Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[B.Smitty]

The MT-LB would be the worst option possible. The machine is in NO WAY a combat vehicle! As I see it the topic goes progressively into "Tracked vs. Wheeled", which is complete nonsence. None could replace the other. The way I put things we need:
- tank supporting AIFV fleet of BMP-3s (or any other tracked AIFV you choose)
- follow-on fleet of refurbished Piranhas (or another wheeled APC you put on the table)
So how would you replace the tracked platform with a wheeled one or how would you replace the wheeled platform with a tracked APC in a way that doesn't lead to capabilities compromise? I am curious, please convince me. It doesn't matter to me if it will be a BMP-3 or CV-90, whether it will be second-hand Piranha or XA-200. What bothers me is that I am fully convinced, that the solution I am leaning to is the most cost effective. Of course this is a discussion and everyone is free to express his opinion. Please don't think I am behaving like a child that wants its toys. I just don't see a workable alternative.

I agree the MT-LB isn't a good choice. It's a lightly armored, tracked tractor, not a combat vehicle, IMHO.

As a cost saving measure, how about sticking with a single IFV/APC (tracked or wheeled) for a high-end battalion or two, and just have truck-mounted infantry for the rest? We don't have that much territory to cross anyway.

Certainly this would leave the low end infantry more susceptible to artillery and airpower, but trucks are a LOT cheaper than armored vehicles.

We could then invest more in man-portable anti-armor weapons, air defenses, or other areas of our military.

The second five year plan could expand on the IFV purchase, or add a wheeled APC.

As by the way I think about the S-300. I've put the Aspide as a compromise, as the S-300 outperforms it totally. From the beginning of that topic I am trying to avoid naming russian hardware in order to stick to credibility as the question is also a political one and the country would no doubt be reluctant to buy russian. But I wasn't the one that nemtioned the S-300 first.

The way I have formulated things we have the mechanised infantry assets at the lowest prise without compromising capabilities and we have the theatre air defense already fully integrated. It calls for three batteries of the same system. I don't think that even three battalions of Aspide would compensate that.

I agree S-300 is far more capable. Even SA-17 would be better than Aspide, IMHO.

The big question for me is still do we want to entrust our national security to the crumbling Russian defense industry (circa 1995)?

(Edit:I see now that you mentioned our country's reluctance to buy Russian. Sorry for missing this in my post.)

 

[B.Smitty]

Well, if buying Russian is so hard, why don't we look for a Western equivalent of the S-300?

Or does no such thing exist?

Patriot is off limits and SAMP/T isn't available yet.

 

[BuSOF]

Patriot is off limits and SAMP/T isn't available yet.

Not to mention it is also not so much an alternative to the S-300. The way I see it there are three options to the question:
- a capable fighter
- S-300
- gambling (leaving the topic opened and hope an aggression doesn't go , othrewise we are basically screwed)

 

[B.Smitty]

Not to mention it is also not so much an alternative to the S-300. The way I see it there are three options to the question:
- a capable fighter
- S-300
- gambling (leaving the topic opened and hope an aggression doesn't go , othrewise we are basically screwed)

We aren't allowed the longer-ranged S-300 missiles due to range restrictions, right? Isn't the small S-300 missile is comparable to Patriot?

 

[BuSOF]

We aren't allowed to have OFFENSIVE weapons with a range over 50km., but even if we take the Missile Air Defense systems to be offensive weapons the S-300 has missiles with a range of 50km exactly. Does the PAC-3 also?

 

[kato]

I'd say S-300 doesn't count as an offensive weapon, hence not under the range limitation. The range limitation is tailored more towards systems of the kind long-range artillery rockets and short range ballistic missiles.

So how would you replace the tracked platform with a wheeled one or how would you replace the wheeled platform with a tracked APC in a way that doesn't lead to capabilities compromise?

There are more than enough countries who do this, including the capability compromise - either way (although there are admittedly few who ditch wheeled for tracked lately).

The way I put things we need:
- tank supporting AIFV fleet of BMP-3s (or any other tracked AIFV you choose)
- follow-on fleet of refurbished Piranhas (or another wheeled APC you put on the table)

We need:
- an AFV Type 1 for the mechanized forces (120-130 units)
- an AFV Type 2 for the motorised forces (120-130 units)
- a multi-purpose armored carrier ("Type 3") for duty in both Inf and other btl (about 200 units)

For simplicities sake, usually the Type 2 APC is the same as the armored carrier. One classic example for such a joint system would be the M113. The full Russian approach has the above split in three separate systems actually, BMP, BTR and MT-LB.

To make it short, following options i'm presenting now:

a) AFV Type 1/2 identical (250 units), separate Type 3 APC (200 units)
b) AFV Type 1 separate (125 units), Type 2 and Type 3 identical (325 units)
c) full Russian approach (for us: 125 Type 1, 125 Type 2, 200 Type 3)
d) all types identical chassis (450 units)
e) something else entirely

BuSOF, Your approach (BMP + Piranha) would be the b) approach. For the a) approach, in my opinion the BMP is not necessarily the right system. An all-identical d) approach would be for example the Dutch Cold-War solution (of packing everything on their M113 copy).

