Hypothetical defence forces

[BuSOF]

I was actually talking about Norland, but the things I've put out could also be taken for the other country.
But I cannot agree with your weapon systems options. Both are very small countries, which means they don't have the budegt to field: FREMMs, Boxers, Strykers etc. To field a SP FLAK Gepard, which is based on a MBT chasis is to point an assault rifle at a tiger in a cage. It would be an easy target. So these things could be taken as plausibles. You probably think the ZU-23 is self-propelled, which is actually very compact towed piece and it could also be used in the land role with great success.
For the army units weaponry is really not as important as tactics and order of battle and foremost defense attitude among the people. You cannot strictly stay to NATO standarts for Bovania, when it is stated that it was close to the Warsaw Pact. That means it has weapons left from the Cold War. You could add NATO-standarts in some of the inventory, but not as a whole. We could agree that it is going through a transition, but it is not completed yet.
About the territory and population:
For Norland it is said it is mountaineous and has a population of roughly 500.000 people and covers an area of about 4.000 square kms.
For Bovania we have roughly 650.000 people and 3.145 square kms. I sugest we increase it to 5000-6000, otherwise it would be too densely populated and that would prove defense to be very hard.
From all the things said we know that Norland is very compelled to its neutrality and somewhat isolationist state with very strong banking system and trade. Bovania on the other hand seems to be to a minor degree expansionist toward Norland. Industry is not mentioned, let us suppose it has some small number of heavy industry factories.

For that professional armies don't work for such small states.
For Norland to be so devoted to its independence it means that it has to be on alert in all times. I agree that it would probably show Switzerland's attitude.
If it has a population of 500.000 it could have peacetime armed forces of about 5000 without difficulties. Afterall that is only 1% of the population. If tensions rise it could boost the force up to 3% of the population (that's 15.000 people) and in wartime the limit should be not more than 7% (35.000-40.000 people), that is only in case of war and that level shouldn't be kept too long.
So we're talking about peacetime. Of course for an island the most important thing is to withstand a landing (no matter amphibious or airborne). It is a small country and that means that early warning is crutial. To keep the opulation alerted a man in the reserves will be mobilized to a remote observation post on the island for 10-14 days say once a year. Those posts will be roughly of platoon size (20-30 men) armed with ATGMs, light MGs, grenades, recoiless rifles (1-2) and standing in contact with defense headquarters 24/7. It would be a good idea to establish them on hilltops. The UH-1 I talked about will support them.

Тhe small population is a serious problem and to cope with it you shoud put to use some radical measures. First of all every serviceman shoud be a warrior. That means that services, that are normaly public in other countries should be part of an Armed forces auxiliary. So a part of the national telecom should also provide signal support to the armed forces, same goes to the national airline, national shiping company if there is one.

Take the army. if we have 5000 peacetime force then the army will comprise probably about 2800 men. It depends on the history of the country, but if there is a fortress somewhere in the mountains then it shall be the main army base. It will house army HQ, army depot and the communications center. The main air defense assets will be deployed around it. Main combat force will comprise a reinforced battalion of roughly 1200 men, an artillery detachment of towed artillery pieces and an air defense detachment with assets spread across the island. It will provide AD only to the army. A special forces detachment of 200 men top will ahve extensive sniping and small unit actions training. They don't need para training and will not engage the possible enemy in direct actions. They also will not man the observation posts and will have customised vehicles like the G-Wagen with LMGs and observation equipment. A unit of not more than 100 men will be the MP and about 25-30 of them will guard the Governmental building. Logistics will be provided by civilian government agency which will be absorbed into the armed forces in wartime.
At any moment there will be about 700-1000 reservists pressed into action for the army.

The Navy: It is very important to clarify wheather Norland is self-sufficient on food and other critial supplies or has to import them. 2 examples: As you know Switzerland can provide itself the supplies needed (or food atleast) and The Netherlands at the time of the Dutch-English Wars wasn't. That is one of the major reasons it has lost them. It is important because in case is depends on import a sea blockade is another huge threat.
Suppose it needs vast imports. Then the navy's major task would be to secure a sealane to Sweden opened for civilian transport ships.
Let's suppose the navy has a strenght of 1400 men. Of those 60-70 will be a small unit of (20-25 combat frogmen also with mineclearing training and the others will be naval MPs). Base defense could be provided of a home-guard of up to 300 men outside of the 1000 counted. To be able to secure the island of a possible medium-sized blockade the navy needs: a corvette as a flagship (up to 100 men with Anti-ship missiles and some VLS air defense with IR guidance and a 76mm-100mm gun plus two MGs) 3 or 4 FAC-Missile (in that case the CB.90s with Hellfires will not be sufficent and I agree with you that the Gepard FAC class is very suitable, say 150-200 men) plus 3-4 Mine-sweepers and 1-2 minehunters, also to be used as frogmen support ships (also about 150 men). 1 or 2 logistical ships are needed. If there are funds for one bigger it could also be used as a command ship. If not they could be operated by the national shipping company and mobilized into the navy in wartime. 2-4 FAC-gunboats for patrol and fishery protection missions (about 100 men) will complement the naval units. Another 350 men will man shore facilities (two sea observation bases and 2 Anti-ship missiles permanent facilities, but the missiles will be able to be operated from mobile trailers. These 4 facilities could also be merged in two multirole facilities. One additional will provide signals support at the fleet HQ in the main naval base: 40-50 men. The observation stations, missile stations and the signals unit will be integrated in the joint defense mainframe to collect, provide and use centralised information concerning the defense situation). Another 350 men will act as the marines element and will man the Combat boat 90 units (about 8-10 boats). Logistics will be provided by the government agency already mentioned for the army.

The Air Force: around 800 personnel.
It HQ will be established at the country's sole international airport.
Tactical command center will be merged with the airport control into the nation's aerospace sovereignty center. Military part would be around 20 men and additional 20-30 men security/ MP force.
An optional air defense self-propelled detachment would comprise up to 20 launchers, 2-3 mobile radars and personnel of about 130 men. If not self-propelled static Missile air defense sites will comprise the same amount of personnel but will be more vulnerable.
As mentioned for the navy if the main threat is maritime blockade then M-28 Bryza will be the most important AF asset that will be tasked with providing OTH-spotting for the shore-based Anti-ship missiles as I said:
- between 3 and 5 maritime patrol PZL M-28 Bryza's (it can operate from field airstrips and has the same engine the PC-9 has, too bad it has no anti-ship missiles. So personnel will be about 50-60 men plus some naval officers onboard
- plus 2 to 4 more Bryzas for transport (not needed actually if you have a medium transport helicopter type)
- not to my liking but you can also change the armed PC-9s for some serious type of combat helicopter, say 8-12 Cobras. In that case you will be able to dump the armed EC.635s to 3-5 units for observaton and FAC tasks for the Cobras. That way you can settle for some trainer smaller than the PC-9, say SF-260 (3-4 units)
- 3-5 maritime AW139s
- 12-16 tactical helicopters with LMGs (10 AW139 would be nice, but UH-1H-II should do the trick aswell)
- rescue unit of up to 80 personnel (rescue divers/pararescue, medevac personnel...)
If you think the country has a well established fishery industry you can also provide 4-8 aircraft to the national airline or the fishery company that will be tasked with fish spotting for the traulers, but will also be able to provide SAR, sea observation and fishery-protection. More important they will support the armed forces without diverting precious manpower.
- amongst others 2-3 CN.295 in the national airline to save costs.

The national airline's main purpose will be to link the island to Sweden and will have mostly turboprops like the ATR.42, Be.200/1900, some passenger helicopters and 1-3 medevac aircraft. If the Government wishes it could provide funds for a small business-jet like a Cessna.650, but anyway I wouldn't suggest that. Another purpose of the airline will
be to provide logistical support to the AF and in wartime most of it will be absorbed into it.

