We could buy S-300/400 and only field the shorter-ranged missiles (e.g. 5V55K/KD,
9M82, 9M96E1).
Hypothetical Forces : Transformation
- Thread starter kato
- Start date
9M82, 9M96E1).
I still think the Phantoms would be our best bet for shorttime needs. Why would you try to get a new platform, if available pilots have better things to do then getting a new type rating ?
You need them for a) QRA b)train up new pilots. Alphajets and Phantoms are sufficient for the job.
Priority in my opinion would be to get enough pilots/ground crew for two wings trained up till 1999.
5 CN-235-200 would be my choice for air transports.
Airdefense needs could be met with Roland mounted on MAN 8x8.
You need them for a) QRA b)train up new pilots. Alphajets and Phantoms are sufficient for the job.
Priority in my opinion would be to get enough pilots/ground crew for two wings trained up till 1999.
5 CN-235-200 would be my choice for air transports.
Airdefense needs could be met with Roland mounted on MAN 8x8.
Yes, they are only a gapfiller. But in my opinion a pretty good one.
Reasons:
Pferdsfeld-in reality a phantombase till 1997. Groundequipment, groundcrews and maybe even some additional aircrews could come in handy, to get a basic capability ASAP.
Green1 pretty much has the complete infrastructure in place for shop overhauls of airframe and engines.
Then by 1999 we could look for a new fighter-after we got the manpower to operate it.
Considering the last German Phantom will have its flyout in 2012, I guess it should be possible to operate them till 2005.
I would go for Gripens. The C-model could be delivered by 2004/5. If AMRAAM is not available, then I would go for MICA integration.
Numbers depend on what you really want. One Wing (36 aircraft) would be sufficient for basic airpolicing needs.
Swiss studies claim around 60 aircraft would be necessary for 24/7 airdefense. In that case, two wings with 72 aircraft. Pretty much mirrors Swiss airforce.
Reasons:
Pferdsfeld-in reality a phantombase till 1997. Groundequipment, groundcrews and maybe even some additional aircrews could come in handy, to get a basic capability ASAP.
Green1 pretty much has the complete infrastructure in place for shop overhauls of airframe and engines.
Then by 1999 we could look for a new fighter-after we got the manpower to operate it.
Considering the last German Phantom will have its flyout in 2012, I guess it should be possible to operate them till 2005.
I would go for Gripens. The C-model could be delivered by 2004/5. If AMRAAM is not available, then I would go for MICA integration.
Numbers depend on what you really want. One Wing (36 aircraft) would be sufficient for basic airpolicing needs.
Swiss studies claim around 60 aircraft would be necessary for 24/7 airdefense. In that case, two wings with 72 aircraft. Pretty much mirrors Swiss airforce.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #106
Germany's F-4F (and thus the one we're being offered) were all delivered between 1973 and 1975.
For comparison, the last USAF F-4 were built in 1979 afaik, and were kept in service until 1996.
Without considerable upgrade (zero-setting the airframe, complete overhaul etc - which was part of ICE, the upgrade took three years for the 110 upgraded aircraft!) i doubt they'd last farther than 2000.
MarcH: Pferdsfeld is located in Orange. I guess i'll need to draw up a more exact map, in particular of the Orange/Blue and Orange/Green 2 borders.
edit: Attached as Google Earth .kmz file. Remove .doc extension, opens in Google Earth. Probably the best solution.
For comparison, the last USAF F-4 were built in 1979 afaik, and were kept in service until 1996.
Without considerable upgrade (zero-setting the airframe, complete overhaul etc - which was part of ICE, the upgrade took three years for the 110 upgraded aircraft!) i doubt they'd last farther than 2000.
MarcH: Pferdsfeld is located in Orange. I guess i'll need to draw up a more exact map, in particular of the Orange/Blue and Orange/Green 2 borders.
edit: Attached as Google Earth .kmz file. Remove .doc extension, opens in Google Earth. Probably the best solution.
