Usually the new equipment goes to the units, that participate in NATO or foreign missions (currently our men are in Afghanistan and Iraq). But the Departement of Defence has decided to bring all troops to modern level. Time schedule is pretty vague - in following years or by the end of this decade. The main reason of this topic to come up is the experience in the Iraq, where the modern equipment has been in good use and have shown to be nessesary: sights and torches on guns, personal protection gear etc. 
First of all, standard uniform is deemed to be replaced with the digital camo uniforms, made from thinner but more sturdier fabrics. Some officers to say that troops would prefer Gore-tex.
And the ordinary troops idea of comfortable and good uniform differs from the ideas of the office personnell and they prefer the current one over the new digi uniform.
Let's cover the new uniform (pictured):
*
German helmet, offering the protection against flak (shell fragments, flying debris) and pistol rounds. And as seen, can mount a camera or NVG.
*
Safety glasses, to protect the eyes from the debris.
*
Bodyarmor Burgmann, Level III-A, to offer protection against commonly used 7.62x39 mm rounds (and other ammo up to that energy /sectional density level).
*
Elbow and kneeguards, to make crawling and and diving more comfortable.
*
Estonian made webgear.
Interesting point is that the Swedish AK-4 is named in the news article as "standard issue rifle". My impression has up now been that the standard issue rifle is 5.56x45 cal Galil AR, with the AK-4 being in reserve and for the KL. The high command thinks the 7.62 is better than 5.56, since it's more powerful and offering better penetration, and so there's no rush in replacing the AK-4s anytime soon. So what that the guns are mostly several decades old and the troops using them doesn't fancy them much (they're used and not as reliable and accurate anymore than one would expect from real German G3, or any good combat rifle anywhere).
People want smaller calibre, since most of the combat is under 300 m anyway (in which the 5.56 FMJ is reasonably effective) and smaller cal offers better handling, especially in CQB situations. Also, smaller cal means lighter ammo, meaning more can be carried for the same weight. If I recall correctly, one HK G3A3 with 100 rounds weights as much as M16A2 with 240 rounds. If you ask me, which one I'd take for general combat, the answer is obvious - M16A2.
Anyway the idea is to spice the venerable AK-4s up:
*
Replacing the fixed stock with collapsible one (I have heard bad comments regarding the HK collapsible stock, wonder how this turns out). This should make the gun more handy in close encounters.
*
Rail over the receiver, for attaching optical devices, like Eotechs (which should be standard issue after this decade) or night optics.
*
Plans are to buy underbarrel grenade launchers, bipods, lights, to cover wide range of applications.
I have to admit, the gun on the picture looks nice, but I think it's about time to come to modern thinking, where general combat calibre is 5.56 (or similar), with 7.62 (or similar) for designated marksman rifles, sniper rifles and machineguns.