Almost forgot. If there is a real threat of an invasion by Bovania then Norland will need an appropriate network of intelligence officers on its soil based in proximity to the ports and airfields to provide early warning and also in ports and airports in the countries related to Bovania to screen its actions. As traders are naturally suited for that task they still will have to keep their descent in secrecy and pretend to be from another countries not closely related to Norland. This is important as according to the info manpower of the bovanian armed forces is also not sufficient to mount an invasion without massive preparations and at that moment Norland will have to be alerted to take appropriate actions. Also Norland needs an assotiation aimed at providing the youth with the knowledge needed for the military service. It could provide survival courses, diving training, parachute training, first aid, seamanship etc.

 

[BuSOF]

And I don't see how it is possible for such small nations to have fighter forces. IrishHitman if you think light attack aircraft are any good in air defense and are worth the trouble then tell me why isn't for example the Republic of Ireland operating them in that manner, or other nations? You ask if SAMs can manage airspace. Yes, they can, and no, aircraft such as the L-159 can't.

I understand that korvo doesn't want to miss the service of fighter aircraft, but that is too unrealistic, and it doesn't do much good. From what he posted we know that both countries had fighters and larger armed forces during the Cold War. That now Bovania has a squadron of 12 Su-27 Flankers and that he sugests that Norland operates 8 Gripens.

So let's have a look. Firstly what kind of fighters did they operate in the Cold War. Surely it wasn't top of the line fighters. I would say something like a squadron of 10-15 fighters for each country. Norland is neutral, so possible aircraft would have been: Hawker Hunters bought surplus from the UK or from Switzerland, or possibly Lansen J-32B from Sweden. The least possible is some 10 single-seat and two win-seat Mirage IIIs. Saab Draken is also an option, but is not very plausible, because that airsraft is hard to operate, specially by a small country. The last possibillity has a great BUT involved, because of the country's neutrality in the Cold War. Say: the country had an excellent record for playing it fair with both sides and an impeccable human rights record. So it presents a request for F-5E fighters, it gets granted and Norland gets up to 16 Tigers. After attrition losts the number falls down to 8-12 today. That is the best solution for such a small country and it can be upgraded by a number of companies if funding permits.

If we think about Bovania as a country close to the Warsaw Pact then the MiG-21 comes to mind (up to 22 units as Bovania is somewhat bigger). Another possibility is that the state has replaced them with MiG-23 later on, but that aircraft is also hard to handle the way it is not very likely for norlandic Drakens. Sure we can also think of MiG-17s or 19s, but at the end of the Cold War... Anyway I don't see how it is possible for that country to operate, let alone acquire Flankers.
On the other hand if it was part of the Soviet Union the way the mentioned Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia were then it is possible. Still if that is the reason the country has Su-27 then 100% they are grounded for lack of funds to maintain and operate them. Also in that respect Bovania seems to have been a border state for the USSR. Most of the Su-27 fighters were in the Air defense troops, so not that close to the border.
Still I do have a possible scenario. Suppose there was an Air force regiment (merely a reinforced squadron) of 18 MiG-29 in Bovania. There was also a mixed Naval aviation regiment of 20 Su-25s, 4 L-39s, 16 Ka-27s, 2 An-12 ELINT aircraft, 2-3 An-26s and 3 Be-12s. Around the end of the 80s with the CFE treaty to reduce numbers of fighters in the Air force Moscow turns the MiG-29 over to the Naval aviation (The same way a MiG-29 regiment was turned over to the Black sea fleet's 114th Fighter Air Division). So when the Soviet Union disintegrated there was a mixed naval aviation brigade composing of all these aircraft. Moscow didn't want that the MiG-29s, Ka-27s and especially the An-12 ELINT aircraft to get into wrong hands. So it negotiated their turn-over to the Russian air force and the Naval aviation. In addition to these Bovania considered that the flying boats would also not be needed and gave them away. In exchange it was allowed to retain 16 Su-25s and to get spare parts for them from Russia, the L-39s, the 3 An-26s (one to be used for spares). In exchange for the Ka-27 it acquired 12 Mi-17 and is very happy with their service. Last, for the Be-12s it acquired about 15 training aircraft such as Yak-52s, Mi-2 helicopters and a small amount of Su-26 aerobatic aircraft. So the Bovanian Air Force looks like this: Combat Squadron of 10-14 Su-25s and the L-39s, a Mixed Transport Squadron of 2 An-26s and 10-12 Mi-17s and a Training Squadron of about 5-8 Yak-52s and 3 Mi-2s plus the Su-26 in the National aerobatic club which is like a military establishment. If the country wants to turn to NATO-standarts then it could have replaced the Yaks and Mi-2s with, say, Slingsby T-67 Firefly or Scottish Aviation Bulldog and some second-hand TH-57 (B.206s) donated by the United States.

If that is the situation then maybe at that moment Norland acquired F-5E/Fs second-hand when it saw the threat posed by the Su-25s.

But actually I really don't think fighters is such a good idea. These are small islands in the Batlic Sea. This means there will be fogs most of the time which will hamper training, it also means that fighters will not be allowed to take-off for scramble when there is a fog, it also means that attack aircraft will have the same problem. Training is very costly for such nations. This is why I proposed the Buk mobile SAMs. This is the real deal. MANPADS can do some work, but not the way a real SAM system can.

 

[IrishHitman]

I suggest about 3900 professionals as it lines up as 6 professional troops per thousand citizens. It would be these that operate the equipment I mentioned.
I've also stated that Bovania would operate a Swiss-style compulsory militia system, which would augment the professional numbers in times of war.
The militia would be armed and trained with the following as well as stationary defence weapons that I have yet to decide:

Assault Rifle: FAMAS or FN FNC (Ak5 Swedish Version preferably).
Squad Support: FN MINIMI (M249 SAW for the Yanks in the audience).
Portable AT: FGM-148 Javelin
Portable AA: Thales AD Starstreak HVM/FIM-92 Stinger mix.

As for the ZU-23 vs. FlaKPanzer, the FlaKPanzer Gepard would be a harder target, as it isn't stationary. Not to mention the added bonus of built-in radar.
Zu-23s would probably be appropriate for the militia, but my objective for the professionals is a rapidly deployed force.

It has been stated that both countries were neutral during the Cold War, so your Warsaw Pact notion is not applicable.

As for the OrBat of Bovania, here's my prototype:
http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6845/projectbovaniabx4.jpg
The military is split into four commands + a joint command for shared resources.

The professionals are responsible for the initial defence of the nation on land, as well as foreign involvement. As such, they have the Boxers (Mechanised Battalions) and the Stryker MGSs (Cavalry Battalions). The professionals also have a UAV/UCAV support unit, mobile missile AA and regular AA units, an artillery company and an independent supply company.

The militia (reserve) brigades have different command needs, and as such have a different command structure. They are almost purely defensive in nature, and are positioned in their local area for maximum environment familiarity. Their training is done via the Swiss system. These forces are also readily available to be turned into full quality units if deemed necessary.

The joint command controls and coordinates resources needed by both land, air and naval forces, as well as the bomb squad and special forces commands.

All units are capable of combat on some level.

I'll be giving my Norland proposal later.

 

[BuSOF]

Yes, I saw the statement about their neutrality. I just tried to think your way, because I don't see any other possibility for fighter forces. About AAA for the cost of a Gepard you could have tons of ZUs at immencely lower operational costs. The Flakpanzer's radar means it is far more easy to spot it and destroy it as its emmisions disclose its position. Moreso in case of heavy EW emmisions it cannot work properly and for a country of that size is very easy to bring its defenses down that way. Nobody says the ZUs cannot work within the joint air defense mainframe, but they can also work autark. So if I have to choose between 40 Gepards and 800 ZUs (which would be much cheaper to maintain) I vote for the second option. Your force structure looks pretty good but as for the inventory unless Bovania has suddenly turned into an oil emirate is way too expensive. I mean come on, Strykers and Boxers?!

What I am trying to do with my sugestions is to keep budgets as realistic as possible. So I don't see where you get your fundings for brand new IFVS, APCs, SP artillery, FREMMs and fighters.

I am not preaching here and I am not trying to insult you. If it's OK with you we could discuss the money both countries have. Of course it would be even better if korvo steps in.

