Hypothetical Forces : Transformation
- Thread starter kato
- Start date
So am I correct in reading that Orange is our primary threat?
Do we have any plans to participate in other peacekeeping/SASO operations around the world?
Do we plan to have a sustained, long-term presences in our Balkans peacekeeping mission?
Seems to me that we need to re-balance our land forces towards medium and/or light units. We have significant light, reserve forces, but our active duty ground units are all heavy. This makes them very hard to deploy and expensive to support.
If we wish to sustain a battalion presence overseas then we need at least 3 battalions to manage a reasonable rotation, preferably more.
On the aircraft front, I don't want anyone's hand-me-down hangar queens, so I would look at Gripen, Tornado ADV/IDS (if still in production), and Mirage 2000-5/9.
The Mirage seems like the best bang-for-buck, and we can buy it now (1995), but I don't like that our primary potential adversary uses it.
Tornados are an old, wheezy design, but are still in production. I have a feeling they cost a lot more to operate than the Mirage.
Gripen is still a few years from IOC, so we likely couldn't get them for many years (until after Sweden gets most of their lot).
One issue here is what BVR round we can buy. I'm guessing AMRAAM is off limits, so that leaves us with one of the various, much less capable, SARH rounds, or MICA.
Do we have any plans to participate in other peacekeeping/SASO operations around the world?
Do we plan to have a sustained, long-term presences in our Balkans peacekeeping mission?
Seems to me that we need to re-balance our land forces towards medium and/or light units. We have significant light, reserve forces, but our active duty ground units are all heavy. This makes them very hard to deploy and expensive to support.
If we wish to sustain a battalion presence overseas then we need at least 3 battalions to manage a reasonable rotation, preferably more.
On the aircraft front, I don't want anyone's hand-me-down hangar queens, so I would look at Gripen, Tornado ADV/IDS (if still in production), and Mirage 2000-5/9.
The Mirage seems like the best bang-for-buck, and we can buy it now (1995), but I don't like that our primary potential adversary uses it.
Tornados are an old, wheezy design, but are still in production. I have a feeling they cost a lot more to operate than the Mirage.
Gripen is still a few years from IOC, so we likely couldn't get them for many years (until after Sweden gets most of their lot).
One issue here is what BVR round we can buy. I'm guessing AMRAAM is off limits, so that leaves us with one of the various, much less capable, SARH rounds, or MICA.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Not a threat per se - relations are friendly - but they are essentially the primary opposing power to our policies. This of course could include some mutual blustering, and the forces should be ready for this. Additionally, in the event that Orange would actually attack at some point in the future, an alliance between the "split nations" Blue, Green 1, Green 2 would be extremely likely, so forces should ideally be at least somewhat compatible.
Not yet; considering the size of our country, the government would like to keep it at a one-deployment-at-a-time level, with perhaps minor deployments towards e.g. UN Observer missions, which are typically 5-10 px at most.
In concert with other nations, yes.
Tornado production line in UK is still in production (currently for Saudi Arabia, line should be full until 1998); however, neighbor Green 1 is currently upgrading part of their fleet to ADV/F.3 configuration. Green 1 is considering restarting their Tornado production line which was mothballed 3 years ago, including for own use, if funds for production can be found.
Yep, Mica, Super 530 or Skyflash essentially, depending on system. Green 1 has - for now - opted for Skyflash on their F-configured Tornados. Mica would be brand-new, being introduced in 1996.
Even Derby or AAM-4 are still a couple more years down the line, if we want "Western" missiles.
I agree with Mirage (2000) being the best for the buck in Western systems at that point, as American aircraft would be excluded. Unlike Tornado, it would be a far better system for air-to-air combat as well, at any range.
However, as we're looking at a "fresh start", i could very much imagine an established Eastern system as well. Including Su-30MK in particular.
Green 2 will likely join us in anything we choose, if it's not too extreme (JH-7 would be an example for a "too extreme" choice) - so there would be a common base there. Green 1 might join in some minor buys, such as aircraft pod systems and such.
Seems I got the disposition of population right.
So biggest threat is Orange, second is Pink, third is Green 2, and last is Green 1. As our country is too small and we are constrained by the treaties from total defence The way I displaced the military still looks good to me:
We have basicaly two main field formations, group them in two regiments if you like:
- tank battalion and one mechanised battalion, brigade field artillery, brigade engineers and brigade supporting units next to the capitol
- mechanised and mechanised (training) battalions around the second bigest city to the south of the capitol.
Then I say we position the artillery assets somewhat to the south-east of the capitol on the other bank of the river.