B.Smitty: We still have up to 24 (!) reserve infantry battalions that will end up truck-mounted... let's worry about that later

 

[B.Smitty]

Gepard = hmmm, difficult, none were ever sold since the 80s... let's put them at 80% of a Leo, 4 million per unit (let's say 50 million per battery flat).

Why do we even bother with Gepard?

Wouldn't our money be better spent on MANPADS and/or SHORADS missile systems?

We could buy a lot more Mistrals, RBS 70s, or even SA-18s for the price of one Gepard. Both Mistral and RBS 70 have lightweight vehicle mounts, and both out-range Gepard. They even have integrated command posts to network multiple systems together.

If we absolutely had to have a SPAAG, and bought the CV9040s as our IFV, we could buy the CV90 AAV. It may not be as capable as Gepard, but it would use the same chassis as the rest of our fleet. Maybe we could even pay to integrate RBS 70 or Mistral 2.

 

[SkolZkiy]

S-300 could be used to attack land-targets, there is such possibility. According to this it could be used as offensive weapon

 

[Tavarisch]

Why do we even bother with Gepard?

Wouldn't our money be better spent on MANPADS and/or SHORADS missile systems?

We could buy a lot more Mistrals, RBS 70s, or even SA-18s for the price of one Gepard. Both Mistral and RBS 70 have lightweight vehicle mounts, and both out-range Gepard. They even have integrated command posts to network multiple systems together.

If we absolutely had to have a SPAAG, and bought the CV9040s as our IFV, we could buy the CV90 AAV. It may not be as capable as Gepard, but it would use the same chassis as the rest of our fleet. Maybe we could even pay to integrate RBS 70 or Mistral 2.

We could also get Tunguskas. They definitely out-perform most Western SPAAGS.

 

[B.Smitty]

We could also get Tunguskas. They definitely out-perform most Western SPAAGS.

Well, Tunguska is only better than Gepard because of its SA-19s, but SA-19 is only marginally better than Mistral 2 or RBS 70.

So why bother with any of them? Just buy MANPADS with vehicle mounts and firing posts. We can buy up to 20 Mistral 2 systems for each Gepard.

Adding Tunguska or keeping Gepard would mean maintaining a unique chassis and powertrain combination, along with their spares and support pipeline.

To me, it's just not worth it. I would much rather have a real SHORADS like Tor or Crotale (or wait for BAMSE), or just stick with "heavy" MANPADS.

 

[Tavarisch]

Well, Tunguska is only better than Gepard because of its SA-19s, but SA-19 is only marginally better than Mistral 2 or RBS 70.

So why bother with any of them? Just buy MANPADS with vehicle mounts and firing posts. We can buy up to 20 Mistral 2 systems for each Gepard.

Adding Tunguska or keeping Gepard would mean maintaining a unique chassis and powertrain combination, along with their spares and support pipeline.

To me, it's just not worth it. I would much rather have a real SHORADS like Tor or Crotale (or wait for BAMSE), or just stick with "heavy" MANPADS.

Yeah, but the 30mm cannons on the Tunguska way outperform the Oerlikons on the Gepard, which also contributes to the 0.8 kill probability of a Tunguska.

Nonetheless, I agree that MANPADS and SHORADS would probably be the better solution to this question. Yet, the Tunguska and Gepard can also double as an infantry killer when it is not operating as an AA platform. It's also more resistant to small arms fire, which makes it slightly harder for opposing troops to destroy it. Granted, an M136 AT4 or an Panzerfaust 3 would probably kill it. But, a 5.56 or 5.45 surely will not.

 

[BuSOF]

Some additional questions of concern.

1. The S-300 is a vertical-launch system. That means the launch vehicle needs minimal area for the firing. The Patriot missile fires in a small-angle trajectory (I'm not that good in english, so I don't know the exact expression ) So how wide and long the firing position for that system should be? Especially in a pack-urbanised country? Even if we put aside the fact that the S-300 isn't combat proven and the Patriot is. Combat proven incapable that is.

2. In a heavy ECM environment what good do you think the MANPADS would have anyway. Artillery systems still could fire in visual mode. A missile solution in that precise situation would be the Osa system in the track-by-wire-missile variant. But still let us stick to the SPAAGs and MANPADS. What would you pick?

3. I already mentioned the downside the tracked APCs have. I am not an expert so I will share with you what a friend of mine said to me. In numerous exercises he was transported in wheeled and a tracked APC. He said he is glad the times he was in a tracked one weren't that many because everitime he has spent more than 15 minutes in it the whole section was exhausted and performed much worse than the times they were in a wheeled APC.

 

[B.Smitty]

Yeah, but the 30mm cannons on the Tunguska way outperform the Oerlikons on the Gepard, which also contributes to the 0.8 kill probability of a Tunguska.

Nonetheless, I agree that MANPADS and SHORADS would probably be the better solution to this question. Yet, the Tunguska and Gepard can also double as an infantry killer when it is not operating as an AA platform. It's also more resistant to small arms fire, which makes it slightly harder for opposing troops to destroy it. Granted, an M136 AT4 or an Panzerfaust 3 would probably kill it. But, a 5.56 or 5.45 surely will not.

Tunguska's 30mms "way outperform" the 35mms on Gepard? Kinetically, that's certainly not the case. Maybe they do in Russian marketing literature.

We can put Mistrals or RBS 70s on armored vehicles, but the point is, it's a lot harder to kill twenty Mistral 2 firing posts than it is one Gepard or Tunguska.

 

[B.Smitty]

Some additional questions of concern.

1. The S-300 is a vertical-launch system. That means the launch vehicle needs minimal area for the firing. The Patriot missile fires in a small-angle trajectory (I'm not that good in english, so I don't know the exact expression ) So how wide and long the firing position for that system should be? Especially in a pack-urbanised country? Even if we put aside the fact that the S-300 isn't combat proven and the Patriot is. Combat proven incapable that is.

We can't have Patriot. My two biggest worries about S-300 is, 1) how will it integrate with our overall IADS (e.g. comms, IFF), and 2) what kind of support will we get from the Russians? Are we going to have to translate all of the S-300 operators manuals to German ourselves?

Otherwise, on paper, it's clearly the best system we can buy.

2. In a heavy ECM environment what good do you think the MANPADS would have anyway. Artillery systems still could fire in visual mode. A missile solution in that precise situation would be the Osa system in the track-by-wire-missile variant. But still let us stick to the SPAAGs and MANPADS. What would you pick?

RBS 70 is a laser beam-rider, and thus is extremely resistant to ECM. Mistral 2 is more susceptible to flares and DIRCMs, but has the advantage of being fire-and-forget. I see pluses and minuses with each. Both can be fired in visual-only mode.

I would much rather have Osa or Tor than Gepard or Tunguska. At least they hit a range and altitude band that isn't covered by MANPADS.

IMHO, SPAAGs are just big, expensive targets for Mavericks, LGBs, JDAMs and HARMS that like to illuminate themselves with their fire control radars.

3. I already mentioned the downside the tracked APCs have. I am not an expert so I will share with you what a friend of mine said to me. In numerous exercises he was transported in wheeled and a tracked APC. He said he is glad the times he was in a tracked one weren't that many because everitime he has spent more than 15 minutes in it the whole section was exhausted and performed much worse than the times they were in a wheeled APC.

We have a tiny country. How far will our soldiers really have to ride?

I can see making the wheeled APC argument on cost grounds, but we aren't an expeditionary army that does a lot of long road marches.

 

[Tavarisch]

Tunguska's 30mms "way outperform" the 35mms on Gepard? Kinetically, that's certainly not the case. Maybe they do in Russian marketing literature.

We can put Mistrals or RBS 70s on armored vehicles, but the point is, it's a lot harder to kill twenty Mistral 2 firing posts than it is one Gepard or Tunguska.

I meant the rate of fire. Comparing 2500 to 1100. That's nearly twice as much.

 

[B.Smitty]

I meant the rate of fire. Comparing 2500 to 1100. That's nearly twice as much.

ROF is not a very good measure of performance for a SPAAG. Far more important is the fire control and sensors, and accuracy of the guns. Those factors are harder to quantify.

Regardless, you are still only looking at a 3-4km range for the guns vs 6-7km for "heavy" MANPADS like RBS 70.

 

[BuSOF]

We have a tiny country. How far will our soldiers really have to ride?

The APC isn't just a mean of transportation. If that is the case then the whole idea is meaningless. It's not a taxi.

 

[Tavarisch]

ROF is not a very good measure of performance for a SPAAG. Far more important is the fire control and sensors, and accuracy of the guns. Those factors are harder to quantify.

Regardless, you are still only looking at a 3-4km range for the guns vs 6-7km for "heavy" MANPADS like RBS 70.

I never said that the guns could out-range the MANPADS. My opinion remains unchanged, a combination of both Gun and Missile is necessary. I guess you could say that you could use the gun for easier targets like Helos and the missiles for those pesky airplanes. You'd save on buying more MANPADS.

The last time I checked, missiles with guidance systems tend to be more expensive than their projectile counterparts. Unless you want to continually produce a lot of rockets in the outbreak of a war, I'd say having a gun-missile combination is a good deal. Anyways, isn't it entirely up to us on the choice of which missile we want to outfit on our GBADs?

 

[B.Smitty]

The APC isn't just a mean of transportation. If that is the case then the whole idea is meaningless. It's not a taxi.

It isn't?

In Western doctrine, APCs are primarily a means to transport an infantry squad with some degree of protection.

 

[BuSOF]

It isn't?

In Western doctrine, APCs are primarily a means to transport an infantry squad with some degree of protection.

That "some degree of protection" gives you blast shelter in a nuclear strike (of course if not too close to the target), NBC-protection, shrapnell-protection and the air conditioner protects your troops from the adverse weather. Think about that.