Evaluation of the procurement of K9 VIDAR – defence procurement project 5447 Artillery System 155mm

Procuring new artillery to replace the ageing M109 system has been a long-running process. The process began in the early 2000s with a project to exchange Dutch Panzerhaubitze 2000 systems for Norwegian air defence systems. This agreement was cancelled and replaced by a development project with Sweden to develop the wheeled Archer artillery system. That agreement was eventually cancelled as well, leading to the acquisition of the K9 Versatile Indirect Artillery System (VIDAR) from South Korean Hanwha Systems.

In this report, we have evaluated the project using the Concept program’s model for assessing major public procurements that have undergone external quality assurance. This is a well-established method with six evaluation criteria, which at the time of evaluation had been used to assess over 40 major public procurement projects. The six criteria are productivity, goal achievement, other effects, relevance, viability, and economic efficiency.

The contract with Hanwha was signed in 2017, and the artillery systems were delivered to the Army in 2020. As part of the project, a smaller quantity of ammunition, including precision ammunition, was also to be procured. This part of the project has not been delivered on time, and its scope has also changed. As of today, the ammunition delivery has not been completed.

Project P5447 has delivered new artillery systems to the Army within budget and on time. The quality of the systems is also in line with the project’s governing documents. Regarding the achievement of the project’s effect goals, the evaluation shows that most of them have been met. However, the third effect goal – related to the cost of maintaining an artillery capability –has not been achieved.

The evaluation has not identified any significant other effects from the project’s implementation. No negative effects have been found, while the positive effects identified will to some extent depend on the Defence Materiel Agency’s ability to learn from this project. These effects are therefore somewhat uncertain.

The relevance of the project appears to be just as strong as it was at the time of the investment decision. The war in Ukraine has demonstrated how artillery can inflict losses on the enemy and remains a relevant capacity in a modern army structure. However, the war in Ukraine has also revealed weaknesses in these types of systems and highlighted the relevance of drones in modern warfare.

The system’s viability is good, but the evaluation has also identified certain factors that may raise questions about whether it will be possible to maintain the system’s operation at an acceptable level throughout its lifespan.

In conclusion, the evaluation shows that the project appears to be a socio-economically sound investment.