The way I see it Orange is benefited by the fact that its border area is rural, so it could move its forces easier, on the other hand we have a serious problem here.
For the borders with Green 1 and 2 I sugest we keep only one border battalion and one on rotation activated territorial battalion for each border.
About the bridges we need to launch a structural strenghtening program and also such measures, that would ease reconstruction in case of a demolition and minimise damage.
Foremost we need three bridge construction companies deployed permanently with the three most important bridges with pre-arangements for repair works in case needed.
As for the additional Leopard 2s we still could keep it cool and nonetheless look for oportunities to expand the inventory.
For the artillery I am looking for 36 M109s and around 54 FH-70s. Small shipments work fine, as we still don't have enough trained personnel and those units will most likely go to storage once delivered for a year or two.
Air Base One sounds good for the time being, but structural improvements for housing additionally up to 30 more Mi-17 should commence.
If none of the two options is at the geographical center of the country I decline them I give an order for works to start there. The same way as our artillery assets if we put the air base between the border and the rivers this makes defense a headache. Minor works could start regarding those two options, but NOT if that diverts money from our two main projects.
Offer from Green 1 is just what I was seeking for and I approve it.
As for MKI (if that is the Su-30MKI, otherwise I don't get what exactly are we talking about and need someone to light things up) is too much an overkill for a country half as big as Macedonia. MiG-29SE for the start, then upgrade to MiG-29M if possible is the optimal thing to do. Still the R-77 exceeds the 50km limit, but we can impress the media that this is advertisment talking.
When I see Orbats of the other countries i come to think:
BLUE definitely needs two SAM regiments. When they are established we could connect them and the fighters in a joint system with that of Green 1. We could also include Green 2, but they need to expand air defenses at least to a regiment of three battalions.
If Orange is a country vastly bigger than BLUE, as it was stated, then those forces are not that dangerous even if they nonetheless outnumber ours. Our greatest concern should be to keep them diplomatically to these numbers.
I dont recommend other peacekeeping operations. We got to pul that one through, then sit on our buts and if we don't get anything for ut cut the possibillity for future missions. As the Balkan mission I suggest a one-year term plus one more if the Parliament approves that measure. If everything works the way we want then wait one year after the mission's end and deploy to another spot on the globe.
Our active ground units need to be heavy as we're facing a heavy Orange force and we have the rivers behind our back, so if we convert our active forces to light units we will rapidly lose ground in a possible conflict. As for the peacekeeping mission noone says that mechanised infantry cannot deploy as light infantry. We are not deploying an infantry battalion but a mixed battalion-sized force, tailored for humanitarian aid.
Gripen is not a credible fighter for a country as small and flat as BLUE. Tornado is too expensive to operate. Mirage 2000 is an option, but I still go for MiGs. Afterall the R-73 has a maximum shooting range of 30 kms. No other missile of that type can top that. Not to mention the R-77. Some sources say it is superior to the AMRAAM but even if it's not it is nonetheless available to BLUE and AIM-120 is NOT. So I say we strike a deal with Green 2 and run a 50/50 acquisition program for MiG-29SE, say 30 units each.
So biggest threat is Orange, second is Pink, third is Green 2, and last is Green 1. As our country is too small and we are constrained by the treaties from total defence The way I displaced the military still looks good to me:
We have basicaly two main field formations, group them in two regiments if you like:
- tank battalion and one mechanised battalion, brigade field artillery, brigade engineers and brigade supporting units next to the capitol
- mechanised and mechanised (training) battalions around the second bigest city to the south of the capitol.
Then I say we position the artillery assets somewhat to the south-east of the capitol on the other bank of the river.
The way I see it Orange is benefited by the fact that its border area is rural, so it could move its forces easier, on the other hand we have a serious problem here.
For the borders with Green 1 and 2 I sugest we keep only one border battalion and one on rotation activated territorial battalion for each border.
About the bridges we need to launch a structural strenghtening program and also such measures, that would ease reconstruction in case of a demolition and minimise damage.
Foremost we need three bridge construction companies deployed permanently with the three most important bridges with pre-arangements for repair works in case needed.
As for the additional Leopard 2s we still could keep it cool and nonetheless look for oportunities to expand the inventory.
For the artillery I am looking for 36 M109s and around 54 FH-70s. Small shipments work fine, as we still don't have enough trained personnel and those units will most likely go to storage once delivered for a year or two.
Air Base One sounds good for the time being, but structural improvements for housing additionally up to 30 more Mi-17 should commence.