 

[IrishHitman]

Yes, I saw the statement about their neutrality. I just tried to think your way, because I don't see any other possibility for fighter forces. About AAA for the cost of a Gepard you could have tons of ZUs at immencely lower operational costs. The Flakpanzer's radar means it is far more easy to spot it and destroy it as its emmisions disclose its position. Moreso in case of heavy EW emmisions it cannot work properly and for a country of that size is very easy to bring its defenses down that way. Nobody says the ZUs cannot work within the joint air defense mainframe, but they can also work autark. So if I have to choose between 40 Gepards and 800 ZUs (which would be much cheaper to maintain) I vote for the second option. Your force structure looks pretty good but as for the inventory unless Bovania has suddenly turned into an oil emirate is way too expensive. I mean come on, Strykers and Boxers?!

What I am trying to do with my sugestions is to keep budgets as realistic as possible. So I don't see where you get your fundings for brand new IFVS, APCs, SP artillery, FREMMs and fighters.

I am not preaching here and I am not trying to insult you. If it's OK with you we could discuss the money both countries have. Of course it would be even better if korvo steps in.

The combat vehicles would be in relatively small numbers, it is a force of only 3900 troops after all. Not to mention the fact the country is about 4.5% of the size of Ireland (tiny) and only has a small coastline, large amounts of aircraft and ships would be unnecessary. We're not talking about hundreds of them, and in the case of ships, we're not even talking about tens of them.

Also, one has to take into consideration which units exactly would be using the equipment. For example, only the two cavalry battalions would be using the Stryker. That's only about 20-30 vehicles, and not all of them necessarily have to be Strykers.

The militia wouldn't be using ANY of the vehicles mentioned, decreasing the numbers necessary considerably. The professionals exist to serve as a rapid reaction force to an invasion, to beat the enemy off beaches and landing zones, and if that fails, to halt the forces until the militias are organised.

And if funds are an issue, certain equipment elements could be partially or fully replaced by second-hand equipment. For instance, the Boxer IVF could easily be replaced by second-hand Marders if budget dictates.

Also, I didn't answer your comment about Light Attack Aircraft and airspace management. You said Ireland and many other countries didn't operate them, which is untrue. The Republic operates PC-9s in light attack and ground attack roles, and has operated aircraft in that role since Michael Collins bought a biplane to escape back to Ireland in 1922. Furthermore, airspace management by SAMs alone is irresponsible and ineffective.

As for the budget situation, korvo really didn't give us information to properly create the defence force. To make it as real as possible, we would need information on resources, overall government and military budget, existing equipment, political, military and ethnic history, exact geography and demographics (maps and charts) and the political climate towards the military. Perhaps I will make a new thread with a better hypothetical scenario including this information in the coming week, depending on whether the mods allow it.

 

[BuSOF]

You said Ireland and many other countries didn't operate them, which is untrue. The Republic operates PC-9s in light attack and ground attack roles, and has operated aircraft in that role since Michael Collins bought a biplane to escape back to Ireland in 1922. Furthermore, airspace management by SAMs alone is irresponsible and ineffective.

No, I didn't say that. You said that it is possible for these countries to operate L-159s in the fighter role. That is what I said is not possible. Read more carefully. Believe it or not there is a big difference between an ALCA and a PC-9 and there is a big difference between air defense and light attack roles. Air defense by SAMs alone is as good as air defense provided by SAMs and L-159s.


It seems that you've come to some wrong impressions. Probably the first and foremost of them is that professional soldiers are per se better than conscripts which is not true in the general ocasion. Of course you need professionals to handle suffisticated equipment and this is easily understood. But what you sugest is that ordinary riflemen, ATGM crews howitzer crews need to be professionals to be able to repel a landing or at least to postpone it until the main reserve force is mobilized. The skills they need are taught for 3-4 weeks extensive training. Then what? Everyone tends to forget what se has been taught, but that means profies to, only slower. So a fresh-trained conscript rifleman is always better than a lasy proffesional, who has fired his gun like months ago. Not to mention that a professional costs a lot to the state. Which leads us to point number 2.

You say "if funding is an issue". What do you think the funding looks like? At least 3/5 of every armed force's funding is spent on sallaries, at least another 1/5 goes for clothing, cattering, fuel, ammo, healthcare etc. So you would be quite lucky to be left with 1/6 of the funding for new equipment, which will then lead to more funding requirements for fuel, ammo for the personnel to be trained to it, new spare-part storages, new overhaul equipment etc. Do you have any sugestions? Because for Norland (500.000 people, average sallary: 2000 Euro, afterall it is close to Sweden so living standarts would be quite high...) I made some counts and what came out of it is that it would need around 5.5mln. Euro monthly just for sallaries in peacetime (a sergeant gets 1400 Euro, naval personnel and air force technical personnel gets 1.3 times the sallaries of their army counterparts and air force flight personnel takes 1.7 times the sallaries of army personnel). At the beginning i thought that a military budget of about 120mln. Euro will be sufficient but requirements grow bigger and bigger. Which leads us to
point number 3.

All you propose is brand new toys. I told you that will cost a forune. All of it is new so it means it will be bought simmultaneously, which means it will exceed the budget several times to acquire (not ony the vehicles, but also the "lego blocks" you're so keen on) and yet more to get the personnel familiar to it. The operation of mere 20-30 vehicles, not to mention spread in several units isn't cost effective, not to mention brand new goodies purchase. Number 4:

Anyway, what do you need them for? Even with my adjustments that brought the area of Bovania to 5000-6000 square kms it is like 80kms per 80kms and is stated that ita is flat and has good roads. So it takes 1-1,5 hours to cross form coast to coast, then what turn around and go back?! You think that some 30 vehicles could be used in mobile warfare on such a tiny island? If it was for countries on the continent it makes sence. You could cross the border, make a sudden strike out of nowhere at the enemy's vulnerable rear, better yet to strike his capital and win the war, but on an island?! Or you sugest that in stationary warfare such a handfull of vehicles is better that an extensive system of fortifications that took like hundred years to build piece by piece to reduce costs and is being upgraded and overhauled all the time?! Or use it as an amphibious landing force? First of all Norland would have the same extensive network of fortifications and Bovania woudn't have an Iowa-battlecruiser to support the landing, secondly Bovania doesn't have the dedicated landing ships for that, thirdly it will have to use a significant armored force to overwhelm defences, purpose-built to that task. If you still think bovanian army needs armored vehices you can purchase tons fo M113s. It's small, easy to find on the market, easily uparmored, has all kind of variants including as IFV, mortar carrier, engineering vehicle, hell an M-163 with the Vulcan gun makes pretty desent unit both for mobile air defense to the units on march as for fire support against ground targets. It is also light so your roads won't get ruined by the tracks. You can buy what 200, even 250 of them amd mechanize 4-5 battalions. Number 5:

The least of problems is that you categorize your suggestion for Bovania' s armed forces as professional which actually it is not. A professional force is such, that has about its 2/5 of its wartime strenght even in peacetime. If you have a 2000 professionals and you augment them with 3000, even 4000 that is professional, but if you have 2000 peacetime professionals and augment them with 5000 and more this isn't a professional force. Professional armies are for countries that are not threatened seriously in time of peace, but have international responsibilities. So it isn't plausible for countries dedicated to their own defense to establish professional forces. Moving on:

Not to mention the fact the country is about 4.5% of the size of Ireland (tiny) and only has a small coastline, large amounts of aircraft and ships would be unnecessary.

