Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[Jon K]

Summary, Ground Force Propositions

Armour Brigade:
- more/less Leos?
- transform to MechInf Brigade?
- new IFV/APC?)

I'd say that the heavy equipment is sufficient, especially if modernized, up to 2010 or so, with Leo's for even more time. Personally I'd go away with brigade structure and organize the mobile forces as independent battle groups. This would have the plus of possible rotation in international tasks, ensuring that the troops might take part in international exercises and peacekeeping deployments as whole units, maximizing training gains.

ADA Regiment:
- merge with SAM structure, if those procured? (Air Defence Command)
- reduce assets? (reduction to one SPAAG btl)
- note: MANPADS are present within this unit, i'd say around 70-80 teams)

That depends on direction AF procurement is taking. 30 fighters is more than necessary for sovereignity. It's enough for credible air defence, but then the problem is that bases need protection themselves. Also with just 30 fighters one cannot mount air campaign against an enemy having comprehensive air defense, the cost is just too prohibitive. One problem we haven't discussed is enemy SAM's, with the country being small with Orange possibly purchasing long range SAM's one's own fighters would have to always work within enemy SAM engagement envelope.

Artillery Regiment:
- expand?
- extended recon capability? UAVs?
- replace MLRS? with what? (Astros-II up to SS-40? Russian?))

This is where I would invest in addition to robust signals. The country is small, with Border Guard and territorial defense one can operate fairly good targeting network all around. One cannot match the Orange in amount of manouver forces, but matching with firepower is possible, especially as the country's land area is small. I'd go as far as say that ground forces should be focused on to have very strong indirect fire capabilities. With the enemy not being a great power even FH-70's, which should be available, would be good addition to the inventory. MLRS would be preferable, though.

UAV's would be needed to widen surveillance coverage to the enemy side.

Territorial Defence
- keep as is?
- transform into National Guard essentially? (own medical/eng assets)

In short term, keep as it is, but for longer term aim for a structure which would provide logistics etc. units not needed for peacetime tasks. The combat capabilities should be focused on security/guard tasks, surveillance and targeting and finally, perhaps operating as an AT screen, equipped with long range ATGM's.

 

[Jon K]

- necessary?
- At which layer (medium/long)?
- Systems? Get the I-Hawks? (probably best Western system we'll get for a while, since no Patriot or NASAMS)
- number of possibilities, e.g. Skyguard w/Aspide, also of course Russian path
- cost issue in this rapidly rising with capability

I'd spend most of the air defence funding on SAM's. The reason is small size of the hypothetical country. Long range SAM's would offer cheapest chance for offensive counter-air operations, as the range would go far to the Orange side. They also don't need vulnerable (or expensive) base infrastructure of fighters.

I would see need for two tier missile system, one of long range (as much range as possible) for national and offensive use, and one of medium/short range capable of guarding vital spots. About MANPADS, I don't see need for them as there's plenty of Gepards.

Helicopters:
- taking 10-12 Bo-105 seems to be relatively unanimous here; keep the 30-year-old Alouette-IIs?
- potentially a few more for police/borderguard "civilian" function
- heavier helos? Super Puma / Cougar / IAR-330 / Mi-17? how many?
- squadrons?)?

If Bo's are kept, make sure that country's medical service and police operate the same type. Perhaps offer them surplus helos. SAR helos (mountains) and heavy helos should be of similar type. I'd go for RESCO Super Puma, it offers good capabilities and excellent survivability. There ain't possibility of Ride of Valkyries, just small liaison flights and perhaps insertion of special forces platoon, go for quality.

b]Transport:[/b]
- used C130 have been mentioned
- Alternatives (used C160, used G.222, CN-235, An-24/26) ?
- Numbers?
- Airfield support? (C-130 is about the maximum supportable at the moment)?

Call Fedex and Antonov Transport

The country is so small I don't see a reason why planes are needed. Maybe two Presidential (or whatever) biz jets, one of which is operated as EW platform with pod equipment at peacetime, other as mobilization asset with similar equipment.

Training:[/b]
- L-39? Hawks? Alpha Jet?
- must-have or should other countries be approached for joint training?

I'd go for joint training. Operating, and above all starting, training infrastructure is very expensive and trainers are not really worth the cost in strike capabilities.

 

[B.Smitty]

I would be concerned about those Mig "fire sales",

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hIQjjBwMOMkpS4PVZvI1T2OqPfHQ

"MOSCOW (AFP) — Algeria wants to return 15 fighter jets it bought from Russia because of their poor quality, the Kommersant daily reported on Monday, citing an official from Russia's state United Aerospace Corporation.

The official said Russia was proposing to take back the MiG-29 jets, which were delivered to Algeria in 2006 and 2007, but only if Algeria bought more modern and expensive planes such as the MiG-29M2 or the MiG-35."