If none of the two options is at the geographical center of the country I decline them I give an order for works to start there. The same way as our artillery assets if we put the air base between the border and the rivers this makes defense a headache. Minor works could start regarding those two options, but NOT if that diverts money from our two main projects.
Offer from Green 1 is just what I was seeking for and I approve it.
As for MKI (if that is the Su-30MKI, otherwise I don't get what exactly are we talking about and need someone to light things up) is too much an overkill for a country half as big as Macedonia. MiG-29SE for the start, then upgrade to MiG-29M if possible is the optimal thing to do. Still the R-77 exceeds the 50km limit, but we can impress the media that this is advertisment talking.
When I see Orbats of the other countries i come to think:
BLUE definitely needs two SAM regiments. When they are established we could connect them and the fighters in a joint system with that of Green 1. We could also include Green 2, but they need to expand air defenses at least to a regiment of three battalions.
If Orange is a country vastly bigger than BLUE, as it was stated, then those forces are not that dangerous even if they nonetheless outnumber ours. Our greatest concern should be to keep them diplomatically to these numbers.
I dont recommend other peacekeeping operations. We got to pul that one through, then sit on our buts and if we don't get anything for ut cut the possibillity for future missions. As the Balkan mission I suggest a one-year term plus one more if the Parliament approves that measure. If everything works the way we want then wait one year after the mission's end and deploy to another spot on the globe.
Our active ground units need to be heavy as we're facing a heavy Orange force and we have the rivers behind our back, so if we convert our active forces to light units we will rapidly lose ground in a possible conflict. As for the peacekeeping mission noone says that mechanised infantry cannot deploy as light infantry. We are not deploying an infantry battalion but a mixed battalion-sized force, tailored for humanitarian aid.
Gripen is not a credible fighter for a country as small and flat as BLUE. Tornado is too expensive to operate. Mirage 2000 is an option, but I still go for MiGs. Afterall the R-73 has a maximum shooting range of 30 kms. No other missile of that type can top that. Not to mention the R-77. Some sources say it is superior to the AMRAAM but even if it's not it is nonetheless available to BLUE and AIM-120 is NOT. So I say we strike a deal with Green 2 and run a 50/50 acquisition program for MiG-29SE, say 30 units each.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #25
I guess we can shortlist four aircraft for our future airforce for now:
- Panavia Tornado ADV
- Dassault Mirage 2000
- Mikojan-Gureyevich MiG-29SE
- Sukhoi Su-30MK
Note: MKI won't be available for another 5-6 years, hence MK variant shortlisted.
Each type with distinct pros and contras. Acquisition amount would be two squadrons for around 30 aircraft at least.
---
Regarding "relative" size, ground combat forces, roughly, when fully mobilized according to respective plans:
Blue - one btl for every 800 km²
Green 1 - one btl for every 1,300 km²
Green 2 - one btl for every 1,000 km²
Orange - one btl for every 2,100 km²
The border between Orange and the "block" of Green 1 and Orange would be roughly 1500 km long, with about 350 km between Orange and Blue.
- Panavia Tornado ADV
- Dassault Mirage 2000
- Mikojan-Gureyevich MiG-29SE
- Sukhoi Su-30MK
Note: MKI won't be available for another 5-6 years, hence MK variant shortlisted.
Each type with distinct pros and contras. Acquisition amount would be two squadrons for around 30 aircraft at least.
---
Regarding "relative" size, ground combat forces, roughly, when fully mobilized according to respective plans:
Blue - one btl for every 800 km²
Green 1 - one btl for every 1,300 km²
Green 2 - one btl for every 1,000 km²
Orange - one btl for every 2,100 km²
The border between Orange and the "block" of Green 1 and Orange would be roughly 1500 km long, with about 350 km between Orange and Blue.
Sounds good to me. I would expect from Russia to witdraw the one design when it sees that we are leaning towards the other in order not to ruine its chances to snatch the deal, so I suggest to cut the Sukhoi. Anyway it's too big for such a small country, don't you think. The way I see it BLUE is trying to stick completely to defensive doctrine, so there is no need for long-range raids deep into well protected orange airspace. Panavia is also too big and it's getting old, so What do you say we play MiG vs. Mirage?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #27
True; we're also primarily looking for an interceptor after all, not a long-range air superiority missile truck.
MiG would have the primary plus of being cheap, while "good enough" for the envisioned role.
Mirage 2000-5 would have the distinct plus of being far more capable as a multi-role system, and still giving a "missile truck" capability if we need it.
MiG would have the primary plus of being cheap, while "good enough" for the envisioned role.
Mirage 2000-5 would have the distinct plus of being far more capable as a multi-role system, and still giving a "missile truck" capability if we need it.