Last edited:
You remember we're talking about a country half as big as Belgium. It takes about 10 minutes for a fighter to overfly it at cruise speed. I don't really see a need for fighters, and you are suggesting 36 units?!
Considering the topography:
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Rhein-Neckar-Dreieck.png&filetimestamp=20060226153905
mobile SAMs could work superbly.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #111
Offhand, we'd need 16-18 aircraft to provide for one (24/7 peacetime) to two (heightened tension) QRA packs of 2 aircraft.
We should strive to have at least that to challenge and potentially repulse simple intrusions.
As for SAMs, basic decision: Two-tier option (e.g. S300/5V55K plus Pantsyr) or single-tier option (e.g. Buk-M1-2)?
We should strive to have at least that to challenge and potentially repulse simple intrusions.
As for SAMs, basic decision: Two-tier option (e.g. S300/5V55K plus Pantsyr) or single-tier option (e.g. Buk-M1-2)?
I would vote for a high-altitude SAM system plus a significant quantity of MANPADs (Mistral 2).
If Roland is still built in the Blue/Green1/Green2 nations, then we could add that rather than Pantsyr.
I worry about integrating S-300 or Buk in with our IFF, other air defense systems and C2 network. Has this been done by other Western nations? I will have to do some research.
S-300 + Pantsyr combo from those options. During time of crisis longer range missiles could perhaps be bought as well. (Edit: That's when those long range shadowy cargo planes come handy...
) From Wiki there's following quotes for pricing:
"India has bought six S-300 batteries in August 1995 for $1 billion, probably the S-300PMU-2 version, believed to consist of 48 missiles per system."
"Vietnam has bought two S-300PMU-1 batteries (12 launchers) for nearly $300 million"
Perhaps around three batteries might be realistic purchase (500-600m USD?)?
But as Pantsyr seems not to be available for timeframe and Blue already has Gepards, maybe Buks between S-300 and Gepards?
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #114
Also, ground forces:
I think everyone agrees that we need to at least keep up the current (brigade-strength) maneuver forces.
Proposal from me:
- completely restructure organization
- take two of the regiments in Territorial Defence and use as "base units"
- transition these to "medium forces", infantry with APCs and/or IFVs
- redistribute brigade forces to these two units
Would result in two brigade-strength forces, ToE as following:
- Staff/Support Battalion
- Logistics etc units
- Tank Battalion (41 Leopard 2)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (active)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (active)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (reserve)
- Artillery Battalion (SPH)
Necessary procurement would be for a total of at least around 300 AFV systems as well as some new or additional SPH.
These two brigades would come under a Divisional Command with:
- engineer regiment (partially active)
- support regiment (partially active)
- NBC battalion (partially active)
- ADA battalion
- Artillery Regiment, reduced to 18 M110 + 16 LARS ("heavy assets")
- recon/SF battalion
- medical battalion (partially active)
The Artillery Regiment would transition to newer systems at a later point, to include at least a (heavy) SPH battalion, a rocket artillery battalion and a recon battalion with UAVs.
The ADA battalion would keep half the Gepards as mobile AAA support for the maneuver forces (able to split into two commands), while the other half would go to a separate air defence command and support our future SAMs in local defense.
The remainder of heavy forces from the brigade would instead go to the Territorial Defence. The Territorial Defence would keep three maneuver regiments, each equipped as following:
- Staff Coy + Support Coy
- Heavy Battalion (15 Marder, 9 M113, 6 Leopard 2, 4 M113/120mm)
- Infantry Battalion (truck-mounted, 6 towed mortars)
- Infantry Battalion (truck-mounted, 6 towed mortars)
- Light Artillery Coy (trucks, 6 FH-70)
- Engineer Coy
KanJgPz and Jaguar 1 would for now go to absolute reserve stockpile.
