accomidate a helicopter of the size of the NH90. That's not the NH90's fault, but the war planners who bought the damn thing.



As for why this is still an issue, blame NH Industries for being terrible at customer support.

Oh well, if they want a new helo the Wildcat's a great choice too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Parthu

The enlightened

Active member
Dec 2, 2017
225
168
The issue has been restrictions imposed by NH Industries, according to Kyst og Fjord, which first reported the problems with the NH90 such as an inability to perform in bad weather, which is an issue related specifically to Norway since other nations use the same model of NH90:

Forsvaret lar milliardhelikoptre stå ubrukt, frykter at de ikke tåler parkering på kystvaktfartøy i dårlig vær

Ifølge Kyst og Fjord skyldes situasjonen begrensninger som den italienske helikopterprodusenten NH Industries har lagt på bruken.

– Det betyr enkelt og greit at vi ikke kan ta det med til havs, sier kystvaktsjef Sverre Engeness til avisen.

Beslutningen om at helikopterne ikke kan brukes er særnorsk. Andre land som har mottatt samme utgave av NH90, har for lengst tatt dem i bruk.

According to Kyst og Fjord, the situation is due to the restrictions imposed by the Italian helicopter manufacturer NH Industries.

"It means simply that we can not take it to sea," said Coast Guard Manager Sverre Engeness to the newspaper.

The decision that the helicopters can not be used is special Norwegian. Other countries that have received the same edition of the NH90 have long used them.

Additionally we see Lt Colonel Ivar Dryland saying that the NH90 isn't used on smaller Coast Guard ships because it's just too big to safely store in their internal helo bays.

This isn't an issue on a larger ship like KV Svalbard (6500 tons).





But are on smaller Coast Guard vessels like KV Senja (3500 tons), which was build to accomidate the much smaller Westland Lynx, which the NH90 replaced. KV Senja does sail with the NH90 though.











Their ASW gear works, they are used for SAR - I can attest to that - but the issues we're seeing with the NH90 aren't really related to the airframe per say, but operational issues. The helos are too big for the Coast Guard ships they're meant to serve on. Due to restrictions imposed on them by their manufacturer they are unable to be used in the rough North Seas. They can be used in bad weather though, that's a misnomer and refers to usage at sea in rough sea states, not on land in snow storms where they've worked fine.

The article says they aren't used on frigates, but again that's not true. They are, often even, it's just that like with KV Senja and similar sized Coast Guard vessels, the Nansen classes hangers weren't made to accomidate a helicopter of the size of the NH90. That's not the NH90's fault, but the war planners who bought the damn thing.



As for why this is still an issue, blame NH Industries for being terrible at customer support.

Oh well, if they want a new helo the Wildcat's a great choice too.
Or do as the Swedish did and buy Sirosky.

Doesn't like slightly exaggerated roll rate, doesn't like combat geared troops sitting in it, doesn't like them walking down the rear ramp, doesn't like various footwear.

NH-90 seems to have as many problems as it has variants. I would have loved to say that India dodged a bullet going for the S-70 but our bureaucracy snuffed that little joy out as well.
 

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
The 1st Guard Company of His Majesty the King's Guard practices room clearance during urban operations drills in February, 2018.



















Or do as the Swedish did and buy Sirosky.

Sweden operates the NH90 too though, not expecting its NH90s to be operational until the 2020s it bought the UH-60 as a holdover until the NH90 was delivered the became operational. I don't think Sweden has had any major issues with the type, though I know Finland's fleet has had serious reliability issues. Ours haven't thank goodness.

While I like the S-70, and the Danes use it so there'd be some commonality with one of our sister nations outside of commonality with the NH90, it's not much smaller then an NH90 and if they're too large to use on Coast Guard and Navy ships, so to would the S-70.

That's why I like the AW159 as an option. Norway has already operated the Westland Lynx so there's a measure of familiarity within the Navy and Coast Guard with the type and our ships are able to accommodate it without modifications.

This Nordkapp class OPV, KV Andenes, same class as KV Senja above, shows the relative size of the Lynx. The AW159 variant is no larger.



I would have loved to say that India dodged a bullet going for the S-70 but our bureaucracy snuffed that little joy out as well.

Hehe, yeah you guys have it pretty bad. It might not fit right on our ships, but we've at least had the NH90 for 11 years. Most of our procurement operations go smoothly though. Every once in a while the timeline on something will slip.

We recently bought a handful of K9 Thunders from South Korea. It wasn't our first choice, that was Sweden's Archer, but they were unable to deliver the guns within the expected time-frame. That's pretty unusual though. We don't expect any major delays with our P-8s, Type 212 Mod (Type 213?), K9s, or other modernization programs we're undergoing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Paro and Parthu

Vicky

Rajaraja Chola
Dec 1, 2017
357
406
Canada
Good question, Doc. It's one I've actually had posed to me quite a few times and people generally ask why we don't rely on France, the UK or even the US who stations troops and equipment in Norway and the answer is simple - they aren't in a position to defend Norway, Sweden or Finland or the smaller EU states (a combined NATO force defends the Baltic nations. This is known as the Enhanced Forward Presence initiative. Norwegian forces are part of the eFP in Lithuania).