Since we are trying for EU membership, I would stick with EU aircraft and systems, personally. Gives us more political leverage. Plus it will aid with interoperability. I would hate to try to manage IFF and comms between friendly forces, MIGs and SAM batteries.
We could try a Hi/Lo mix and go with Tornado ADVs plus Hawk LIFTs. If we could get JTIDS integration on the Hawks, and a few Erieyes to help manage the battlespace for us, we might be able to counter Orange's superior numbers with better integration. Hawk would also be our primary trainer.
The Erieyes would vector flights of Tornados and Hawks with radars off. The Tornados would light up when in Skyflash range and do their BVR business, while the Hawks closed for the WVR furball.
This would work a lot better if we could get an HMS and HOBS missile for the Hawks.
Mirage 2000 probably still is a better bet, though. They have the multi-role advantage to boot.
Gripen would be a viable contender, IMHO, but the delivery schedule would be too far in the future for us.
We could try a Hi/Lo mix and go with Tornado ADVs plus Hawk LIFTs. If we could get JTIDS integration on the Hawks, and a few Erieyes to help manage the battlespace for us, we might be able to counter Orange's superior numbers with better integration. Hawk would also be our primary trainer.
The Erieyes would vector flights of Tornados and Hawks with radars off. The Tornados would light up when in Skyflash range and do their BVR business, while the Hawks closed for the WVR furball.
This would work a lot better if we could get an HMS and HOBS missile for the Hawks.
Mirage 2000 probably still is a better bet, though. They have the multi-role advantage to boot.
Gripen would be a viable contender, IMHO, but the delivery schedule would be too far in the future for us.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #29
Terrain north of Blue border.
Ground Forces: Original initial Battle Plan for Blue Forces, if used offensively.
Anticipated by Orange, of course. Primary point for Blue would be to establish defensive line inside enemy territory in sufficient distance from own urban centers along natural chokepoints etc. Green 1 would contribute one brigade in this scenario.
Ground Forces: Original initial Battle Plan for Blue Forces, if used offensively.
Anticipated by Orange, of course. Primary point for Blue would be to establish defensive line inside enemy territory in sufficient distance from own urban centers along natural chokepoints etc. Green 1 would contribute one brigade in this scenario.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Questionable if that is even needed, for defense anyway. Put three to four ground radar stations appropriately on the mountaineous regions, and those can take over that role up to 100 km beyond the border easily; more or less a classic MiG-based interception setup.
AWACS for a country of roughly 12000 square kms and flat terrain?! Not realistic, not needed.
GCI radars would be among the first targets in any major conflict, and they have major horizon and terrain blind-spots.
AEW provides significantly longer warning times, fewer blind-spots, and enhanced survivability.
Ideally we'd have both. We'd rely on ground radars in peacetime, and save our AEW aircraft for wartime.
Blue air will be outnumbered by Orange air. We can't afford to match them, plane for plane. So, IMHO, we either need to spend as little as possible on our air force - expecting they will be destroyed soon after start of hostilities - or come up with a comprehensive plan to defend our airspace.
Ok, I see your point. For some reason I thought it was larger.
OTOH, Israel is only 22,000 sq km, and they certainly want and need AEW.
I completely agree, why not use the swiss tactic, the swiss concede that in a war their airbases would be first to go while the planes are in the air so therefore they have mobile air force units with runway lights missiles etc. And use the highways...
To complement this at least 1 squadron of Gripens (as they provide the most advantage in this situation, their short range but large payload is useful) if not two are needed as well as a cargo squadron of C-130's or comparable aircraft along with a squadron of AWACS (1-2 planes). Do Gripens have the ability to refuel in flight or refuel each other in-flight like the A-4 skyhawk?
That offer of the training squadron of alpha's should be taken as well as they can provide a useful ground attack capability in the event that gripens are all tied up
I'll have my take on this.As none of the "hypothetical..." threads has been active in the last two months, here's a new one
However, the focus of this will be on something different from usual: Not upgrading a military to counter an existing or potential thread, but simply transforming a military from a Cold-War footing into a modern, 21st Century military.
The current year is 1995, and your task is to present a 5-year plan and a follow-up outline on how to do this for the country and military presented below.
A few points:
The country is small, both geographically and also by population. Thus, as small indigenous defense industry as possible. In small countries the effect of local defence industry is usually counterproductive.
Second, the number 25 000 for combatants is small. Thus focus should be on quality.
Third, while much of the equipment is usable, it's not all relevant for peacetime and international operations. Thus my take on this.