Yes, large amounts of aircraft will be unnecessary and especially means fighetrs (which will also cost a fortune to maintain). As for the two FREMMs their acquisition will cost not less than 1.2bln. Euro. You think you have it to spare, or even that Bovania has a military budget that is that big, or at least half as big? What you need to repell a landing is not a professional army, but a professional navy, what you need to repell an airborne landing (which if we are talking about one of those countries the other cannot possibly mount) you don't need a professional army, but mobile SAMs like the Buks I proposed. Of course you will also need a battalio-strenght of soldiers but you could use those reserves, undergoing refreshment courses. If you have like 6-9 companies spread across the tiny country you could easily handle things. Afterall is, say, Norland in some miraculous way mounts an airborne assault of 6 CN.295s and 150 troops your SAMs, MANPADS and AAA working together could shoot down most if not all of them, but say they shoot down two of them and damage additional two, which are able to throw their paras before crashing. Then you have 100-110 hostile troops on your territory. What could they possibly do? It is an extremely densely populated country and what I would do is, like Switzerland, to issue assault rifles and ammo to the reservists to hold it in their homes, so in the moment the paras land there will be three times more defenders and that number will grow rapidly every second.
About your suggestion for an artillery company in the active forces. Firstly it's called "battery", but that is the least of problems. Bigger problem os that you need non-stop artillery fire provided in order to support the combat units. Artillery fire ONLY by batteries. While a battery is firing another one is reloading and is acquiring current targers and the third one is changing firing positions. This is why artillery is grouped in battalions of three batteries. What would your single battery do? Moreso you don't only need gun/ howitzer batteries, but also an artillery reconnaissance platoon, and a radar artillery-spotting battery to observe the situation, to find out where the enemy fires from, to relay that info to another MLRS battery, which will fire instantly and kill enemy artillery units while stationary. It's called counter-battery fire. So your single battery is a powerfull sportscar with an engine replaced by an lowpowered engine from some chicks car.
So sorry, but your proposals don't seem plausible to me. I don't know what your expertise is, but it doesn't seem professional.

 

[IrishHitman]

1.
No, I didn't say that. You said that it is possible for these countries to operate L-159s in the fighter role. That is what I said is not possible. Read more carefully. Believe it or not there is a big difference between an ALCA and a PC-9 and there is a big difference between air defense and light attack roles. Air defense by SAMs alone is as good as air defense provided by SAMs and L-159s.


2.
It seems that you've come to some wrong impressions. Probably the first and foremost of them is that professional soldiers are per se better than conscripts which is not true in the general ocasion. Of course you need professionals to handle suffisticated equipment and this is easily understood. But what you sugest is that ordinary riflemen, ATGM crews howitzer crews need to be professionals to be able to repel a landing or at least to postpone it until the main reserve force is mobilized. The skills they need are taught for 3-4 weeks extensive training. Then what? Everyone tends to forget what se has been taught, but that means profies to, only slower. So a fresh-trained conscript rifleman is always better than a lasy proffesional, who has fired his gun like months ago. Not to mention that a professional costs a lot to the state. Which leads us to point number 2.

3.
You say "if funding is an issue". What do you think the funding looks like? At least 3/5 of every armed force's funding is spent on sallaries, at least another 1/5 goes for clothing, cattering, fuel, ammo, healthcare etc. So you would be quite lucky to be left with 1/6 of the funding for new equipment, which will then lead to more funding requirements for fuel, ammo for the personnel to be trained to it, new spare-part storages, new overhaul equipment etc. Do you have any sugestions? Because for Norland (500.000 people, average sallary: 2000 Euro, afterall it is close to Sweden so living standarts would be quite high...) I made some counts and what came out of it is that it would need around 5.5mln. Euro monthly just for sallaries in peacetime (a sergeant gets 1400 Euro, naval personnel and air force technical personnel gets 1.3 times the sallaries of their army counterparts and air force flight personnel takes 1.7 times the sallaries of army personnel). At the beginning i thought that a military budget of about 120mln. Euro will be sufficient but requirements grow bigger and bigger. Which leads us to
point number 3.

4.
All you propose is brand new toys. I told you that will cost a forune. All of it is new so it means it will be bought simmultaneously, which means it will exceed the budget several times to acquire (not ony the vehicles, but also the "lego blocks" you're so keen on) and yet more to get the personnel familiar to it. The operation of mere 20-30 vehicles, not to mention spread in several units isn't cost effective, not to mention brand new goodies purchase.

5.
Anyway, what do you need them for? Even with my adjustments that brought the area of Bovania to 5000-6000 square kms it is like 80kms per 80kms and is stated that ita is flat and has good roads. So it takes 1-1,5 hours to cross form coast to coast, then what turn around and go back?! You think that some 30 vehicles could be used in mobile warfare on such a tiny island? If it was for countries on the continent it makes sence. You could cross the border, make a sudden strike out of nowhere at the enemy's vulnerable rear, better yet to strike his capital and win the war, but on an island?! Or you sugest that in stationary warfare such a handfull of vehicles is better that an extensive system of fortifications that took like hundred years to build piece by piece to reduce costs and is being upgraded and overhauled all the time?! Or use it as an amphibious landing force? First of all Norland would have the same extensive network of fortifications and Bovania woudn't have an Iowa-battlecruiser to support the landing, secondly Bovania doesn't have the dedicated landing ships for that, thirdly it will have to use a significant armored force to overwhelm defences, purpose-built to that task. If you still think bovanian army needs armored vehices you can purchase tons fo M113s. It's small, easy to find on the market, easily uparmored, has all kind of variants including as IFV, mortar carrier, engineering vehicle, hell an M-163 with the Vulcan gun makes pretty desent unit both for mobile air defense to the units on march as for fire support against ground targets. It is also light so your roads won't get ruined by the tracks. You can buy what 200, even 250 of them amd mechanize 4-5 battalions. Number 5:

6. The least of problems is that you categorize your suggestion for Bovania' s armed forces as professional which actually it is not. A professional force is such, that has about its 2/5 of its wartime strenght even in peacetime. If you have a 2000 professionals and you augment them with 3000, even 4000 that is professional, but if you have 2000 peacetime professionals and augment them with 5000 and more this isn't a professional force. Professional armies are for countries that are not threatened seriously in time of peace, but have international responsibilities. So it isn't plausible for countries dedicated to their own defense to establish professional forces. Moving on:

7. Yes, large amounts of aircraft will be unnecessary and especially means fighetrs (which will also cost a fortune to maintain). As for the two FREMMs their acquisition will cost not less than 1.2bln. Euro. You think you have it to spare, or even that Bovania has a military budget that is that big, or at least half as big? What you need to repell a landing is not a professional army, but a professional navy, what you need to repell an airborne landing (which if we are talking about one of those countries the other cannot possibly mount) you don't need a professional army, but mobile SAMs like the Buks I proposed. Of course you will also need a battalio-strenght of soldiers but you could use those reserves, undergoing refreshment courses. If you have like 6-9 companies spread across the tiny country you could easily handle things.

8. Afterall is, say, Norland in some miraculous way mounts an airborne assault of 6 CN.295s and 150 troops your SAMs, MANPADS and AAA working together could shoot down most if not all of them, but say they shoot down two of them and damage additional two, which are able to throw their paras before crashing. Then you have 100-110 hostile troops on your territory. What could they possibly do? It is an extremely densely populated country and what I would do is, like Switzerland, to issue assault rifles and ammo to the reservists to hold it in their homes, so in the moment the paras land there will be three times more defenders and that number will grow rapidly every second.

9. About your suggestion for an artillery company in the active forces. Firstly it's called "battery", but that is the least of problems. Bigger problem os that you need non-stop artillery fire provided in order to support the combat units. Artillery fire ONLY by batteries. While a battery is firing another one is reloading and is acquiring current targers and the third one is changing firing positions. This is why artillery is grouped in battalions of three batteries. What would your single battery do? Moreso you don't only need gun/ howitzer batteries, but also an artillery reconnaissance platoon, and a radar artillery-spotting battery to observe the situation, to find out where the enemy fires from, to relay that info to another MLRS battery, which will fire instantly and kill enemy artillery units while stationary. It's called counter-battery fire. So your single battery is a powerfull sportscar with an engine replaced by an lowpowered engine from some chicks car.
So sorry, but your proposals don't seem plausible to me.

10. I don't know what your expertise is, but it doesn't seem professional.

1.
I said multi-role fighter. That encompasses many fields of duty.
As for whether it can provide air defence, that's your opinion not a fact.

2.
The professional force exists to serve as a permanent force.
Yes, I know it's expensive, but that's why it's small. The reserves are only paid for the time they serve, which is minimal considering their numbers.
If you look at the reserves, you'll see I've included AT and AA units.
That includes ATGM missiles.... As for howitzers, it takes a professional or full-time conscript to do it effectively, so the artillery is restricted to the professionals as Bovania has no full-time conscripts.