The UK and US are around frequently, but their equipment is some 1600km away from our principle adversary Russia at the closest, in long-term storage in underground facilities pockmarked throughout the Norwegian countryside. Their equipment isn't really made for fighting in Norway either, but is stored here for deployment elsewhere in Europe such as Poland, Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania. No naval or air force assets are assigned to the US contingent in Norway, but the USAF and USN do frequent our air and waterspace for major exercises (several destroyers, submarines and on occasion P-8MPAs and Nimitz class carriers, but never in large numbers). The UK doesn't have any assets in Norway permanently, but their Royal Marines train in Norway on a yearly basis for cold weather training, as do the US Marines.

Norway actually borders Russia, but at sea and on land, and with the closest allied forces over 1500km away from that border and undersized and under-equipped to fight Russian forces in Norway, rather being used to reinforce a combined NATO force on mainland Europe, it's incumbent on Norway to fight for Norway. This is the Norwegian-Russian border, shown from the Norwegian side. It's mountainous, forested and our countries are separated by two rivers along 2/3s of the border providing a natural barrier from one another and blunting the threat of an armored or infantry assault (Norway places greater emphasis on air and sea control).











While Norway's Army isn't strictly for fighting in Norway, being currently deployed in Mali, the Sinai, Afghanistan and Iraq, the Norwegian Border Guard and Norwegian Home Guard provide the bulk of our homeland defence against external threats. They operate heavy armor, air defence assets, naval and air units too, and act as an extension of the Army when necessary.

But while there are forces to defend cities and our land, our primary threat doesn't come across our shared land border. These photos of the Russian Navy were taken by the Royal Norwegian Navy and Air Force in the Norwegian Sea as they were en-route to participate in the Russian intervention in Syria.











The Russian Northern Fleet - complete with multiple ballistic missile carrying submarines, numerous nuclear and DE attack submarines, a Kuznetsov and a Kirov class backed by additional destroyers and ASW frigates, not to mention the sizable 51st Kirkinesskaya Red Banner Marine Brigade, and 317th and 318th Marine Battalions of Russian naval infantry.

That's our enemy and it's a sizable one. We accept help from our NATO partners, the UK and US mainly, especially as part of Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 which is comprised of Baltic and North Sea nations (meaning Turkey, Italy, France and others aren't part of it, but contingents of SNMG 2 instead), but as their contribution to Norway's defence is limited we have to do our part to keep the Russians at bay as our partners will do for their countries too.

...

Sweden doesn't border Russia, but it has a standing army just in case. It's Air Force is sizable, but its navy small (35 ships, half patrol boats versus 70, the majority large armed OPVs, for Norway). Finland does border Russia and has a large air force and army as a result, but it's navy is smaller and focused mostly on harassing Russia in the Baltic with mine-layers and light corvettes. While Sweden's national defence strategy is to be able to defend itself, Finland's is that any conflict with Finland will spill over and involved NATO, and its navy's size reflects this, meant to slow down Russia while allied forces from the rest of Europe mop up the Russian Baltic Fleet.

Iceland doesn't have a military and is instead defended by a combined NATO forces of mainly Canadian British, American and Norwegian forces. Germany, Italy and France all provide a smaller level of support alongside the Czech republic, Denmark and Portugal.

Denmark is somewhat in between Sweden and Finland in terms of overall capabilities, also facing the threat of the Russian Baltic Fleet.

I understand the Finnish Russian Rivalry. Even some in Russia claim Finland is theirs. But what's the course of Rivalry. If Norway can help it, Russia and Norway isnt going to war. They dont have border disputes. Even if USA and Russia goes to war(not gonna happen) why should Norway be a party to it?
 

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
I understand the Finnish Russian Rivalry. Even some in Russia claim Finland is theirs. But what's the course of Rivalry. If Norway can help it, Russia and Norway isnt going to war. They dont have border disputes. Even if USA and Russia goes to war(not gonna happen) why should Norway be a party to it?

True, we don't have a border dispute with Russia and we settled what was pretty much the only point of contention between our two nations one-hundred fifty years ago by erecting King Oscar II Chapel to demarcate our border and fishing zone from theirs.



Norway and Russia have also had military-to-military ties and cooperation. Recently we allowed them to tour one of our airbases, Ørland, that will host our F-35s



We do border guard get togethers, cooperate on submarine rescue, especially after Kursk went down and Russia refused our help, our navies and coast guards train together. We still have ties with Russia, but they aren't as strong as they've been.









We still have points of contention with Russia though. They allowed between 5000-10000 Syrian migrants through their border following our imposition of economic sanctions on them for their role in Ukraine. Not nice:mad:. Russia has also become much more belligerent in the Arctic where both our nations have claims and they've stepped up naval and air incursions into our space to levels not seen since the Cold War.



Traditionally our nations have had close economic ties especially in the energy and agricultural sectors, but relations aren't that good right now. Getting better, but they could further devolve quickly.