Objective force structure:
*Defence HQ
Just single peacetime defence HQ, with capability of mobile operations in wartime. Defence HQ forms a national intelligence picture and directs the operations.
*Signals Command
Operates nationwide signals network where every unit can plug and play. Co-operation with Police, rescue services and other government authorities. The goal is to create a secure, effective and fast national communications network.
*Special forces battalion
Co-located with Helicopter battalion. Capability to deploy 1 platoon to international operations, 1 platoon in full-time QRA.
*Helicopter battalion
Capability to support peacetime contingencies, operations of Border Guard and 1 special forces platoon. Focus on quality. Perhaps 8-10 AS535 RESCO.
*Ground forces command (Adminstrative)
1 Armor battalion (Leo)
1 Mechanized infantry battalion (Marder and M113)
1 Motorized infantry battalion (Fuchs)
1 Artillery battalion (M109)
1 Combat engineer battalion
Each of the battalion HQ's is capable of acting as battle group HQ. Each can take turn as deployed HQ to peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping battalion is tailored from companies of Ground Forces Command and will have special equipment pool tailored for peacekeeping. This means light wheeled mine resistant patrol vehicles, more but not as secure communications etc.
*Support Command (Adminstrative)
Capability to support peacetime operations and international operations and to plan for wartime logistics.
*Air Defence Command (Adminstrative)
Squadron of 10 fighters for sovereignity maintenance
ADA Regiment with Gepards, objective of purchasing area SAM system
AD Situations unit with perhaps 1-2 peacetime fixed radars and a number of mobile air surveillance radars. With small country, focus on quality. Additionally AD Situations unit will use intelligence gathered from visual observation posts.
*Border Guard
Ditch MP's, have Border Guards double as MP's for those tasks TDC reservists cannot handle. QRA unit co-located with Helicopter Battalion. Area surveillance units which have wartime task of intelligence gathering.
*Territorial defence command
All the engineer capabilities not needed for peacetime and international operations, ditto for medical and logistics capabilities. Medical and engineer capabilities should have small QRA units usable for international and national emergencies (for example, airline accident, floods).
Security companies with tasks of securing vital locations, contributing intelligence and finally operations against enemy lines of communications. These should have full-time co-operation with local police, adminstration and rescue authorities so they can be used in peacetime contingencies as well. The Security companies should be tailored to use various available former first line equipment, eq. if the unit operates in open terrain, it can use Jagdpanzer.
Finally, FH-70 battalion and MLRS battalion. These units have not much relevance for peacetime or peacekeeping operations but are very useful in conventional war. Thus these should be reserve units.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #37
Israel also has a lot of room to move into, both hostile and neutral airspace to be controlled.
As for airbases - in the event of war with Orange, the Airforce could likely rebase backwards away from the front to Green 1 or Green 2, so that's not that much of an issue.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #38
Some ToE information:
Current ToE of Armour Brigade:
- 1-1 Btl : Mixed* (28 Leo 2, 11 Marder, 5 M113)
- 1-2 Btl : MechInf (35 Marder, 6 M113/Mortar, 8 M113)
- 1-3 Btl : Armour (41 Leo 2, 5 M113)
- 1-4 Btl : Armour (41 Leo 2, 5 M113)
- 1-5 Btl : Artillery (18 M109) + Escort Pl (4 FK20 guns, trucks)
- Organic Staff Coy w/ Security Pl + recon pl (8 M577, 4 FK20 guns, trucks, light vehicles)
- Organic Combat Eng Coy
- Organic Maintenance Coy
- Organic Supply Coy
- Organic Medical Coy
- Attached Anti-Tank Coy (12 Jaguar 1)
- Attached NBC Coy
Territorial Defense Units
- x9 Light Infantry Btl (trucks)
- x9 Security Pl (7 FK20 guns, trucks)
- x3 Mortar Coy (18 towed mortars, trucks)
- x3 Anti-Tank Pl (7 KanJgPz)
- x3 Organic Supply Coys for Regiments
- x3 Light Infantry / Security Btl (trucks; tasked with defending fixed sites in pl/coy strength ea)
- x1 Field Artillery Btl (18 M56 howitzers, trucks)
Other units combined into three regiments with set command; field artillery battalion is at "division" level above that, and can be split into batteries to support regiments operationally.
Regarding Fuchs vehicles, current disposition:
36 TPz 1A2: APC variant; spread in six platoons among Eng units.
36 TPz 1A3: NBC Recon variant; in six platoons amont two NBC Btls.
GCI radars would be among the first targets in any major conflict, and they have major horizon and terrain blind-spots. But for a country of that size and especially terrain blind-spots are a minor problem. GCI radar stations are vulnerable, but AEW&C aircraft are even times more vulnerable. They would even present the problem of diverting fighters for their own escort and that from a force that will be quite compact with no spare units. 3 AEW&C aircraft will most probably cost as much as a fighter squadron. So how does the option for AWACS force fit in your opinion not to spend much on air force? As regard to Israel, as kato said this is another case. Israel has to cover a great deal of the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East in order to survive. It also has to be capable to face and top a numerous combat aviation force for the same reason.
We are not trying to match Orange Air Force here. We're only trying to provide a credible air defense against peacetime intruders and a force that will be able to win a day or two for the army to mobilize before being destroyed. Swiss plans for air defence are completely inapplicable to BLUE.
1) BLUE doesn't have the industry to keep the planes in the air in wartime
2) It doesn't have a big number of pilots, it doesn't have a big number of planes, it is not possible to change that in the near future
3) It is not possible to field permanently a big fighter force
4) It also completely lacks AAA and SAMs
5) The swiss have their redoubt airfields, built in the mountains, protected even from nuclear blasts and BLUE is flat with no comprehensive defensive infrastructure
6) It is so small that even if highways are used as wartime airstrips it is not a big problem to knock them also out with an air strike campaign.
7) Gripens are no advantage at all. No disrespect to the swedish members of the forum, but Gripen is not a credible fighter. It is a guerilla fighter for hide-and-seek shoot-and-run-tactics. More so they need every force multiplier they can get: AEW&C, in-flight-refueling, big territory, adverse terrain, huge number of dispersion facilities, greater number of personnel, both pilot and ground, indigenious extensive maintenance facilities. Its engine lacks the thrust needed to put it in line in a dof fight against MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and F-16, its radar is not better and probably shorter ranged, the modern missiles AIM-120 and AIM-9 are not available to BLUE as they are supplied by the US and they are not likely to supply them to us at that point. Gripen has some considerable rough (wartime) airfield characteristics, but so does the MiG-29 and in that it is UNMATCHED by any other leading fighter aircraft.
A squadron of C-130 is not needed, 3 maximum 4 units are more than enough. Alpha Jets are getting old even in 1995 and their maintenance posed a big and costly problem even then. For that reason the poles declined the possibillity to rearm their naval Iskra units with Alpha Jets. At the cost of second-hand Alpha Jets we could easily acquire L-39s or even L-59s which are capable of using the same unguided ordnance the MiG-29 can. Mirage 2000 and Alpha Jets don't have that interoperabillity. I know that it will all come to pro- vs. against- russian weapons and the vote will fall on the M2000, AJs, but still 29s, 39/59 are the better and much more cheap option. More so The L-39s are combat proven and the Alpha Jets are not.
Thus, as small indigenous defense industry as possible. In small countries the effect of local defence industry is usually counterproductive. I agree with that and this is what I was calling for. Surely it is too difficult for BLUE to produce MBTs, IFVs, APCs and aircraft, but it is more than possible for small arms, MANPADS, ATGMs and artillery, plus the already existing automotive producers can easily provide dual-purpose vehicles.
You say the number 25 000 for combatants is small but I think it is enough for the time being, and BLUE has constrains by the treaties.
*Defence HQ
Just single peacetime defence HQ, with capability of mobile operations in wartime. Defence HQ forms a national intelligence picture and directs the operations.
=> Agree
*Signals Command
Operates nationwide signals network where every unit can plug and play. Co-operation with Police, rescue services and other government authorities. The goal is to create a secure, effective and fast national communications network.
=> Agree
*Special forces battalion
Co-located with Helicopter battalion. Capability to deploy 1 platoon to international operations, 1 platoon in full-time QRA.
=> Agree. If we also put 3 to 5 small military cargo planes as the C-212 we can use them for parachute training, as special forces need that abillity.
*Helicopter battalion
Capability to support peacetime contingencies, operations of Border Guard and 1 special forces platoon. Focus on quality. Perhaps 8-10 AS535 RESCO.
=> Agree to the point about the aircraft. I say 8-14 Bo.105s and up to 16 Mi-17W. If the need for combat helicopter arises second hand ex NVA-Mi-24s
*Ground forces command (Adminstrative)
1 Armor battalion (Leo)
1 Mechanized infantry battalion (Marder and M113)
1 Motorized infantry battalion (Fuchs)
1 Artillery battalion (M109)
1 Combat engineer battalion
Each of the battalion HQ's is capable of acting as battle group HQ. Each can take turn as deployed HQ to peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping battalion is tailored from companies of Ground Forces Command and will have special equipment pool tailored for peacekeeping. This means light wheeled mine resistant patrol vehicles, more but not as secure communications etc.
I would add a third infantry battalion to also act as a training center, but IFV and APC SHOULD BE aphibious and the Marders are not.
*Support Command (Adminstrative)
Capability to support peacetime operations and international operations and to plan for wartime logistics.
=> In general yes, but you don't say anything specific.
*Air Defence Command (Adminstrative)
Squadron of 10 fighters for sovereignity maintenance
ADA Regiment with Gepards, objective of purchasing area SAM system
AD Situations unit with perhaps 1-2 peacetime fixed radars and a number of mobile air surveillance radars. With small country, focus on quality. Additionally AD Situations unit will use intelligence gathered from visual observation posts.
=> If the plans are to give a shot and then run away 10 fighters would be OK, otherwise not. Even quality cannot prevent the need for greater numbers when we see our neighbours inventories.
Optimal number of ground defences is 2 mobile SAM battalions, 1 mobile AAA battalion and 2 reserve towed AAA battalions plus MANPADS.
*Border Guard
Ditch MP's, have Border Guards double as MP's for those tasks TDC reservists cannot handle. QRA unit co-located with Helicopter Battalion. Area surveillance units which have wartime task of intelligence gathering.
=> I agree on that, I think the maximum force would be: four field battalions with each of them covering a part of the country and one border, and a special security battalion in the capitol with a special forces company, security company, riot control company (including a dog-handling platoon and an EOD-section) and a Gendarmery training center.
*Territorial defence command
All the engineer capabilities not needed for peacetime and international operations, ditto for medical and logistics capabilities. Medical and engineer capabilities should have small QRA units usable for international and national emergencies (for example, airline accident, floods).
Security companies with tasks of securing vital locations, contributing intelligence and finally operations against enemy lines of communications. These should have full-time co-operation with local police, adminstration and rescue authorities so they can be used in peacetime contingencies as well. The Security companies should be tailored to use various available former first line equipment, eq. if the unit operates in open terrain, it can use Jagdpanzer.
Finally, FH-70 battalion and MLRS battalion. These units have not much relevance for peacetime or peacekeeping operations but are very useful in conventional war. Thus these should be reserve units.
=> Agree to the point of the artillery where I think that additional 1 MLRS and 2 towed artillery battalions to those you mention are needed.
If warplans call for rebasing to Green 1 and 2 that puts things in a whole different perspective to the plans to that point.
We are not trying to match Orange Air Force here. We're only trying to provide a credible air defense against peacetime intruders and a force that will be able to win a day or two for the army to mobilize before being destroyed. Swiss plans for air defence are completely inapplicable to BLUE.
1) BLUE doesn't have the industry to keep the planes in the air in wartime
2) It doesn't have a big number of pilots, it doesn't have a big number of planes, it is not possible to change that in the near future
3) It is not possible to field permanently a big fighter force
4) It also completely lacks AAA and SAMs
5) The swiss have their redoubt airfields, built in the mountains, protected even from nuclear blasts and BLUE is flat with no comprehensive defensive infrastructure
6) It is so small that even if highways are used as wartime airstrips it is not a big problem to knock them also out with an air strike campaign.
7) Gripens are no advantage at all. No disrespect to the swedish members of the forum, but Gripen is not a credible fighter. It is a guerilla fighter for hide-and-seek shoot-and-run-tactics. More so they need every force multiplier they can get: AEW&C, in-flight-refueling, big territory, adverse terrain, huge number of dispersion facilities, greater number of personnel, both pilot and ground, indigenious extensive maintenance facilities. Its engine lacks the thrust needed to put it in line in a dof fight against MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and F-16, its radar is not better and probably shorter ranged, the modern missiles AIM-120 and AIM-9 are not available to BLUE as they are supplied by the US and they are not likely to supply them to us at that point. Gripen has some considerable rough (wartime) airfield characteristics, but so does the MiG-29 and in that it is UNMATCHED by any other leading fighter aircraft.
A squadron of C-130 is not needed, 3 maximum 4 units are more than enough. Alpha Jets are getting old even in 1995 and their maintenance posed a big and costly problem even then. For that reason the poles declined the possibillity to rearm their naval Iskra units with Alpha Jets. At the cost of second-hand Alpha Jets we could easily acquire L-39s or even L-59s which are capable of using the same unguided ordnance the MiG-29 can. Mirage 2000 and Alpha Jets don't have that interoperabillity. I know that it will all come to pro- vs. against- russian weapons and the vote will fall on the M2000, AJs, but still 29s, 39/59 are the better and much more cheap option. More so The L-39s are combat proven and the Alpha Jets are not.