3.
Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about with this one. You say a budget of 120 million, but that is a tiny percentage of any small banking nation's budget (considering the wealth impression from korvo). For instance, Luxembourg is two-thirds the proposed size of Bovania, has a military budget of 230million Euros +, AND has no hostile neighbours. Luxembourg only uses 0.9% of it's entire budget to fund it's army, are you saying that a country more likely to go to war wouldn't prepare itself?
However, all that is pointless as we do not have the exactly budget details necessary.

Where is korvo when you need him?

4.
Financial planning.... The vehicles do not have to be bought simultaneously, they can easily be bought in stages, and phased into familiarity in stages.
Nor do they have to be paid in full simultaneously or immediately.
A banking nation should be more than able to secure deals.

5.
First off, I would like to see you run 20-40 kilometres in less than an hour.
I've already stated that the vehicles are for quick movement of troops to areas where they're needed, and combat support when they get there. Having no decent vehicles would seriously impede chances of catching a beachhead or landing zone unprepared. BMPs are too outdated and unless you want to buy new BMP-3s (which as you've said is expensive), reliability would be a possible issue depending on who you buy them from and how they were treated while in service...

Stationary concrete defences would be useful in key areas, but they can be destroyed or otherwise rendered useless by many methods. Not to mention they would be even more expensive to create effectively... So yes, a fluid mobile shock force is a better option than stationary defences.

6.
The active forces are professional. I never categorically said that Bovania's armed forces were professional, I believe I phrased it as 3900 Professionals + Reserves. Furthermore, Ireland is committed to its own defence by it's own constitution, and yet has both a professional army and international involvement.. The same is true of Austria...

7.
The Airforce exists to augment the Navy for the most part. It's role is mostly patrol, anti-shipping and anti-naval avaition, with ground attack being it's land-based role. The FREMMs, they're more of a long-term proposal. The immediate buying would be the German FACs and a few Combat Boat 90s that someone else has proposed.

8.
100-110 troops, if high quality and well armed, can do quite a lot.
If they took a town before the Cavalry or Mech Inf got there, what then?
Would the surprised militia in the town be able to counter them?
Shell the town despite possible civilian casualties?
Of course, defeat would be inevitable if the Paras were not supported by Marines or reinforcements, but 110 men can do alot. Enough to do some damage and tie up enough forces to allow a landing.
Of course, such an attack wouldn't happen without a major amphibious invasion, which I doubt Norland would have the capabilities for.

9.
I used company to reflect their personnel numbers, not the number of batteries. As companies have up to 250 men, the number of batteries of 6 guns could be anything from three until twenty. As for artillery recon and radar recon platoons, that's what the "Battle Coordination Platoon" is for.
I've said absolute nothing about MLRSs...

10. Do you see professional tags on my nickname? I don't.
Your advocation of all ex-Soviet equipment doesn't seem professional either, considering that Bovania is surrounded by NATO countries.......

I'm working on a better scenario, as this one currently has too many what-ifs to work around.

 

[ASFC]

1.
I said multi-role fighter. That encompasses many fields of duty.
As for whether it can provide air defence, that's your opinion not a fact.


4.
Financial planning.... The vehicles do not have to be bought simultaneously, they can easily be bought in stages, and phased into familiarity in stages.
Nor do they have to be paid in full simultaneously or immediately.
A banking nation should be more than able to secure deals.

5.
First off, I would like to see you run 20-40 kilometres in less than an hour......

7.
The Airforce exists to augment the Navy for the most part. It's role is mostly patrol, anti-shipping and anti-naval avaition, with ground attack being it's land-based role. The FREMMs, they're more of a long-term proposal. The immediate buying would be the German FACs and a few Combat Boat 90s that someone else has proposed.

10. Do you see professional tags on my nickname? I don't.
Your advocation of all ex-Soviet equipment doesn't seem professional either, considering that Bovania is surrounded by NATO countries.......

1. If the L-159 is so good at Air Defence, why did the Czechs go out and lease to buy Gripens to replace their MiGs?

4. Buy M-113's if you really feel the need to have an armoured Army for an Island Nation, given that the other island has no amphibious capabilities either. No need for Financial planning then, they will be cheap enough to buy straight up.

5. He never said that. I am assuming that he was refering to vehicle travel when he said 1 1/2hours.

7. No need for expensive fighters then, just MPAs, Transports, Trainers and Helicopters. No need for FREMMs either. Look at other Baltic Navies, I do not see any large Frigates in Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. Frankly they would be a large target, especially with one of the worlds largest air forces not to far away.

10. Only since the end of the Cold War, before which it would have been surronded by neutrals or Warsaw Pact.

 

[IrishHitman]

1. If the L-159 is so good at Air Defence, why did the Czechs go out and lease to buy Gripens to replace their MiGs?

4. Buy M-113's if you really feel the need to have an armoured Army for an Island Nation, given that the other island has no amphibious capabilities either. No need for Financial planning then, they will be cheap enough to buy straight up.

5. He never said that. I am assuming that he was refering to vehicle travel when he said 1 1/2hours.

7. No need for expensive fighters then, just MPAs, Transports, Trainers and Helicopters. No need for FREMMs either. Look at other Baltic Navies, I do not see any large Frigates in Finland, Sweden, Lithuania, Latvia or Estonia. Frankly they would be a large target, especially with one of the worlds largest air forces not to far away.

10. Only since the end of the Cold War, before which it would have been surronded by neutrals or Warsaw Pact.

1. Gripens are superior to L-159s, why wouldn't they buy them if they are willing to spend the cash? Also, I never said that the L159s were particularly good at air defence...

4.
I was thinking about M113s actually, it's well proven.
I wanted to include some anti-armour capability as well though, hence the MGS. Mind you, a few French armoured cars would do the same job at a fraction of the cost. My suggestions are admittedly more a best-case scenario.

7.
The FREMMs and aircraft are there on the basis that Norland is hostile. Korvo hasn't clarified the position particularly well. As for the one of the world's largest airforces (Russia), they couldn't interfere without EU permission...

10.
This is the year 2008 we are talking about, we're not creating this defence force in 1988...

 

[ASFC]

1. Gripens are superior to L-159s, why wouldn't they buy them if they are willing to spend the cash? Also, I never said that the L159s were particularly good at air defence...

4.
I was thinking about M113s actually, it's well proven.
I wanted to include some anti-armour capability as well though, hence the MGS. Mind you, a few French armoured cars would do the same job at a fraction of the cost. My suggestions are admittedly more a best-case scenario.

7.
The FREMMs and aircraft are there on the basis that Norland is hostile. Korvo hasn't clarified the position particularly well. As for the one of the world's largest airforces (Russia), they couldn't interfere without EU permission...

10.
This is the year 2008 we are talking about, we're not creating this defence force in 1988...

1. What is the point in buying L-159's then? Stick to PC-9s or Tucanos.
4. I didn't know that Boxers where M-113's
5. Yes but FREMMs? In the Baltic? At most you want something like Visby or Hamina Corvettes/FACMs.
Why would Russia care about the EU? Are any of them EU members? Even without Russia, those FREMMs would be vulnerable from attack from any Air Force because the Baltic is quite a small sea.
10. Yes, but look at Finland. Even in 2008 it still uses some equipment with Soviet Origin. That goes for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Poland in fact large parts of Eastern Europe. So far most of your suggestions have presumed that any of these Islands Defence Forces can start from scratch. We must presume that they have had Militaries for years and cannot afford to buy everything from scratch.

 

[swerve]

1. What is the point in buying L-159's then? Stick to PC-9s or Tucanos....

The L-159 is greatly inferior to Gripen, but is greatly superior to PC-9 or Tucano. Can use PGMs, for example, & the radar range is enough that a modest BVR AAM (relatively long range IR, such as Asraam, or shortish-range radar, such as Derby) is usable. It isn't good for air defence, but it can do some.

Depends on what capability you think is desirable, & how much you can spend.

 

[ASFC]

I'm just trying to move away from this attachment to the L-159 just because it is a 'jet' fighter trainer, when it would probably be cheaper to procure* and operate something like the Super Tucano or the AT-6B (if they ever build it) which can also use Air ro Air missiles, unguided bombs (and guided, although they don't seem to state any or Air Force Technology), machine guns etc.

I suppose though it would depend on what the other island has, and what each Island can afford.


*although given that the Czechs retired a large number of their L-159's, it may be cheaper to buy the L-159?

 

[BuSOF]

1.
I said multi-role fighter. That encompasses many fields of duty.
As for whether it can provide air defence, that's your opinion not a fact.

L-159 and PC-9 are trainers, capable of providing some small amount of combat duties, not multi-role fighters. Can L-159 do air defense? Only against targets such as other light sub-sonic combat aircraft/trainers, business jets or military aircraft based on them or military transports. Super-sonic fighters penetrate air defenses at high rates of speed (close to sonic speeds) and at the time when L-159s, Hawks etc. aren't yet ready to scramble them can deploy their bombs/ AGMs/ whatever and hit afterburners to get the hell away. Helicopters also fly very close to the ground which makes detection difficult and hide in the terrain. Moreover even if the L-159s come to the area in time the helicopters fly at treetop-level at very low speeds and can even hover which makes intercept even more difficult. L-159s are only effective in situations in which mobile SAMs and AAA (small and medium callibre) are much more effective. L-159s for air defense are only for poor countries with large territories that cannot provide a full AD coverage to it. And here we are talking about countries about 4000-5000 square kms big. A single SAM-battalion and an AAA-battalion can do the job.
And why the hell should one buy L-159s when one could acquire upgraded F-5S? F-5S has the same radar. F-5 is numerous, L-159 is produced only in 72 units.=> Maintenance of an L-159 is more costly. F-5 is hell lot more maneuverable. F-5 is supersonic and L-159 isn't. So at a significant greater price the L-159 has only a fraction of the air defense capabilities the F-5S has.

2.
The professional force exists to serve as a permanent force.
Yes, I know it's expensive, but that's why it's small. The reserves are only paid for the time they serve, which is minimal considering their numbers.
If you look at the reserves, you'll see I've included AT and AA units.
That includes ATGM missiles.... As for howitzers, it takes a professional or full-time conscript to do it effectively, so the artillery is restricted to the professionals as Bovania has no full-time conscripts.

Your artillery is so small (only a company) and doesn't have barelled artillery (guns, howitzers, gun-howitzers) so you can perfectly go without it, sticking to a self-propelled mortar companies at battalion level. Anti-tank unit organic to each militia brigade is not justified. First of all tank is not a big threat to a small island-nation, threatened by another small island-nation. Maintaining tank-landing capable ships is too costly for them. It is more wize to centralize AT assets in one oversized company at division-level (above the 3 militia brigades). Secondly, those tanks have to go through the enemy's navy, then land the tanks under heavy fire on a heavily fortified beach and while trying to break through defenses they also have to defend themselves against enemy ATGMs and not to mention their vulnerabillity against AT missiles-armed helicopters. Of course no nation of that kind is that stupid to invest seriously in an arm as costly as the tanks and then throw them on a hostile island when there is even the slightest possibillity of those units unable to be brought back in case things don't go according to plan. Organic AA units to every front-line battalion (not only active, but also reserve) is not a suggestion, it is something drastical to field a battalion, unless losing it in five minutes after the start of the battle is not something that concerns the nation's leadership. In that same direction, namely landing, multiple launch rocket systems (even towed, even only 6 units) can render an amphibious landing impossible. Adding an artillery radar unit (even a platoon of three radar-vehicles) multiplies the artillery's abilities at least two times. It seems strange that you ar ewilling to dedicate professionals to such units like traffic duties MPs, but not to bring artillery to the numbers and shape needed.
And you still think a professional soldier is automatically better than a cpnscript, or a reservist when this is no way a fact.

3.
Frankly, I have no idea what you are on about with this one. You say a budget of 120 million, but that is a tiny percentage of any small banking nation's budget (considering the wealth impression from korvo). For instance, Luxembourg is two-thirds the proposed size of Bovania, has a military budget of 230million Euros +, AND has no hostile neighbours. Luxembourg only uses 0.9% of it's entire budget to fund it's army, are you saying that a country more likely to go to war wouldn't prepare itself?
However, all that is pointless as we do not have the exactly budget details necessary.

Where is korvo when you need him?

Your sugestion was about Bovania, not about Norland and Bovania IS NOT a banking nation. Evem if it was that doesn't mean "No problem, choose whatever you find fancy, money is not an issue!" Don't show Luxembourg as an example! Luxembour has the HIGHEST GDP PER CAPITA IN THE WORLD (i.e. you could say the richest nation on the planet!). So your suggestion here is not nearly realistic. Every nation has budget constrains when it comes to defense. No one sais war is imminent, korvo sais the nations only want to prepare themselves for defense. Korvo said that Bovania is a country like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, which means it has simmilar funding. Sweden is more engaged to Sweden so it means it should have higher GDP per capita (and it is the banking and tourism nation, something I didn't put to the accounts and tried to keep financial neccessities as low as possible). So in conclusion both countries have relatively equal defense budgets (Norland is richer but more peacefull, Bovania is poorer, but a bit more militaristic).

4.
Financial planning.... The vehicles do not have to be bought simultaneously, they can easily be bought in stages, and phased into familiarity in stages.
Nor do they have to be paid in full simultaneously or immediately.
A banking nation should be more than able to secure deals.

If the vehicles are not bought simultaneously, then you cannot put them in your plans simultaneously. So you contradict yourself. If you say "I buy 10 vehicles with the initial shipment and them receive 10 units every year" when war starts you will be faced by an arms embargo. That's one. Second is that you CANNOT use ~25 Strykers and ~25 Boxers to mechanise FIVE FULL STRENGHT mechanised infantry and cavalry battalions. If all you need them for is mobility you can perfectly go just with Unimogs, G-Wagens, etc., so motorised infantry, instead of mechanised. If you use them as infantry support platforms they could only move a company of each battalion. So they land them, turn back to load the next company and when your disembarked units come under heavy fire what would you do? Otherwize you will not be able to bring reinforcements. Where is your guarantee that additional units won't come under fire while en route to the battle area to assist the units engaded? If you really think your infantry will be able to move on foot and then fight then your country is lost even before attack occurs. You still think of a World War III scenario with massive landings and air strikes and mechanized battles like Prokhorovka and the Second Persian Gulf War. How come? Who will let two small island-states do it?

5.
First off, I would like to see you run 20-40 kilometres in less than an hour.
I've already stated that the vehicles are for quick movement of troops to areas where they're needed, and combat support when they get there. Having no decent vehicles would seriously impede chances of catching a beachhead or landing zone unprepared. BMPs are too outdated and unless you want to buy new BMP-3s (which as you've said is expensive), reliability would be a possible issue depending on who you buy them from and how they were treated while in service...

Stationary concrete defences would be useful in key areas, but they can be destroyed or otherwise rendered useless by many methods. Not to mention they would be even more expensive to create effectively... So yes, a fluid mobile shock force is a better option than stationary defences.

BMPs are outdated? Says who? Hollywood? And BMP-3 is more expensive than its western counterparts? Are you for real? for the money you will spend on a western IFV you could buy at least 2,2 BMP-3s. Don't believe me? Check the greek deal! Reliability is a problem only if you watch too much Discovery Channel films. In Afghanistan our military mechanics brought back to serviceabillity BMP-1s and 2s that were used even by small clan armies and the talibans. And those units perform splendidly today. It wasn't piece of cake, but they say it was more hard work than skill and technical ingenuity. So please, cut it out with western cliches about russian arms quallity.

Fortifications are much more than just holes in the ground and they are much more than just some concrete put together. They are used to many other duties than just to house soldiers. Extensive fortification systems with excellent defense (against air threats, heavy shelling, NBC strike etc.) are much more harder to destroy than shown on TV. I think I made myself more than clear when I said that:

an extensive system of fortifications that took like hundred years to build piece by piece to reduce costs and is being upgraded and overhauled all the time?!

is much cheaper to build for its construction is spanned over 100 years and yearly upgrading and overhauling is much cheaper than a plan to bring defense inventory to modern standards (i.e. to buy a series of top of the line types of weaponry and systems in 2 to 3 years time) when the main goal is to DEFEND YOUR homeland instead of being able to carry out mobile warfare both on your border and deep behind it.
If you are such a small nation (in the middle of a sea) and your most probable enemy is the same kind of nation then it cannot overwhelm heavy fortifications and you cannot defend yourself for an all-out war waged against you by a big state for more than a week all by yourself even if you try. Of course shock force is better, but to what purpose? Certainly not for homeland defense.

6.
The active forces are professional. I never categorically said that Bovania's armed forces were professional, I believe I phrased it as 3900 Professionals + Reserves. Furthermore, Ireland is committed to its own defence by it's own constitution, and yet has both a professional army and international involvement.. The same is true of Austria...

Please don't judge by completely irrelevant examles to our scenario. Luxembourg this, Ireland that, Austria this... They are so distant to the examples korvo put out. Austria and Ireland don't match those fiction-countries' sitation and abbilities and Luxembourg is also special all by itself.

7.
The Airforce exists to augment the Navy for the most part. It's role is mostly patrol, anti-shipping and anti-naval avaition, with ground attack being it's land-based role. The FREMMs, they're more of a long-term proposal. The immediate buying would be the German FACs and a few Combat Boat 90s that someone else has proposed.

If the air force exists only to augment the navy an army then it will be small and insignificant and most definitely won't be able to field any combat aircraft in any numbers that matter. Moreso it isn't possible to field both a strong surface combatant force and a strong air combat force simultaneously. The moment a nation like Bovania buys FREMMs it will have to scrap its fighters (if it has any) and all the money it has spent for acquisition of aircraft, ammo, spares, personnel training would be in vain. FREMMs and Combat Boat 90s follow diametrically different philosophy. I proposed CB.90 but for different naval force structure than the one you are trying to build combining them with such potent units and at the same time so hard to operate with as the FREMMs.

8.
100-110 troops, if high quality and well armed, can do quite a lot.
If they took a town before the Cavalry or Mech Inf got there, what then?
Would the surprised militia in the town be able to counter them?
Shell the town despite possible civilian casualties?
Of course, defeat would be inevitable if the Paras were not supported by Marines or reinforcements, but 110 men can do alot. Enough to do some damage and tie up enough forces to allow a landing.
Of course, such an attack wouldn't happen without a major amphibious invasion, which I doubt Norland would have the capabilities for.

No nation of that callibre can field a combat force of 110 paras, let alone well trained. No force of 110 paras (we're not talking here about the russian VDV that has airborne IFVs, APCs, SP artillery, and all other kinds of airborne fire support) can take a town the way you think. First of all it is not possible to mount an assault like that unnoticed when there are hostile spies monitoring your airfields, when your force flies over ships of the enemy nation and then enter enemy radar coverage. This takes more than an hour and a half and that is plenty of time to alert your units. The militia will not be as surprised as you think when it is in so densely populated territory. You are talking general ocasion and these two countries are certainly not that case. None of them could possibly have the capabilities you think they have.

9.
I used company to reflect their personnel numbers, not the number of batteries. As companies have up to 250 men, the number of batteries of 6 guns could be anything from three until twenty. As for artillery recon and radar recon platoons, that's what the "Battle Coordination Platoon" is for.
I've said absolute nothing about MLRSs...

Battle coordination doesn't sound like artillery spotting. And when you mount an amphibious assault or an airborne assault against a beach or open space the 6 towed MLRS units can turn it into pieces.

10. Do you see professional tags on my nickname? I don't.
Your advocation of all ex-Soviet equipment doesn't seem professional either, considering that Bovania is surrounded by NATO countries.......

And where is the proof for that? Israel is surrounded by USSR and Russia-armed arab countries. Does it also buy weapons from the same source? Brazil and Argentina produce their own weapons and buy weapons from the USA. Does that stop Uruguay from buying weapons of USSR-origin? Shoud I go on? I never advocated all ex-soviet equipment. Some of it that is good and cheap has no alternatives. As ASFC said the surrounding countries were not necessarily in NATO during the Cold War and even if they were then what? NATO's new members all use weapons of ex-WP origin, because they were members in that organisation. Greece wasn't but it also fields large amount of weapons of WP-standart. Sweden has bought tons of USSR-produced weaponry form Germany. Does this mean it is no longer closer to the west? Or that it is leaning toward Russia? And here is something you should know very well. If a nation is concerned with its defense and finds a weapon crucial to that purpose then politics are irrelevant when it comes to acquisition.

 

[swerve]

L-159 and PC-9 are trainers, capable of providing some small amount of combat duties, not multi-role fighters. Can L-159 do air defense? Only against targets such as other light sub-sonic combat aircraft/trainers, business jets or military aircraft based on them or military transports. Super-sonic fighters penetrate air defenses at high rates of speed (close to sonic speeds) and at the time when L-159s, Hawks etc. aren't yet ready to scramble them can deploy their bombs/ AGMs/ whatever and hit afterburners to get the hell away. Helicopters also fly very close to the ground which makes detection difficult and hide in the terrain. Moreover even if the L-159s come to the area in time the helicopters fly at treetop-level at very low speeds and can even hover which makes intercept even more difficult. L-159s are only effective in situations in which mobile SAMs and AAA (small and medium callibre) are much more effective. L-159s for air defense are only for poor countries with large territories that cannot provide a full AD coverage to it. And here we are talking about countries about 4000-5000 square kms big. A single SAM-battalion and an AAA-battalion can do the job.
And why the hell should one buy L-159s when one could acquire upgraded F-5S? F-5S has the same radar. F-5 is numerous, L-159 is produced only in 72 units.=> Maintenance of an L-159 is more costly. F-5 is hell lot more maneuverable. F-5 is supersonic and L-159 isn't. So at a significant greater price the L-159 has only a fraction of the air defense capabilities the F-5S has....

The F-5E was built in large numbers, but there aren't many left that might be for sale, & the airframe hours are running out on them. It's a possibility, but only as an interim measure. Compare the price for an upgraded F-5E with its remaining lifespan, & it starts to look a lot more expensive. Dollars per year, not total cost. And why do you say maintenance is more costly? Can you back that up? It seems unlikely to me that a larger, more complicated, & much older aircraft, with older engines, is going to be cheaper to maintain. I would expect cost per flying hour to be a great deal higher for an F-5E.

SAMs can't do anything except shoot aircraft down. They can't drop bombs. Also, it's desirable to have an aircraft that can go up & take a look, can warn aircraft away, can deter by its presence. What that aircraft is depends on what you can afford, both to buy and operate, & what the threat is. The states discussed here are very small, with very limited resources. How many - if any - supersonic fighters will they be able to operate?

Israel is surrounded by USSR and Russia-armed arab countries.

No it isn't. Syria doesn't surround Israel.

 

[korvo]

Wow! Been abroad for a while and found quite a thread! I already had a quick read and I am glad to provide you guys with additional details, but maybe you could get me a summary first. Of course, this all started as a simple geofiction excercise that became quite complicated. Will have to think about some things first! Just some quick answers already:
Norland is - as said - roughly 1 1/2 the size of Luxembourg, hilly landscape, good roads, high living standards and let's say it has a "more than decent" budget. Location roughly near Bornholm Island. Bovania is somewhat bigger than Gotland and lies in between Poland and Sweden. The island was conquered by an order of teutonic knights in the 14th century and they have never been part of the Warpac or the IIIrd reich, due to the fact that they have always been "aggresively defensive" in their neutrality. Let's say that they went for the finnish way in trying to keep good ties with both the West and East during the cold war. In the past there have been some quarrels in between both countries, because of trading rights (the capitals of both countries where linked to the hanseatic trade system). Norland relies on high-tech, banking and trade. Bovania relies mostly on heavy industry (shipbuilding, heavy machinery, weapons manufacturing,...)
About the airforce: Maybe Gripens are overkill. Norland inherited some spitfires after WWII (in which they were neutral like Bovania), switched later on to Meteors and Hunters in the sixties. In the seventies they operated some A4 for a short while, going on to the Alphajet Lancier. Recently they acquired 8 newbuild Hawks. These aircraft were used for patrol (intercepting of Soviet aircraft during the cold war!) and would be used primarily in emergency for anti-shipping tasks and point air-defence. Bovania mostly used french or russian equipment of which the Su-27 are a remnant. They too should consider switching to a lighter and cheaper aircraft (M346?)
Will get back to you guys later - going to Ireland this week!