 

[kato]

I would be concerned about those Mig "fire sales",

Indeed, that's why i put them at 20 million apiece minimum. I think the Malaysian sale might be a good indication of what we can get (MiG-29N variant: SE with R-77, Western IFF, inflight refueling).
These MiG-29N were deactivated in 2007 not for some failures, but for a lack of pilots (pilots were retrained for Su-30MKM). There have apparently been some problems with regard to combat readiness. Only two aircraft crashed (1998, 2004), which isn't that bad regarding peacetime attrition.

 

[kato]

Personally I'd go away with brigade structure and organize the mobile forces as independent battle groups.

Regimental Combat Teams?

We could probably create three RCTs with a small tank/cavalry multi-role battalion, a larger inf battalion, and a number of support assets (artillery battery, log, eng, med coys) each. Sort of a smaller version of a HBCT. Inf battalion could be either heavy or medium (eg one RCT with heavy/IFV-mounted inf, two RCT with medium/APC-mounted inf).

 

[B.Smitty]

Indeed, that's why i put them at 20 million apiece minimum. I think the Malaysian sale might be a good indication of what we can get (MiG-29N variant: SE with R-77, Western IFF, inflight refueling).
These MiG-29N were deactivated in 2007 not for some failures, but for a lack of pilots (pilots were retrained for Su-30MKM). There have apparently been some problems with regard to combat readiness. Only two aircraft crashed (1998, 2004), which isn't that bad regarding peacetime attrition.

Well if we go by the Malaysian deal (18 aircraft for $500 million), that's ~$28 million per aircraft.

If we go by the Egyptian deal, "Russia offered Egypt 40 MiG-29SMT for 1.5 billion in 2006", and do a simple inflation adjustment, we get ~$28 million in FY05 dollars.

So $28 million seems about right.

Given your figures for support and operations costs, that would put a 5-year plan for 24 Mig-29s at $1,190 million.

Of course neither of those deals includes Westernization. I have no idea how much that would cost, but I wouldn't be shocked for a minimal package to be $5 mil or more per aircraft.

If we go with 45 million for a westernized Su-30MK (same as the Indian Su-30MKI), then a 24-plane squadron over 5 -years would cost 1,673 million.

Assuming I did my spreadsheet right.

 

[kato]

Hmm, i get 24 aircraft * (45m acq + 5 * (0.18*45m upk + 2.1m op + 2.9m px)) = 24*(45+5*13.1) m = 2,652 million

Mig-29 would be 24 * (28m + 5* (0.18*28 + 2.1 + 2.9)) = 1,876.8 million

Cost factoring per aircraft, for 5-year plan:
Variable - 1.9 * unit cost (acquisition and upkeep)
Fixed - 25m (personnel and operations)

Reverse calculation, unit cost at the squadron costs posted earlier:
Mirage 2000-5 : 110.5/aircraft; acquisition cost: 45 million (probably too low)
Su-30MK : 96.25/aircraft; acquisition cost: 37.5 million (lower end)
MiG-29SE : 60.625/aircraft; acquisition cost: 18.75 million (extreme low end)

To get realistic, we'd probably have to add 10 million per aircraft on all three types (reducing numbers for same overall cost: to 85% MiG-29, to 90% Su-30, to 92% Mirage).
So, for the same overall cost i quoted earlier (2.21/2.31/2.91 billion), we'd instead get 18 Mirage, 21-22 Su-30MK, 41 MiG-29SE respectively.

 

[MarcH]

Kato, your blue country is doomed. Kurt Beck as Head of Government. :nutkick
But I like the colour you choose for the south-western neighbour.

Back on topic, I would possibly try to get one mechanized brigade, and two motorized infantry brigades + the support/overhead.

Priority would be standard comm and infantry equipment. By 1995, there are tons of ex-NVA infantry weapons available, so I would most probably go for AK-74, Strelas, etc. For the mechanized battallion I would try to get a solid engineering component, if necessary by purchasing new equipment. Additional recon capabilities I would like to have, too. (Fennek ?)

Since additional Marder could be a problem, I think purchasing CV 90 family as standard vehicle seems to be a good idea. Including all variants, I think one could sell/scrap most other tracked vehicles except the engeneering stuff and Leos.

I didn't read the whole thread, so I ask myself, why Gripen is out of the race ? I mean, to get pilots trained up, it takes at least some years.
In short, I would keep the Alouettes for basic helo training, pick up those 24 Bo 105, 20 Alphajets, get 24 PC-9 + gun and rocket pods, and order 18 singleseater/6 doubleseater Gripen.
The proposed Russian stuff is out of question. In the 90ies MiG is absolute unable to deliver spareparts. And Su-3X is oversized and much too complex to use efficiently with a newly formed air arm.

Since that would leave the airspace mostly undefended till 1999, I would try to get a SAM system as soon as possible. Roland (MAN) would be a nice start, plus S-300 or Patriod.

Leaves medium/heavy helos and the tactical transport question.
If available, I would get some Blackhawks and CH-53 or CH-47. I think neither Mi-17 nor Puma peform that great with underslung cargo.
Something I would like to have for the unevitable air mobile infantry.

For tactical transports, the IL-76 would certainly be the most capable choice, but I got some doubts, if it would fit within the budget. The Hercules is a bit restricted in cargosize. Dunno, difficult decision.

 

[kato]

Kato, your blue country is doomed. Kurt Beck as Head of Government. :nutkick

Better than a certain pear-shaped politician of the time from the same area
(and Green 2 could just as well transfer its capital to a certain other S-Town with 12k ppl...)

Oh, and we have pilots. They'd be a bit out of shape by now, but there'd be roughly a dozen pilots qualified for jet fighters available, as a cadre to the future airforce.

As for Gripen, that's all on Page 2.

 

[MarcH]

In that case I would accept those Phantoms. Your aircrews are already familiar with the aircraft I guess.
Still difficult thing. Basic training is certainly possible with civilian contractors. But with a dozen pilots (crews ?) training new pilots + QRA offers at least plenty of sticktime for those guys. Training groundcrews would be the next headache.
Well, considering Gripen, I don't think it is impossible. F7 was declared operational on October 1st 1997.
With those Phantoms for QRA, I think it is possible to get some Gripens in early 2000's. Maybe it would be even possible to wait for NATO compatible Gripen C/D.
Just lets say I would sign the contract for newbuild Gripens in the given timeframe

 

[B.Smitty]

Hmm, i get 24 aircraft * (45m acq + 5 * (0.18*45m upk + 2.1m op + 2.9m px)) = 24*(45+5*13.1) m = 2,652 million

Mig-29 would be 24 * (28m + 5* (0.18*28 + 2.1 + 2.9)) = 1,876.8 million

Cost factoring per aircraft, for 5-year plan:
Variable - 1.9 * unit cost (acquisition and upkeep)
Fixed - 25m (personnel and operations)

Reverse calculation, unit cost at the squadron costs posted earlier:
Mirage 2000-5 : 110.5/aircraft; acquisition cost: 45 million (probably too low)
Su-30MK : 96.25/aircraft; acquisition cost: 37.5 million (lower end)
MiG-29SE : 60.625/aircraft; acquisition cost: 18.75 million (extreme low end)

To get realistic, we'd probably have to add 10 million per aircraft on all three types (reducing numbers for same overall cost: to 85% MiG-29, to 90% Su-30, to 92% Mirage).
So, for the same overall cost i quoted earlier (2.21/2.31/2.91 billion), we'd instead get 18 Mirage, 21-22 Su-30MK, 41 MiG-29SE respectively.

Oops, I left of the plan years in a few columns. :unknown

Ok, here's my revised spreadsheet (including Gripen),

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pYELFB1_GXc1gN1zeMeU7XQ

In addition to using (.18 * purchase price) for upkeep, I added a factor based on empty weight instead (normalized to your Mig-29 upkeep price). I don't know if this makes more sense, but it seems excessive for the Mirage 2000-5 to have four times the upkeep costs of the Mig-29. However, Western aircraft may have a higher cost per tonne for upkeep. I don't know.

 

[B.Smitty]

Are other US technologies like TOW off limits?

How about helicopters like UH-60s, CH-47s? I imagine AH-64s are out.

 

[kato]

Are other US technologies like TOW off limits?

How about helicopters like UH-60s, CH-47s? I imagine AH-64s are out.

General rules: If it can be sourced from somewhere else, it should be ok. Second-hand stuff e.g. is always ok, unless it's less than 5-10 years old. Direct sales are iffy. If there's a production line outside the US, something can probably always be arranged.

E.g. new CH-47 from the US would be problematic, second-hand from Spain or Italy perfectly fine.
TOW... i'd say no version 2B, other than that should be fine. Though we could perfectly substitute TOW with HOT, which is already in use domestically (on Jaguar 1).

 

[B.Smitty]

How about upgrading existing or second-hand US hardware such as our M109s to M109A6 Paladins?

Or, if we bought older CH-47s second-hand, and zero-houred and upgraded them to CH-47SDs?

 

[kato]

Shouldn't be a problem. Specific electronics for Paladin might be, for example - but an "equivalent" build from other sources shouldn't be a problem.

 

[BuSOF]

Just what do we need Chinooks for?

 

[B.Smitty]

Just what do we need Chinooks for?

The only reason is if we wished to expand our peacekeeping capability. There's no real reason to have them for home use.

 

[BuSOF]

They are too much a long shot even for peacekeeping overseas.
To me the Mi-17 is the biggest chopper Blue needs, it is also the most versatile.

 

[B.Smitty]

Aircraft, SAM, MLRS are offlimit. Basically, anything high-tech. (Older) Tanks, AFVs, small arms and such are no problem.

Hey, a question about MLRS. Isn't it a multinational program? Wouldn't that qualify for our our use?

 

[BuSOF]

Multiple Launch Rocket System is not a name specifically concerning the US M270 system. It is concerning every system, that is Multiple Launch Rocket: like the BM-21, Teruel, Valkiri etc. Could be self-propelled, could be towed.