The Infantry Battalions of these three regiments would be cadred, the Heavy Battalion would be kept to similar reserve status as the third Infantry Battalion of the Maneuver Brigades. It would consist e.g. of an anti-tank platoon (Leopard 2), mortar platoon (M113/120mm), mechanized infantry coy (Marder) and a light recon coy, and essentially provide some additional mobile fire support for the other battalions, while also able to act as a mini combat group of itself.
Any upgrade of these units would be saved for later times, e.g. expanding the Leopard 2 tank platoon to a full company for each regiment; such upgrade could also include expansion/reorganization of each regiment with a third reserve light infantry battalion and additional artillery assets and a relabeling of these units to brigades.
Territorial Command would also take over the remainder of Engineer Command as well, i.e. around 5-6 battalions (general, bridging, NBC), and Support/Maintenance Command with around 3 remaining battalions, as well as all fixed sites under the various Commands (ie maintenance plants, signals sites, depots...). Security Battalions for these sites would be reduced, necessary forces would be kept active within the three regiments.
The divisional command of the active forces would in wartime be strengthened to absorb Territorial Command, as a sort of Corps-level command with five maneuver combat units immediately assigned to it.
Medical Command, Borderguard and MP would be kept separate.
I think everyone agrees that we need to at least keep up the current (brigade-strength) maneuver forces.
Proposal from me:
- completely restructure organization
- take two of the regiments in Territorial Defence and use as "base units"
- transition these to "medium forces", infantry with APCs and/or IFVs
- redistribute brigade forces to these two units
Would result in two brigade-strength forces, ToE as following:
- Staff/Support Battalion
- Logistics etc units
- Tank Battalion (41 Leopard 2)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (active)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (active)
- Infantry Battalion (~45 AFV) (reserve)
- Artillery Battalion (SPH)
Necessary procurement would be for a total of at least around 300 AFV systems as well as some new or additional SPH.
These two brigades would come under a Divisional Command with:
- engineer regiment (partially active)
- support regiment (partially active)
- NBC battalion (partially active)
- ADA battalion
- Artillery Regiment, reduced to 18 M110 + 16 LARS ("heavy assets")
- recon/SF battalion
- medical battalion (partially active)
The Artillery Regiment would transition to newer systems at a later point, to include at least a (heavy) SPH battalion, a rocket artillery battalion and a recon battalion with UAVs.
The ADA battalion would keep half the Gepards as mobile AAA support for the maneuver forces (able to split into two commands), while the other half would go to a separate air defence command and support our future SAMs in local defense.
The remainder of heavy forces from the brigade would instead go to the Territorial Defence. The Territorial Defence would keep three maneuver regiments, each equipped as following:
- Staff Coy + Support Coy
- Heavy Battalion (15 Marder, 9 M113, 6 Leopard 2, 4 M113/120mm)
- Infantry Battalion (truck-mounted, 6 towed mortars)
- Infantry Battalion (truck-mounted, 6 towed mortars)
- Light Artillery Coy (trucks, 6 FH-70)
- Engineer Coy
KanJgPz and Jaguar 1 would for now go to absolute reserve stockpile.
The Infantry Battalions of these three regiments would be cadred, the Heavy Battalion would be kept to similar reserve status as the third Infantry Battalion of the Maneuver Brigades. It would consist e.g. of an anti-tank platoon (Leopard 2), mortar platoon (M113/120mm), mechanized infantry coy (Marder) and a light recon coy, and essentially provide some additional mobile fire support for the other battalions, while also able to act as a mini combat group of itself.
Any upgrade of these units would be saved for later times, e.g. expanding the Leopard 2 tank platoon to a full company for each regiment; such upgrade could also include expansion/reorganization of each regiment with a third reserve light infantry battalion and additional artillery assets and a relabeling of these units to brigades.
Territorial Command would also take over the remainder of Engineer Command as well, i.e. around 5-6 battalions (general, bridging, NBC), and Support/Maintenance Command with around 3 remaining battalions, as well as all fixed sites under the various Commands (ie maintenance plants, signals sites, depots...). Security Battalions for these sites would be reduced, necessary forces would be kept active within the three regiments.
The divisional command of the active forces would in wartime be strengthened to absorb Territorial Command, as a sort of Corps-level command with five maneuver combat units immediately assigned to it.
Medical Command, Borderguard and MP would be kept separate.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #115
Interesting, opposing opinions on the SAM systems.
I would additionally consider the following systems for lower level:
- Spada/Aspide (later upgrade path to Spada 2000)
- Crotale NG
As for S-300PMU1; Chinese sale, ordered '94: $400 million; package included eight batteries (16 master TELs, 16 slave TELs, 25 radars total, 196 48N6E missiles).
4 batteries of similar size (4 TELs ea instead of 12) sounds good to me.
I would additionally consider the following systems for lower level:
- Spada/Aspide (later upgrade path to Spada 2000)
- Crotale NG
As for S-300PMU1; Chinese sale, ordered '94: $400 million; package included eight batteries (16 master TELs, 16 slave TELs, 25 radars total, 196 48N6E missiles).
4 batteries of similar size (4 TELs ea instead of 12) sounds good to me.
Did we get the German bits of Euromissile in the split?
If so, why would we go with Pantsyr, Spada or Crotale when we could go with locally produced Roland?
I think your restructuring might be said to be manouver-oriented, in sense that you're adding manouver units rather than firepower into the mix. If the object is to make forces more manouverable, ie. able to conduct offensive operations into Orange territory or conduct mobile defense operations within Blue-Green alliance (even if homeland is severely compromised) it's a good approach.
Personally I would guestion the need for some of the mobility if object is pure homeland defense. The country is small and highly urbanized (heck, I'm from Scandinavia...).
I would go for small, but very high quality counter-attack force supporting a "web" of infantry-based antitank-forward observation-anti infantry force, all this backed by extensive indirect fire assets (with small size of country even absolute coverage can be achieved with small amount of units). In essence, I would go for firepower rather than manouverability. Counter-attack force could be used for taking part into Alliance operations.
I would not worry about "weight" as Germany has one of the best infrastructures in the world.
Firepower with SAM's and artillery, supported by SOF force would also substitute for strategic counter-attack capability. Mechanized attack against peer competitors can very easily result in disaster.
This is quite a lot if AFV's are something more than battle taxis and will be quite a dent into procurement budget.
Even with center of gravity being mobile forces I would completely agree. If the goal is to perform mobile operations against mechanized forces in highly urbanized terrain with two brigades I think ratio between mobile and artillery battalions should be close to 1-1.
On SAM's I think those European missiles presented are just fine.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #118
DASA, Green 1.
Essentially, i just moved from four to five maneuver units (wartime).
The Territorial Command will essentially have six (nine if we move to brigades) distributable light infantry battalions that would take up local positions to defend. The three "heavy battalions" would serve as some strengthening to these units, providing e.g. the capability to reinforce choke points with some armoured forces.
In case of some heightened tension, two regiments would likely be distributed along the likely approach paths (and that's essentially only the 30-km wide river valley and three or four valleys with easy choke points), with the third providing some rear backup security, while potentially additional light forces could be raised in the rear zone. The valley itself outside the cities would likely be a tank playground for our own forces.
One of the two regiments would in fact likely be permanently stationed in this first-contact area directly north, to have some preparation regarding strategic demolition etc. Approaching across the heavily forrested mountains would leave the hostile mechanized forces even more susceptible to infantry attack.
Artillery could be strengthened in these regiments of course. Short-term solution could be to also distribute the 18 105mm howitzers, giving each regiment 12 howitzers plus its 16 mortars - should be more than enough indirect fire capability. Medium-term could be that we buy new SPH for the active brigades and give each defense regiment an additional 6 M109.
Anti-Tank capability... to be setup within. Structure each of the 18 (or more) infantry companies of these three regiments to have say a dedicated AT platoon, and you have quite some firepower at your hands. We can deal with the finer points later.
The two active brigades would - opposed to that - serve for counter-attack, sweeping operations, Allied operations.
Wouldn't necessarily be more than battle taxis / APCs. I'm thinking something along the lines of a BTR, XA-185 or maybe LAV there. Cost would be around 350-400 million for 300 vehicles, probably less (LAV A2: $189 million for 151 vehicles, 2006). Not really all that much.
The reserve infantry battalions don't necessarily need their AFVs right now, reducing the more immediate need to around 200 vehicles. 70% APCs, 30% more specialized vehicles (C2, mortar carrier, ATGM carrier etc)
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #119
Closer evaluation of border defensive needs, to have some idea of the number of forces we need:
Region 1 : Pfälzer Wald (mountain region)
Border line: 68 km.
Defense points (south to north):
Bad Dürkheim (12 km from border; pop 25k; northern fallback/supply point)
Bad Bergzabern (7 km from border; pop 15k; houses important military infrastructure; southern fallback/supply point)
Region 2 : Rheinhessen Border (plains west of Rhine)
Border line: 44 km.
Urbanized defense clusters (west to east):
Grünstadt - Monsheim (9 km length); population forward of line: 10k
Monsheim - Osthofen (11 km length); population forward of line: 15k
Other areas:
Worms (11 km from border; pop 80 k; central fallback/supply point)
Region 3 : Bergstraße/Ried (plains east of Rhine)
Border line: 13 km
Urbanized defense clusters (west to east):
Biblis - Einhausen (6 km length, forrested; population forward of line: 5k)
Einhausen - Bensheim (6 km length, plains; population forward of line: 15k)
Region 4 : Odenwald (mountain region)
Border line: 42 km
Defense points (west to east):
Bad König (pop 10k; 3 km from border; forward fallback point from B45 road)
Reichelsheim (pop 10k; 4 km from border; forward fallback/supply point)
Erbach/Michelstadt (pop 35k; 13 km from border; central fallback point)
Second line, valley:
Weinheim - Viernheim - Lampertheim - Frankenthal - Bad Dürkheim
Length: 40 km
Distance: roughly 20 km from border line
Terrain: eastern part forrested between urban clusters; western part open plains
Once the second line is breached, we're really turning this into urban combat.
Region 2 and 3 of the first line are really playgrounds for mechanized forces, in particular region 2. In both cases we'd likely attempt to push the battle line into Orange territory. Likely defense needs would be two infantry battalions per region (region 4 potentially less, with more artillery), spread out along defense points, while the maneuver brigades would err... maneuver.
Region 1 : Pfälzer Wald (mountain region)
Border line: 68 km.
Defense points (south to north):
- B10 road, B47 road, L504 road, L490/B427 crossing (choke points, valley/pass)
- B48 road (western edge of defense pocket)
- A6 highway (northern edge of defense pocket)
- 5 minor transit points (small roadways; overwatch)
Bad Dürkheim (12 km from border; pop 25k; northern fallback/supply point)
Bad Bergzabern (7 km from border; pop 15k; houses important military infrastructure; southern fallback/supply point)
Region 2 : Rheinhessen Border (plains west of Rhine)
Border line: 44 km.
Urbanized defense clusters (west to east):
- Grünstadt (pop 20k; 4 km from border)
- Monsheim (pop 10k; 3 km from border)
- Osthofen (pop 10k; 4 km from border)
Grünstadt - Monsheim (9 km length); population forward of line: 10k
Monsheim - Osthofen (11 km length); population forward of line: 15k
Other areas:
Worms (11 km from border; pop 80 k; central fallback/supply point)
Region 3 : Bergstraße/Ried (plains east of Rhine)
Border line: 13 km
Urbanized defense clusters (west to east):
- Biblis nuclear plant (4 km from border)
- Biblis (pop 10k; 5 km from border)
- Einhausen/Lorsch (pop 20k; 6 km from border)
- Bensheim/Heppenheim (pop 50k; 5 km from border)
Biblis - Einhausen (6 km length, forrested; population forward of line: 5k)
Einhausen - Bensheim (6 km length, plains; population forward of line: 15k)
Region 4 : Odenwald (mountain region)
Border line: 42 km
Defense points (west to east):
- L3099 road, B38 road (each: plains between two forrest passes)
- B45 road (choke point; valley)
- 4 minor transit points (small roadways)
Bad König (pop 10k; 3 km from border; forward fallback point from B45 road)
Reichelsheim (pop 10k; 4 km from border; forward fallback/supply point)
Erbach/Michelstadt (pop 35k; 13 km from border; central fallback point)
Second line, valley:
Weinheim - Viernheim - Lampertheim - Frankenthal - Bad Dürkheim
Length: 40 km
Distance: roughly 20 km from border line
Terrain: eastern part forrested between urban clusters; western part open plains
Once the second line is breached, we're really turning this into urban combat.
Region 2 and 3 of the first line are really playgrounds for mechanized forces, in particular region 2. In both cases we'd likely attempt to push the battle line into Orange territory. Likely defense needs would be two infantry battalions per region (region 4 potentially less, with more artillery), spread out along defense points, while the maneuver brigades would err... maneuver.
Last edited:
With that territory I don't see how fighters would be useful. They would be like tigers in a very small cage. As for the S-300 it is my personal favourite, BUT there is a pint of buying it only of we buy long range missiles clastentinely and storage them with the manufacturer or somewhere in Green 1.
Otherwise acquiring them in case of war is next ot impossible. So if that is the situation I agree, if not I would go for 3 Buk battalions plus 2 Pantsyr battalions and additional Rheinmetal AAA with the Territorial Heer.
Why don't we produce Roland? Cause it's a lot worse than Pantsyr and Crotale and at best equal to the upgraded Aspide. If we develop a modification as good as the Crotale, then it's OK.
As for ground forces restructuring I see a need for
1) Heavy brigade
2) Light brigade
3) turn the territorial units into brigades with their own artillery and engineers. When I see the map it shows a lot of rivers so they will be able to take positions behind them and assist mobility of the regular forces and deny the crossing of enemy units. For that purpose I also agree about the need for at least 300 wheeled and amphibious IFVs. Around 90 of them should be ATGM carriers. In that case they will be able to outmaneuver the enemy otflank him and make him suffer severe losses. The idea is of shoot and run tactics: the reserves hold the bridges and the places where forcing through the river would be possible, the mechanised units strike at the enemy units and retreat through the river. The main forces of Orange are made of tanks and Marders, that are not amphibious. I'll take a look and provide my propositions, but I generally agree with most of the things you kato say.
Otherwise acquiring them in case of war is next ot impossible. So if that is the situation I agree, if not I would go for 3 Buk battalions plus 2 Pantsyr battalions and additional Rheinmetal AAA with the Territorial Heer.
Why don't we produce Roland? Cause it's a lot worse than Pantsyr and Crotale and at best equal to the upgraded Aspide. If we develop a modification as good as the Crotale, then it's OK.
As for ground forces restructuring I see a need for
1) Heavy brigade
2) Light brigade
3) turn the territorial units into brigades with their own artillery and engineers. When I see the map it shows a lot of rivers so they will be able to take positions behind them and assist mobility of the regular forces and deny the crossing of enemy units. For that purpose I also agree about the need for at least 300 wheeled and amphibious IFVs. Around 90 of them should be ATGM carriers. In that case they will be able to outmaneuver the enemy otflank him and make him suffer severe losses. The idea is of shoot and run tactics: the reserves hold the bridges and the places where forcing through the river would be possible, the mechanised units strike at the enemy units and retreat through the river. The main forces of Orange are made of tanks and Marders, that are not amphibious. I'll take a look and provide my propositions, but I generally agree with most of the things you kato say.