 

[kato]

Norland [...] Location roughly near Bornholm Island. Bovania is somewhat bigger than Gotland and lies in between Poland and Sweden.

Wouldn't that put them like ... within artillery range of each other?

 

[korvo]

Didn't think about that! But they would need a big cannon no?

 

[BuSOF]

The F-5E was built in large numbers, but there aren't many left that might be for sale, & the airframe hours are running out on them. It's a possibility, but only as an interim measure. Compare the price for an upgraded F-5E with its remaining lifespan, & it starts to look a lot more expensive. Dollars per year, not total cost. And why do you say maintenance is more costly? Can you back that up? It seems unlikely to me that a larger, more complicated, & much older aircraft, with older engines, is going to be cheaper to maintain. I would expect cost per flying hour to be a great deal higher for an F-5E.

The F-5 are being withdrawn not scrapped. It is not a problem for TAI to bring the airframes to 0 flight hours condition. The main cost issue concerning aircraft maintenance is the cost of spare parts. The more spare parts produced, the easier to obtain the lesser the costs. F-5 is one of the easiest fighters to maintain, that are still flying today. It is not that sofisticated that you think. As for the L-159 there were only 72 produced, of which not more than 28 are operational and the rest are already being used for spares so the problem is even growing. Not to mention that this is not a real combat aircraft. Even the L-39 has manouver problems and is less agile than the L-29. And the L-159 is EXACTLY THE SAME airframe only heavier. More powerfull engine is not everything needed to cope with that. When carrying more than 600kg of payload the L-159 is frankly a brick with wings and even with only two AIM-9s it is much inferior in maneuverability and speed to a real combat aircraft. With the money you will use for an L-159 you can buy a F-5E, buy a Grifo radar from Alenia, contract TAI to refurbish the aeroplane and make Singapore Aerospace integrate the radar and modern avionics to it. Then maintenance costs per year will be even.

SAMs can't do anything except shoot aircraft down. They can't drop bombs. Also, it's desirable to have an aircraft that can go up & take a look, can warn aircraft away, can deter by its presence. What that aircraft is depends on what you can afford, both to buy and operate, & what the threat is. The states discussed here are very small, with very limited resources. How many - if any - supersonic fighters will they be able to operate?

Well, this is what air defense means. Of course SAMs cannot drop bombs. You cannot expect to use one weapon system to take all kinds of tasks and expect it to act smoothly. Same goes to the pilot training. And you're talking about air policing, that is NOT air defense, it is something that fighters can do, not something they are produced to do. korvo stated that Norland's air defense system was established mainly to stop WP maritime patrol aircraft from entering its airspace. The best way to do that is by SAMs. The aircraft penetrate your airspace. You warn the other nation that this is a violation to international law. They don't stop. You put your SAMs on alert. The patrol aircraft keep on violating your airspace. You lock on them and they stop doing that. If they don't you can launch a missile that is not locked on them. I guarantee they will stop it right away, but even if we hypothetically say they don't you can shoot one aircraft and that will 100% bring them back to reality. The plane will fall into your territory or territorial waters and that is a proof noone could dispute. For that purpose SAMs are even more powerfull that Hunters. Unless you are a huge "Topgun"-fan. Do you think the fighter force will be able to inquire every possible violation of the airspace? It will not be as overpopulated as the swuss for example but still that's Europe... Of a force of roughly 8 units you won't be able to scramble more than the QRA unit of two. Not to mention SAMs are way more cheaper to operate than fighters. So you say fighters will not be very likely in the inventories of both countries and I agree. But then what is the point of trying to convince someone that fighters are better when their main skill will not be needed?

Still, korvo, I hate to dissappoint you, but Su-27 is extremely difficult for such a small country to operate no matter rich or poor. As for the Hawks they have say 10% to provide intereception of soviet aircraft. We are talking about the Baltic here. The Red Banner Baltic Navy used tactical reconnaissance aircraft and not the huge and slow Tu-142s there. If it is possible for a Hawk to intercept an Il-38 it is not for a Tu-22 or Su-24MR. So both options are not credible.

Money is a major problem, but not the only one that matters. Sorry, but a fighter force is not credible. Look at prosperous country like Luxembourg. It doesn't have fighters. You will say it is surrounded by friendly countries. OK. What about Slovenia? Another prosperous country. Is it also surrounded by friendly countries? Yes? When they were to enter NATO and were told that Italy can provide air defense to the country the slovenians were like: "WHAT?! They occupied us in WWII and now you wanna make us accept their help? Are you insane?" Then they signed a deal with Hungary. And Slovenia has a much bigger population than Norland and Bovania. It also has many fighter pilots from former Yugosla Air Force and still cannot produce a fighter force. Brunei is another prosperous country with no financial problems and it is thinking about Hawks for quite some time and still doesn't buy them. When you want to obtain a fighter force you will need a fighter base of no less than 900 men and even for a light attack force the number doesn't drop below 500 men. I mean "force" and not one or two Su-25s like in some banana republic. Can you give me at least one example for a state of that size with such a force? And not like 20 years ago, because technical sophistication grows and with it requirements (financial, technical, manpower...)

For that reason a combat force of some 10-12 AH-1Ws sounds a lot more credible if strike is such a big deal. PC-9 also don't work. The don't have any armor. Would you invest tons of money for the training of a crew that could die in its first engagement to fight on a machine, that could be shot down to small arms fire the moment it flies over the battlefield?

No it isn't. Syria doesn't surround Israel.

No, Syria doesn't surround Israel. And it is not the only military force in the region relying on russian equipment. Actually every military in the area (except maybe for the lebanese) uses russian weapons more or less.

 

[korvo]

. When you want to obtain a fighter force you will need a fighter base of no less than 900 men and even for a light attack force the number doesn't drop below 500 men. I mean "force" and not one or two Su-25s like in some banana republic. Can you give me at least one example for a state of that size with such a force?

Not necessarily; these 8 aircraft can be maintained by a civilian contractor and can operate from a civilian airfield. See them as some sort of "token air power", a means of showing the flag. A bit like Austria, that used Saab 105's during the cold war, and thus more of a political thing. Same story goes for Ireland. Intercepting and identifying a TU-95 or IL-18 at least shows some form of determination. Furthermore, helicopters are also not that cheap to maintain. Regarding SAMs, I was thinking of some RBS-70 MANPADS coordinated by a Giraffe radar, which would have sufficient coverage on a country as small as Norland. On the other hand, you could be right; I am not a military specialist - I am a civilian aviation specialist

 

[BuSOF]

Norland and Bovania have a long way to turn into Austria. Anyway further info is needed concerning them. I am thinking about Norland. It has ~500 000 people, ~4000 square kms, banking and trade, mountain terrain. What kind of mountain? Is it alpine with the one peak as the highest point in the center of it, or more like a plateau? Does it have tiny islands, and if yes where? It has an IAP, what other airfields does it have? It has a port. Is it big, are there more than one? How about the cities, towns and villages? When it has strong trading this means it has at least one railroad with huge storage infrastructure around it and leading to the port. In that concern what about the transportation? The airline could be something like that of the Faroe islands, at least I am thinking that way. Its shipping company should be bigger although. Is trere well developed tourism? Is there well developed agriculture and most important is there well developed fishing industry? These are important things, because they can help defense. For example if there are two-three tiny islands between Norland and Bovania you could establish radar and naval bases on them. If not an exotic idea would be to purchase two obsolete oil rigs and use them to the same purpose. Things like that. Anyway if you posted some more info about the countries in the net I would be interested to read it. I am not a military specialist, but a political analyst and understand somewhat of defense issues.
Cheers!