Thus, as small indigenous defense industry as possible. In small countries the effect of local defence industry is usually counterproductive. I agree with that and this is what I was calling for. Surely it is too difficult for BLUE to produce MBTs, IFVs, APCs and aircraft, but it is more than possible for small arms, MANPADS, ATGMs and artillery, plus the already existing automotive producers can easily provide dual-purpose vehicles.
You say the number 25 000 for combatants is small but I think it is enough for the time being, and BLUE has constrains by the treaties.
*Defence HQ
Just single peacetime defence HQ, with capability of mobile operations in wartime. Defence HQ forms a national intelligence picture and directs the operations.
=> Agree
*Signals Command
Operates nationwide signals network where every unit can plug and play. Co-operation with Police, rescue services and other government authorities. The goal is to create a secure, effective and fast national communications network.
=> Agree
*Special forces battalion
Co-located with Helicopter battalion. Capability to deploy 1 platoon to international operations, 1 platoon in full-time QRA.
=> Agree. If we also put 3 to 5 small military cargo planes as the C-212 we can use them for parachute training, as special forces need that abillity.
*Helicopter battalion
Capability to support peacetime contingencies, operations of Border Guard and 1 special forces platoon. Focus on quality. Perhaps 8-10 AS535 RESCO.
=> Agree to the point about the aircraft. I say 8-14 Bo.105s and up to 16 Mi-17W. If the need for combat helicopter arises second hand ex NVA-Mi-24s
*Ground forces command (Adminstrative)
1 Armor battalion (Leo)
1 Mechanized infantry battalion (Marder and M113)
1 Motorized infantry battalion (Fuchs)
1 Artillery battalion (M109)
1 Combat engineer battalion
Each of the battalion HQ's is capable of acting as battle group HQ. Each can take turn as deployed HQ to peacekeeping operations. Peacekeeping battalion is tailored from companies of Ground Forces Command and will have special equipment pool tailored for peacekeeping. This means light wheeled mine resistant patrol vehicles, more but not as secure communications etc.
I would add a third infantry battalion to also act as a training center, but IFV and APC SHOULD BE aphibious and the Marders are not.
*Support Command (Adminstrative)
Capability to support peacetime operations and international operations and to plan for wartime logistics.
=> In general yes, but you don't say anything specific.
*Air Defence Command (Adminstrative)
Squadron of 10 fighters for sovereignity maintenance
ADA Regiment with Gepards, objective of purchasing area SAM system
AD Situations unit with perhaps 1-2 peacetime fixed radars and a number of mobile air surveillance radars. With small country, focus on quality. Additionally AD Situations unit will use intelligence gathered from visual observation posts.
=> If the plans are to give a shot and then run away 10 fighters would be OK, otherwise not. Even quality cannot prevent the need for greater numbers when we see our neighbours inventories.
Optimal number of ground defences is 2 mobile SAM battalions, 1 mobile AAA battalion and 2 reserve towed AAA battalions plus MANPADS.
*Border Guard
Ditch MP's, have Border Guards double as MP's for those tasks TDC reservists cannot handle. QRA unit co-located with Helicopter Battalion. Area surveillance units which have wartime task of intelligence gathering.
=> I agree on that, I think the maximum force would be: four field battalions with each of them covering a part of the country and one border, and a special security battalion in the capitol with a special forces company, security company, riot control company (including a dog-handling platoon and an EOD-section) and a Gendarmery training center.
*Territorial defence command
All the engineer capabilities not needed for peacetime and international operations, ditto for medical and logistics capabilities. Medical and engineer capabilities should have small QRA units usable for international and national emergencies (for example, airline accident, floods).
Security companies with tasks of securing vital locations, contributing intelligence and finally operations against enemy lines of communications. These should have full-time co-operation with local police, adminstration and rescue authorities so they can be used in peacetime contingencies as well. The Security companies should be tailored to use various available former first line equipment, eq. if the unit operates in open terrain, it can use Jagdpanzer.
Finally, FH-70 battalion and MLRS battalion. These units have not much relevance for peacetime or peacekeeping operations but are very useful in conventional war. Thus these should be reserve units.
=> Agree to the point of the artillery where I think that additional 1 MLRS and 2 towed artillery battalions to those you mention are needed.
If warplans call for rebasing to Green 1 and 2 that puts things in a whole different perspective to the plans to that point.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #40
Don't specifically call for it i'd say, but it's kept as an emergency solution.