For us the biggest concern isn't actually Russia in the Arctic but in the Baltics. If Russia causes problems in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia where the Nordic countries deploy troops and equipment as part of the Enhanced Foreign Presence initiative that could draw them into a conflict with Russia on behalf of the smaller NATO member states in the Baltic, who are also members of the EU's Nordic Battle group which would threaten to mobilize the EU as a whole. Right now Norway has recon troops and mechanized infantry deployed in Lithuania.



We have our ups and our downs and I'd certainly like to see ties mend with Russia, life's better for both our nations when we're not fighting like children, but that's geopolitics for you.
 
Last edited:

Vicky

Rajaraja Chola
Dec 1, 2017
357
406
Canada
True, we don't have a border dispute with Russia and we settled what was pretty much the only point of contention between our two nations one-hundred fifty years ago by erecting King Oscar II Chapel to demarcate our border and fishing zone from theirs.



Norway and Russia have also had military-to-military ties and cooperation. Recently we allowed them to tour one of our airbases, Ørland, that will host our F-35s



We do border guard get togethers, cooperate on submarine rescue, especially after Kursk went down and Russia refused our help, our navies and coast guards train together. We still have ties with Russia, but they aren't as strong as they've been.









We still have points of contention with Russia though. They allowed between 5000-10000 Syrian migrants through their border following our imposition of economic sanctions on them for their role in Ukraine. Not nice:mad:. Russia has also become much more belligerent in the Arctic where both our nations have claims and they've stepped up naval and air incursions into our space to levels not seen since the Cold War.



Traditionally our nations have had close economic ties especially in the energy and agricultural sectors, but relations aren't that good right now. Getting better, but they could further devolve quickly.

For us the biggest concern isn't actually Russia in the Arctic but in the Baltics. If Russia causes problems in Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia where the Nordic countries deploy troops and equipment as part of the Enhanced Foreign Presence initiative that could draw them into a conflict with Russia on behalf of the smaller NATO member states in the Baltic, who are also members of the EU's Nordic Battle group which would threaten to mobilize the EU as a whole. Right now Norway has recon troops and mechanized infantry deployed in Lithuania.



We have our ups and our downs and I'd certainly like to see ties mend with Russia, life's better for both our nations when we're not fighting like children, but that's geopolitics for you.

Haha. Scandinavian countries are best for the lazies. Lax policies, social payments, in Sweden even ex ISIS fighters were not jailed. Hope the migrants integrate with the culture and not become a sore point in the future.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aravind

Fox

Active member
Feb 17, 2018
27
112
.
The medevac M113 in the first post of the thread isn't the only land-based medical vehicle in the Norwegian Army. More commonly seen is the SISU armored, amphibious transport shown here during a medevac training exercise on 15 Feb, 2018.











Typically the SISU is armed with a center mounted cupola outfitted with FN MAG, FN MInimi or MG3 general purpose machine guns, but some have recently been outfitted with remote weapon stations too.





Hope the migrants integrate with the culture and not become a sore point in the future.

A sore point for Russia maybe, but not us. The migrants who came from Russia were deported back to Russia, over 5500 in total.

Norway sends migrants back to Russia

Interestingly migration is the one area where I'm more inline with right-wing politics.

in Sweden even ex ISIS fighters were not jailed.

Happens here too, though we prefer to hunt ours down on the battlefield. Typically us Nordics favor rehabilitation over incarceration or execution, but there are always exceptions made.

We've actually been dealing with an ISIS-affiliated group recently called Profetens Ummah.



They're noisy and fortunately under constant watch. Regrettably however arbitrary detention isn't legal in Norway so they're free to go about their business until they break a law.
 
Last edited:

vsdoc

Banned
Feb 14, 2018
1,840
330
my cave
The medevac M113 in the first post of the thread isn't the only land-based medical vehicle in the Norwegian Army. More commonly seen is the SISU armored, amphibious transport shown here during a medevac training exercise on 15 Feb, 2018.











Typically the SISU is armed with a center mounted cupola outfitted with FN MAG, FN MInimi or MG3 general purpose machine guns, but some have recently been outfitted with remote weapon stations too.







A sore point for Russia maybe, but not us. The migrants who came from Russia were deported back to Russia, over 5500 in total.

Norway sends migrants back to Russia

Interestingly migration is the one area where I'm more inline with right-wing politics.



Happens here too, though we prefer to hunt ours down on the battlefield. Typically us Nordics favor rehabilitation over incarceration or execution, but there are always exceptions made.

We've actually been dealing with an ISIS-affiliated group recently called Profetens Ummah.



They're noisy and fortunately under constant watch. Regrettably however arbitrary detention isn't legal in Norway so they're free to go about their business until they break a law.

Fox, are these natives who've converted or are these migrants from the ME? Look like migrants.

We keep hearing the claim (albeit primarily from Pakistanis) that Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe.

What is the reality?

Is it mainly countries like France and the UK, or are you guys noticing it too?

How's Germany?

Cheers, Doc
 
Last edited: