Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[kato]

As none of the "hypothetical..." threads has been active in the last two months, here's a new one :p:

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.

---

The country you're dealing with is a small one. Roughly the size of Connecticut, with 4.5 million citizens. It borders four other nations: The one it split from, another "traditional" neighbor, and two other free states that split from the same country. Relations with neighbors are between neutral and amicable.

The country primarily consists of two parts: In the West, a 40-km wide valley running through it from North to South, as well as the immediately bordering forrested hills. A large river runs through it. This valley houses about 60% of the population, most of the industry, and two large inland ports.
To the east, a comparably vast set of medium-height plains opens up, relatively sparsely populated (but remember we're dealing with European levels).
Inbetween these two area, a hill range bisects the country essentially. The hill range raises significantly (above 2000 feet) in both the North and South, while providing a relative opening between both other areas in the center.

It's primary exports are energy (the country operates four nuclear power plants plus several advanced coal power plants), chemical products (as it houses one of the largest chemical plants worldwide), large-scale machinery, including trucks, as well as a number of agricultural products including wine and raw tobacco. While the country is not autonomous regarding food products, it has decent, expandable agricultural development.

Albeit, overall it's a rather rich region, and current GDP is around 115 billion Dollar. As a rough ballpark number, you're allowed to spend up to 2.0% GDP for the military. Current expenditure is 1.2 billion Dollar, leaving you with up to 1.1 billion Dollar to spend for new things annually (all Dollar values 1995 values).
Note: this puts the military spending in relation to population roughly on a level between Portugal and Denmark.

The current military employs some 13,500 active soldiers (7,000 of them in combat units), and has roughly 18,500 soldiers in reserve. Conscription used to be the norm, but has been suspended. Voluntary recruitment influx supports a moderate size increase.

edit: further information in posts #3 and #6.
edit: found the single helo squadron posted in the area finally.

---

ToE Outline of current military forces:
Active Units

1st Armour Brigade
1st Artillery Regiment
1st ADA Regiment
Border Guard battalion
Helicopter Squadron

Partially Active Reserve Units:

Support/Maintenance Command (10 battalions)
Engineer Command (9 battalions)
Medical Command (5 battalions)
Military Police battalion
Two Signals regiments

Inactive Reserve Units:

Territorial Defense Command (13 battalions)


---

The Armor Brigade is a traditional Cold-War NATO brigade with five combat battalions.

Heavy Equipment in operation:
Tanks: 100 Leopard 2A4
AFVs: 21 KanJgPz, 36 Gepard B2L, 12 Jaguar 1
IFV/APCs: 46 Marder 1A2, 8 M577A1, 28 M113GA2, 72 Fuchs 1A2/1A3 (specialized), 16 TM170 (borderguard)
Artillery: 18 M110A2, 18 M109A3G, 16 LARS MLRS, 18 FH-70 155mm, 18 M56 105mm
Mortars: 12 M113 with 120mm mortar, 36 towed 120mm mortars
Heavy Crew-served: ~100 Milan ATGM, ~100 FK20 20mm guns, ~1200 light anti-tank weapons
Helicopters: 7 SA313B Alouette-II light utility helos (+3 for spare parts)

---

Recent Reform:

Roughly one-fifth to one-quarter of original reserve forces have been shed so far.

The Territorial Defense Command was formed under the last government from pre-existing reserve forces. It stocks reserve equipment and manages reservists for three heterogenous infantry regiments with limited combined-arms capability, three security battalions and one field artillery battalion. These are all truck-mounted light infantry with some minimal anti-tank capability, and towed mortars and howitzers for fire support.

Medical Command combines units from two former medical regiments, and provides medical support to all fixed bases, as well as three mobile medical and one MASH battalion.

Engineer Command commands four relatively standard engineer battalions, six light CMC engineer companies, three NBC defence battalions, and two amphibious engineer battalions responsible for operations on and around the two major rivers in the territory, especially regarding bridging.

Support/Maintenance Command collects the rather dense support infrastructure in the area, with five transport and replenishment battalions and two maintenance battalions. This command also operates a military-run large maintenance facility, as well as five large depots.

Of the two signals regiments, one operates fixed sites for Satcom, Communications (ACE High), Air Surveillance etc, while the other provides more general signals support, including mobile facilities.

The military units have been restationed to four primary active sites and six reserve mobilization points. Additional to that are a number of smaller sites plus depots.

---

Criticism:

A number of bad points about this military structure can easily be seen:
It's heavily skewed towards the support side, to an extent not needed in any way for the existing combat units.
The second glaring point is that there is no aviation capability at all at the moment. For such operations, two centrally located small airports would be available, of which one would be a conversion from a civilian site.
A real problem is the wide varity of equipment in current operation, especially in artillery. Additionally, there aren't enough armoured vehicles available to form a decent mechanized capability.
Air Defence is completely non-existant, and a point of concern.

Most primary equipment - save for ADA, tanks and specialized armored vehicles (Fuchs 1A3 NBC, TM170) - is relatively old and needs upgrades or replacement.

---

Considerations:

The country had to agree in a number of devolved treaties limiting its forces: Active units may not exceed 25,000 soldiers; all combatants including borderguard are included in that. No weapon system with a range above 50 km may be acquired; local nuclear research has to be suspended.
As it's 1995, the wars in Bosnia and Croatia are currently coming to an end. The government would like to garner some international favours by participating in planned peacekeeping operations, contributing about a battalion.
Air Defence has been wished for recently in light of the not really all that distant ongoing war, and recent intrusions of aircraft over territories of other friendly nations.
A moderate increase of Borderguard forces is to be considered.


Sooo... anyone up to it?

[Feanor]

Hmm. I'd consider re-joining that eastern neighbor. Bigger isn't always better, but united is certainly better then divided.

EDIT: Militarily I'd consider latching on to either the F-35 or PAK-FA, or whatever other 5th gen. aircraft programs exist. The current ground forces equipment seems to be up to date. Maybe upgrade the C4ISTAR. Consider some UAV's.

[kato]

A little expansion (country is Blue):

Country to the east:
"Green 1". Friendly relations, same situation there, albeit on a far larger scale for that country. Amicable relationship somewhat stretched over small, non-military border dispute. Strong defence industry.

Country to the south:
"Green 2". Same situation as Green 1 essentially. Close economic relationship, especially in mutual border regions. Dependant on energy deliveries from Blue. Has closer relationship to another country further south, some ethnic reservations about Blue and people further north. Good relationship with Green 1.

Country to the northwest:
"Orange". The country that Blue, Green 1 and Green 2 split from. Reasonably stressed relationship over split, some bad feelings on either side. Suffers economic problems since split.

Country to the southwest:
"Pink". The old-time neighbour. Neutral with regards to Blue, Green 1 and Green 2, neutral to amicable relationship with Orange. Some reservations on Blue's and Green 1's side due to historical context.

Note: 1995. Pak-Fa, F-35/JSF not in sight for another 15-20 years at least.

[Feanor]

But lots of 5th gen. projects on the drawing boards. Definetly need to latch on to at least one of them, and the earlier the better. Purchasing used planes from shrinking militaries is another option. Refurbished Ukranian or Belorussian MiG's are a solution.

[Chrom]

But lots of 5th gen. projects on the drawing boards. Definetly need to latch on to at least one of them, and the earlier the better. Purchasing used planes from shrinking militaries is another option. Refurbished Ukranian or Belorussian MiG's are a solution.

Dont buy any expensive aviation stuff. In these circumstances it is almost useless. Buy refurbished Mig-29 / F-4 / F-16 / Mig-21Bisons. Basically, any BVR plane to control airspace against occasional isolated intruders.

Joining major power block (officially or non-officially) is mandatory. I dont think this can be avoided anyway. Most military funds should be spend on integrating own military within that block, AND basic military training for whole population, along with strong propaganda about defending motherland, etc.

With such setup any aggressor would face very unpleasant background and would think twice if it worth to occupy such country.

[kato]

Power Block structure:

EU membership application is under process, to be gained around 1999-2000 likely.
NATO membership is currently not under consideration, as a large percentage of population opposes that.

Bilateral relationship:

currently, a common economic zone is being set up with Green 1 and Green 2.
militarily, Green 2 has offered mutual training exchanges, a beneficial situation for Blue as it doesn't have major training sites, in particular for its armoured forces; Green 2 is lacking training facilities for certain specialized units (eg signals, maintenance/calibration etc at certain levels)
Blue is supplying Green 1 and Green 2 from its military supply infrastructure, depots etc (electronics, spare parts primarily)
Green 1 has offered slight discounts on its defence products (AFVs, helicopters, small fixed-wing aircraft), as it has recently been failing to sell these in light of the split from Orange, which used to be the largest customer.

[kato]

In these circumstances it is almost useless. Buy refurbished Mig-29 / F-4 / F-16 / Mig-21Bisons. Basically, any BVR plane to control airspace against occasional isolated intruders.

Strategic Partner Green 1 is offering for Blue and Green 2 to shop around from its forces.

Green 1 is putting on the sales table:
- 32 F-4F (not ICE, with Sparrows)
- 20 Alpha Jet A
- 4 Do-28D-2 light utility aircraft
- 24 Bo-105 utility helicopters

The F-4Fs useful for us?

Green 2 will be a competitor for a lot of these, in particular the F-4F and the Bo-105 helos. External competitors for the Alpha Jets.

Green 1 is also offering 4 I-Hawk batteries (6 launchers ea) with assorted equipment. Green 2 is not interested in these.

[Chrom]

Strategic Partner Green 1 is offering for Blue and Green 2 to shop around from its forces.

Green 1 is putting on the sales table:
- 32 F-4F (not ICE, with Sparrows)
- 20 Alpha Jet A
- 4 Do-28D-2 light utility aircraft
- 24 Bo-105 utility helicopters

The F-4Fs useful for us?

Green 2 will be a competitor for a lot of these, in particular the F-4F and the Bo-105 helos. External competitors for the Alpha Jets.

Green 1 is also offering 4 I-Hawk batteries (6 launchers ea) with assorted equipment. Green 2 is not interested in these.

F-4 would be useful - one definitely need supersonic fighter to control its airspace against occasional intruders - much like border guards. Helos are needed in every army, mainly for transport, recon and light support duties.

I'm unsure about SAM's - seems for such small country without proper AD network they are not much of use. On the other hand, they are cheap to operate, provide additional radar coverage and can be integrated in "big brother" network if an alliance is made.

[kato]

For perspective, the airforces of neighbors:

Green 1 - slashing down and upgrading to:
48 Tornado IDS + 48 Tornado ADV + 24 Alpha Jet A (target)
Green 2 - seeking similar capability to Blue:
36 RF-4E (no A2A capability, CAS-capable)
Orange - slashing down:
68 F-4F/ICE + 30 RF-4E + 110 Tornado IDS + 50 Alpha Jet A
Pink - slashing down and modernising:
90 Mirage 2000, 80 Mirage III/5, 80 Jaguar (+40 stocked)

While Blue doesn't really want or need to (or can) play in the same leagues, at least a minimal interception capability is desired.

As an alternative, Pink is offering a squadron of standard Jaguar A (20 aircraft) or upgraded Mirage 50M (16 aircraft) at a somewhat higher price.
F-16 are not available due to political circumstances. Gripen would be possible, but at considerably higher cost.

[BuSOF]

F-4 would be useful - one definitely need supersonic fighter to control its airspace against occasional intruders - much like border guards. Helos are needed in every army, mainly for transport, recon and light support duties.

I'm unsure about SAM's - seems for such small country without proper AD network they are not much of use. On the other hand, they are cheap to operate, provide additional radar coverage and can be integrated in "big brother" network if an alliance is made.

Anything beyond F-5E/Fs are too sophisticated for such a young air force. So I would buy:
- 8 L-39s and hire ex Warsaw Pact pilots for instructors of the future fighter pilots. They are excellent professionals, are familiar with the L-39 and at the time around 1995 are abundant and most of them unemployed. If the government desides to take the offered Alpha jets the foreign instructors would be at least 3 times more expensive to hire. While the training programm is underway the government would seek for a fighter type. In light of the aircraft offered I would purchase the Dorniers and up to twelve Bo.105s. Mi-17s would also be needed. If a fighter type is more needed I'd go for some F-5Es, otherwise Su-25 is an excellent combat aircraft.

[kato]

True, creating an airforce needs a step-by-step concept here. Although, in comparison to other countries, this military is almost swimming in money (relatively).

[BuSOF]

Whoa, that puts the situation in a whole other light!
So the number of trainers purchased would be raised to 16. The goal is that in 7 years tow squadrons of 24-32 fighters would be available.
Of course a military alliance with Green 1 would be a solution that will make the Tornado ADV's protective air cover a possibillity. Some concessions about the border area disputed will be needed.
Another possibility is an alliance with Green 2: If they provide the ground attack capability we provide the air cover. So MiG-29, produced for the soviet air force, but cancelled due to the economic crysis (we know the deal) and stored at the MiG airfield are the best sollution. Buy 14 fighters and 6 twin-seaters and hire russian mercenaries. That solution stays even if the alliance doesn't take place.

Forgot to explain: Mercenaries are the emergency solution, while our cadets are in training. Then gradually use the russian pilots in the secondary instructor role (that is the reason for 6 instead of only 2 MiG-29UB trainers). If the russian intentionally try to sabotage the conversion programm in order to stay longer there is always the possibillity to use polish, czech or bulgarian instructors. This is EXACTLY what happened in Ethiopia during the war with Eritrea.

[BuSOF]

----------General frame------------------------------------------------
Alright. As for the territory of the country if I am not mistaking we have the urbanized area of the country bordering the state "we" split from. So it poses the greatest threat. Tanks are OK, but a possibility to raise the tanks to 180 units would be nice. Anyway a big problem is that the border doesn't run through the river bed. So on one hand the tanks must be predeployed there, on the other they would be trapped there in a possible conflict. In order for that NOT to happen the country needs very well established infrastructure (heavy bridges) and control over them is vital. An engineer pontoon regiment is also needed. Minimum needed is one riverine battalion with tank-capable landing craft (considering the two big riverine ports that would be possible) and one pontoon battalion as th etwo rivers are connected, but two each would be even better. I don't think river monitors are needed. Armament industry is vital. As the seccetion happened lately there would probably be arms embargoes. So at the first place the country needs to establish advanced automotive production factories for heavy duty trucks (dual purpose - officially civil, but unofficially also military, best way is to seek czech help from TATRA) and engineering equipment factories (could be incorporated in the automotive branch). When the limits are lifted there will be a solid foundation that way. Arms factories are also needed, but until th elimitations are withdrawn it's best to stick to secret development bureaus. In order to establish them it would be very productive to contract south african and israeli scientists and invest heavily in weapon designs from those countries. Also arangements should be made to buy weaponry and store it there. Also in case of an imminent emergency there should be plans for that inventory to be shipped rapidly to BLUE country. Arms deals with GREEN ONE is a possibillity, but I prefer indigenious production, at least for weaponry such as assault rifles, ATGMs, MANPADs, mortars and towed artillery. Step 2 would be IFVs and APCs plus SP artillery.
---------------Armed forces structural reform----------------------
Field corps
Active Units
* 1st Armour Brigade:
---> Tank battalion of 3 tank companies, a mechanised infantry company and an HQ and support company
---> Mechanised battalion of 1 tank company, 3 mechanised infantry companies and an HQ and support company
---> Mechanised battalion of 1 tank company, 3 mechanised infantry companies and an HQ and support company
---> Mechanised battalion of 1 tank company, 3 mechanised infantry companies and an HQ and support company
---> Field artillery battalion (SP)
---> Combat engineer battalion
---> Logistics battalion
---> Other supporting units (inclide the Mobile Mechanised Warfare Training [Battalion])
60% pecetime readiness
* 1st Artillery Regiment
---> Artillery reconnaissance battalion
---> Field artillery battalion (SP)
---> Field artillery battalion (SP)
---> MLRS battalion
---> MLRS battalion
---> Field artillery battalion (towed)
---> Field artillery battalion (towed)
---> Field artillery battalion (towed)
Artillery recon battalion and one MLRS battalion at 50% in peacetime, others cadred

* 1st ADA Regiment
Until more troops are trained retain only one AD battalion and buy as many MANPADS from ex NVA-stocks as possible as soon as possible.
Develop the aerospace surveillance system with the intention to establish SAM units.

* Border Guard battalion
Expand the BG to 3 battalions. Manpower will come from the restructuring - main manpower force of these should be of military service volunteers.

* Helicopter Squadron
Establish a second squadron for training purposes with the intention to expand the helicopter force. For that buy 10 Bo.105s

Partially Active Reserve Units:

* Support/Maintenance Command
Support/Maintenance Command: three combined transport and replenishment battalions (one field army, one supporting units and one air force) plus three cadred when in wartime and two maintenance battalions. One battalion operates a military-run large maintenance facility, as well as five large depots (platoon each).

* Engineer Command (9 battalions)
Engineer Command commands four relatively standard engineer battalions (reduce to two cadred), six light CMC engineer companies (reduce to two plus two cadred), three NBC defence battalions (two transform into cadred), a pontoon engineer battalion and an amphibious transport battalion, if manpower levels allow that one more each.

* Medical Command (5 battalions)
Medical Command: one medical regiment with one battalion for medical support to all fixed bases (includes an aviation medicien facility), as well as three mobile medical and one MASH battalion. Manpower levels are kept relatively low. reason is that the military provides students with scholarships and then puts them in the medical reserve.

* Military Police battalion

* Two Signals regiments
Of the two signals regiments, one operates fixed sites for Satcom, Communications (ACE High), Air Surveillance etc, while the other provides more general signals support, including mobile facilities.

* An SAS Regiment is needed as soon as possible!!!

Inactive Reserve Units:

* Territorial Defense Command (13 battalions)
The Territorial Defense Command was formed under the last government from pre-existing reserve forces. It stocks reserve equipment and manages reservists for three heterogenous infantry regiments with limited combined-arms capability, three security battalions and one field artillery battalion. These are all truck-mounted light infantry with some minimal anti-tank capability, and towed mortars and howitzers for fire support.


--------------Field army inventory considerations-------------------------

Heavy Equipment in operation:
Tanks: 100 Leopard 2A4 - if possible raise number to 180
AFVs: 21 KanJgPz, 36 Gepard B2L, 12 Jaguar 1 - store KanJgPz and Jaguars and if situation in the region stays stable for the five years to come scrap them. Raise the Gepards to 60-80 units and upgrade them with new radars and SAMs
IFV/APCs: 46 Marder 1A2, 8 M577A1, 28 M113GA2, 72 Fuchs 1A2/1A3 (specialized), 16 TM170 (borderguard) - no good. most of these are old and Marders aren't amphibious so if bridges are demolished and enemy advance in a war is rapid they will be trapped between the border and the rivers. I would go for a combined solution of both tracked design (CV.90) and wheeled russian BTR-90
Artillery: 18 M110A2, 18 M109A3G, 16 LARS MLRS, 18 FH-70 155mm, 18 M56 105mm - scrap the M56s, store the M110s. Raise and upgrade the M109s, scrap the MLRS and replace it with russian URAGAN MLRS. If the weapon transfer is frozen go for south-african SP MLRS. Expand towed artillery quantities to at least 100 units.
Mortars: 12 M113 with 120mm mortar, 36 towed 120mm mortars - Expand mortar inventories.
Heavy Crew-served: ~100 Milan ATGM, ~100 FK20 20mm guns, ~1200 light anti-tank weapons. - Check NVA-stockpiles for a great number of cheap rugged weapons systems.
Helicopters: 7 SA313B Alouette-II light utility helos (+3 for spare parts) - Order 8 Mi-17s, around 12 Bo.105 PAH-1s and some 10 B.206 Jet Rangers. Start ambitious pilot training programm.

The military units have been restationed to four primary active sites and six reserve mobilization points. Additional to that are a number of smaller sites plus depots. So overhaul and modernise them. As soon as possible construction of two main air force bases should start, even before the aircraft for the expansion of the fleet are chosen. Immediately.




* Active units may not exceed 25,000 soldiers; all combatants including borderguard are included in that. So manpower should be kept at around 19.000 in order to have around 4,000 trainees yearly.
No weapon system with a range above 50 km may be acquired.
* As it's 1995, the wars in Bosnia and Croatia are currently coming to an end. The government would like to garner some international favours by participating in planned peacekeeping operations, contributing about a battalion. - But this doesn't mean the force should play a leading role. So a field hospital and a construction engineer company will be dispatched along with a logistics company to distribute humanitarian aid and an infantry company to provide security for them.
* Air Defence has been wished for recently in light of the not really all that distant ongoing war, and recent intrusions of aircraft over territories of other friendly nations. Because of the 50km limitation I sugest 2 battalions of self-propelled Buk SAMs when people are trained.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Government proceeds with its EU aspirations and leaves any chances for NATO. It does its best to tie the country to the european economies as much as possible so in a case of war the EU-member countries should protect their interests.
Common economic zone with Green 1 and Green 2 is established. Both countries are approached with suggestions for a military defense alliance. Anyway they SHOULD be made understand that BLUE is ready to provide support in every way possible and expects the same from them and that at that moment they are NOT doing the slightest thing in that direction and BLUE efforts are one-sided. So a time could come when BLUE seeks a powerfull ally, who is ready to provide military forces on BLUE territory. Green 1 has offered slight discounts on its defence products (AFVs, helicopters, small fixed-wing aircraft), as it has recently been failing to sell these in light of the split from Orange, which used to be the largest customer. So BLUE diplomats should impress that country that it is not the time to seek pure financial profit when situation is not stable yet and that BLUE is supplying GREEN 1 with military equipment at prises for BLUE MILITARY and expects the same. If GREEN 1 doesn't lower prises it will have to face a strong military presence of an overseas country on BLUE soil as that country is not capable of providing itself with the defense needed. If that doesn't help then BLUE will make a moderate order for russian weaponry. Say 14 MiG-29s, 8 Mi-24s, 16 Mi-17s and around 80 BTR-90s. If that doesn't help Russia will become the main supplier of weaponry when domestic production (aided by south african and israeli connections) is not enough to meet the armed forces needs.

[kato]

Alright, answering some things...

Urbanization:
Yes, the area is indeed heavily urbanized in the river valley. In the river valley, there are two larger agglomerations (900k and 700k ppl respectively). The larger agglomeration is where the second river runs into the main river, the other one is farther south. The valley doesn't represent the former urbanized region of Orange, but merely a small part of it (Orange is considerably bigger). The immediately surrounding areas of Orange along the border though are rather rural, except for immediately following the river valley further to the North. All other bordering areas are also rural, the urbanized regions of Green 1 and Green 2 in particular lie elsewhere.

I'll post a map on rough distribution of population later on, as this is somewhat important data really.

River/Bridges:
The main river is crossed along it's length (about 120 km between divided parts) by only 9 large bridges, all at least MLC100 capable. 4 of these are within the two agglomerations. In addition, there are regular ferry services across the river using standardized 30-ton payload ferries in 6 places.

Military bridging forces are available in the Engineer Command: The Engineer Command has one battalion with amphibious road-mobile pontoon bridges (MLC60) and several companies with Ribbon Bridge systems (MLC60, 270m length total). As for other riverine craft, these units also operate about 30 highly maneuverable small speedboats for auxiliary functions.

Orange used to have a company with 12 LCUs and 4 light PBs assigned for this area, but these were stationed farther north outside the territory of Blue, and were decommissioned and scrapped five years before the split.
The port of the larger agglomeration (capital) has spare quay capacity to house multiples of far larger riverine ships.

---

Regarding improvements:
- getting additional Leo 2A4 might pose a problem, although will probably be possible.
- artillery: further FH70? further 155mm? or move to an entirely different towed system (e.g. D30)?
- Air Force Base 1 can be taken over with minimal modification, can house up to 30 helos and light aircraft in strengthened hangars.
- Air Force Base 2 will have to be chosen from: Site A, civilian sports airport, support up to An-26 size, not expandable; Site B, deactivated former cargo airport, essentially prepared site with no buildings left. Site B has advantage of wider distribution of sites.

Your Plan for Bosnia meets approval with the government.

Green 1 offers to form a defence industry pact with Blue and Green 2 in which these three nations would be able to buy from domestic industry of the three nations at equal prices through a common procurement agency (but don't have to use this agency for outside purchases).

[B.Smitty]

For perspective, the airforces of neighbors:
F-16 are not available due to political circumstances. Gripen would be possible, but at considerably higher cost.

Is other US hardware available? Or is it all off limits?

[kato]

Is other US hardware available? Or is it all off limits?
Aircraft, SAM, MLRS are offlimit. Basically, anything high-tech. (Older) Tanks, AFVs, small arms and such are no problem.

[Feanor]

After some poking around I got an interesting idea. Would it be possible to latch on to the MKI project? It would give this country a relatively low cost, yet highly modern aircraft around the 2002-2005 timeframe.

[kato]

Here's a somewhat better map.

Shows:
- basic terrain (valley, higher plains, mountaineous area)
- towns above 40,000 citizens
- bridges above main river (thick black)
- railroad links (thin black; cross-border connections not shown)
- important civilian sites (yellow dots)
- power plants and nuclear facilities (green dots)

The "high" plains in this case are roughly 500 feet above the valley, and hilly. Rather rural, except for two larger cities located in it. Mountains stretch up to 2500 feet.

For military bases refer to other map, yellow for active, green for mobilization bases.
Rough distribution for depots: two in the higher plains, one in the northern mountains, two in the valley.

Potential air base sites: Former military airport north of larger agglomeration north; small civilian airport west of river a bit south of it; former cargo airport near second town from the south in the valley.

edit: wow, and i still have no scale on it. Assume east-to-west roughly 200 km, north-to-south roughly 150 km.

[kato]

Ground forces for comparison:

Green 1 (severely slashed down):
- 3 heavy mechanized infantry brigades (two active, one reserve)
- 3 medium mechanized infantry brigades (one active, two reserve)
- 2 mountain infantry brigades (reserve)
- two artillery regiments, one air-defense regiment, two SAM regiments

Green 2 (bumbling around like Blue):
- one airmobile light infantry brigade (active)
- two mechanized infantry brigades (one active, one reserve)
- two light infantry regiments (reserve)
- one artillery battalion, one medium SAM battalion

Orange (severely slashed down):
- 6 armour brigades (four active, two reserve)
- 8 mechanized infantry brigades (four active, four reserve)
- one paratrooper brigade (active)
- three artillery regiments, two air-defense regiments, three SAM regiments

[lobbie111]

Are the bridges High enough to support inshore patrol boats similar to pibbers that can be jointly crewed with customs to share 50% of the cost with the Navy, I am trying to find a suitable model.

[kato]

There is no navy. The country is landlocked.

[B.Smitty]

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.

[kato]

So am I correct in reading that Orange is our primary threat?
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.

Do we have any plans to participate in other peacekeeping/SASO operations around the world?
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.

Do we plan to have a sustained, long-term presences in our Balkans peacekeeping mission?
In concert with other nations, yes.

Tornado ADV/IDS (if still in production)
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.

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.
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.

[BuSOF]

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.

[kato]

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.

[BuSOF]

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?

[kato]

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.

[B.Smitty]

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.

[kato]

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.

[kato]

The Erieyes would vector flights of Tornados and Hawks with radars off.
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.

[BuSOF]

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.

AWACS for a country of roughly 12000 square kms and flat terrain?! Not realistic, not needed.

[B.Smitty]

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.

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.

[B.Smitty]

AWACS for a country of roughly 12000 square kms and flat terrain?! Not realistic, not needed.

Ok, I see your point. For some reason I thought it was larger.

[B.Smitty]

AWACS for a country of roughly 12000 square kms and flat terrain?! Not realistic, not needed.

OTOH, Israel is only 22,000 sq km, and they certainly want and need AEW.

[lobbie111]

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.

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

[Jon K]

As none of the "hypothetical..." threads has been active in the last two months, here's a new one :p:

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.

I'll have my take on this.

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.

[kato]

OTOH, Israel is only 22,000 sq km, and they certainly want and need AEW.
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.

[kato]

*Ground forces command (Adminstrative)

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
*- two coy tank, one coy MechInf; no mortars

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)

Security Btls are essentially administrative units collecting small defensive units responsible for a certain area each.
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.

[BuSOF]

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.

[kato]

If warplans call for rebasing to Green 1 and 2 that puts things in a whole different perspective to the plans to that point.
Don't specifically call for it i'd say, but it's kept as an emergency solution.

[B.Smitty]

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.


I'm coming around to your way of thinking BuSOF. We should have a small squadron of something for airspace integrity and not worry about AEW.

Maybe we could buy a few tethered aerostats with air search radars instead? They would offer the horizon-extending benefits of an AEW aircaft at a much lower price.

I'm not a huge fan of Russian hardware. They typically have low service lives and their electronics are not up to what you can get on their Western counterparts. However in this situation, where our Air Force is essentially a speed-bump in a war with Orange, perhaps buying a small number of cheaper Fulcrums or Flankers makes some sense. They would have to undergo an upgrade program similar to what EADS did for Poland and Germany to meet NATO/EU standards.

Our primary, wartime air defense would then have to be SAM-based. Perhaps acquiring those I-Hawks would be a good idea. If upgraded, and combined with a significant number of MANPADs and other small, mobile SAMs and radars, we could play a cat-and-mouse game with Orange air as the Serbs did with NATO.

[kato]

The problem with AEW is actually even a bit wider than you may realize...

Only Non-US AEW systems in the mid 90s:
UK: Sea King AEW.2/AEW.5 (helo-based)
CIS: Ka-29RLD/Ka-31 (helo-based) - operational debut in '95
CIS: A-50 Shmel
IL: B707 w/ Phalcon - aircraft can be sourced commercially

Not available yet:
S-100B Argus / Erieye - not introduced until 1999 (!) in Sweden

[B.Smitty]

The problem with AEW is actually even a bit wider than you may realize...

Only Non-US AEW systems in the mid 90s:
UK: Sea King AEW.2/AEW.5 (helo-based)
CIS: Ka-29RLD/Ka-31 (helo-based) - operational debut in '95
CIS: A-50 Shmel
IL: B707 w/ Phalcon - aircraft can be sourced commercially

Not available yet:
S-100B Argus / Erieye - not introduced until 1999 (!) in Sweden

Hmm, I thought I saw references indicating Erieye was available earlier.

1999 is still within our 5 year plan, though we wouldn't be able to get them for some years later.

Phalcon would be a good choice too, but I'm leaning towards no AEW.

On the political front, do we think we can use the purchase of fighter aircraft to speed our acceptance into the EU? What nation do we wish to be beholden? The Russians? The French? The Germans/UK?

I think this question, as much as anything technical will drive our fighter choice.

If we were to buy Russian, is the Su-30MK really the poorer choice? A large, long-ranged aircraft isn't necessary for us, but there doesn't seem to be much of a price difference between it and the Mig-29SE, and it is a more capable aircraft.

[kato]

What nation do we wish to be beholden? The Russians? The French? The Germans/UK?
There should be one thing to consider in any case: We also need a supply of nuclear fuel (prepared HEU) to keep our nuclear plants going. Might be an argument for either France or Russia for example, i think. Primarily France, as our reactors use a "Western" fuel mix.

If we were to buy Russian, is the Su-30MK really the poorer choice? A large, long-ranged aircraft isn't necessary for us, but there doesn't seem to be much of a price difference between it and the Mig-29SE, and it is a more capable aircraft.
Would necessitate a closer comparison especially regarding the jobs we'd need it for. The MiG-29SE has, for example, a far faster climb rate (325m/s vs 230m/s), which might be interesting with regard to quick-reaction interception.

Erieye - first production system delivered for testing in '96, squadron complete and operational in '99. For Swedish version on SF340. The version of Erieye on EMB-145 was in wind-tunnel testing in '96.

[B.Smitty]

There should be one thing to consider in any case: We also need a supply of nuclear fuel (prepared HEU) to keep our nuclear plants going. Might be an argument for either France or Russia for example, i think. Primarily France, as our reactors use a "Western" fuel mix.


Good point. I'm just not crazy about buying the same aircraft as our most likely adversary. France might decide to start playing favorites.


Would necessitate a closer comparison especially regarding the jobs we'd need it for. The MiG-29SE has, for example, a far faster climb rate (325m/s vs 230m/s), which might be interesting with regard to quick-reaction interception.


Very true. OTOH, the Su-30MK has longer endurance, allowing it to perform longer CAPs. It also has a more capable sensor suite, and can carry more AAMs.

On the downside, the Su-30 undoubtedly has higher operational costs.

[kato]

Good point. I'm just not crazy about buying the same aircraft as our most likely adversary.

Hm?

Orange uses Tornados and F-4F. Pink uses Dassault aircraft, and is mostly neutral towards the whole situation.

See Post #9.

[BuSOF]

Tell you why the MiG-29 is the best solution:
1. It's the cheapest option.
2. It's the otpion with the best weaponry for air defense.
3. It's is great for wartime dispersion.
4. It's unmatched in dog fighting.
5. It is a fighter, which could be used as fighter-bomber, the Mirage 2000 is the other way around and air defense is our major concern now.
6. Russian military hardwre being inferior is just stupid prejudices. Ask USNavy pilots, who flew training missions against malaysian MiG-29s (which is exactly the type I sugest BLUE buys for the start). Think of something else. Our air force flies MiG-29s (izdelie 9-12A) and Su-25K. The first time american fighter pilots came to Graf Ignatievo to practice with our pilots they were so impressed both by the planes and the combat abilities that our pilots possess with so low flight hours per year that now american fighter planes come three-four times a year for that opportunity. Pilots came from Aviano (several times), Lakenheath, Spangdahlem, even guardsmen from Oregon (we also have sent pilots there), New York (I think). French pilots came with the Mirage 2000N, brits came with Jags, in th enear future there will be a joint exercise with the greeks. EVERIONE IS IMPRESSED by our MiG-29s, even if they are the basic modification. And I am suggesting that BLUE buys the upgraded version. Same thing goes to the missiles. R-73 is far superior to both american and french short-range air-to-air missiles and has a shooting range of 30kms. Only the latest israely Python missiles are somewhere near that. Even the AIM-9X cannot outmatch the R-73. and here we are talking about 1995. And kato emphasized that the US will not supply advanced weaponry. So the best we can hope for is AIM-9L (if even that variant will be supplied to BLUE Air Force). About Medium range missiles things don't look prettier. R-77 has better maneuverability that the AIM-120. Not only that. Analysis show the AIM-120 has a range of 50-55km, the R-77 has a range of 60-65km. And once again, we cannot hope for AMRAAMs for us at that moment.
The MiG-29 was made as a frontline fighter. That means it was made to operate from airfields near the line of battle in rudimentary basing conditions. For that reason it CAN GO INTO DOG FIGHT AS SOON AS IT"S AIRBORNE. The Sukhois you sugest are different. They are developed for dog-fighting after a long flight of 1200-1500km. Sure they could be supplied with lesser fuel in order to make them lighter, but I read pulications that operating them like that ruines the engines.
And the MiG-29 has an action radius of 500km. BLUE has a radius of less than 100km. For the MiG-29 it takes less than a minute from lift-off to positioning for fire. About the service life of russian hardware this is not true. The difference comes from operational doctrine, which doesn't require say 6000 flight hours. That doesn't mean that a russian airplane cannot survive that. A typical mission of a MiG-29 is around 30min., that of an F-16 or a Mirage 2000 is around 1h15min - 1h30min. I agree that mobile SAMs are needed. But not to play cat-and-mouse. That is the way air defenses should operate. fixed western missile air defenses are not a solution. They are a defficiency.
In western doctrines fighters take the bulk of air defense missions. In our instance Buk is the best solution. (http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/bukm.htm) Hawk is extremely low-mobile and that makes it vulnerable. I am thinking of th epolish PZL Loara as a replacement of the Gepards.
The question about our major foreign partner is relevant for the rearmament programme, that will follow in say 10 years. It is not a relevant one right now. Hungary acquired MiG-29s and SAMs from Russia and that didn't prevent it from entering either NATO or the EU. That acquisition will not speed the acceptance of our country in NATO in any way. NATO is concerned whether one candidate can defend itself and to what extend. Just before Poland entered NATO Brussel's greatest concern wasn't that WLiOP flew MiGs but that according to Polish General Staff estimates in case of war the armed forces could not defend more than 25% of the whole territory.
Of course linking BLUE to France is a very prudent and needed step, but the question about nuclear fuel is not connected to th equestion about a fighter plane. On the contrary - this could be used to buffer french pressure: "What do you want more? We are buying nuclear fuel from you, aren't we? What more do you want?" One of the greatest advantages is that te french are practical people in situations like that.
As to playing favourites every arms supplier can play that game whenever it suits him, no matter are the two sides in a conflict his customers or just the one of them.

[B.Smitty]

Hm?

Orange uses Tornados and F-4F. Pink uses Dassault aircraft, and is mostly neutral towards the whole situation.

See Post #9.

Yep, sorry, I was confused. :)

[B.Smitty]

Tell you why the MiG-29 is the best solution:
1. It's the cheapest option.
2. It's the otpion with the best weaponry for air defense.
3. It's is great for wartime dispersion.
4. It's unmatched in dog fighting.
5. It is a fighter, which could be used as fighter-bomber, the Mirage 2000 is the other way around and air defense is our major concern now.

Do the Mig-29s of our era have Zhuk-Ms? Or are we stuck with N-019/N-019M? If so, doesn't that older radar have severe limitations using BVR missiles? Can we even use R-27s effectively with it?

I thought the Mirage 2000's role was primarily a high-altitude fighter first, not a bomber.

I agree that the R-73 plus HMD combo makes the Mig a terror in WVR, but if the models we can get now can't effectively use BVR missiles, perhaps we should consider another aircraft, or wait for the SMT-2.

[kato]

Do the Mig-29s of our era have Zhuk-Ms? Or are we stuck with N-019/N-019M? If so, doesn't that older radar have severe limitations using BVR missiles? Can we even use R-27s effectively with it?

Belarussian MiG-29SE had N-019, Russian models had N-019M (and could therefore use R-77). I think N-019 also has severe limitations in the number of targets it could track.

I thought the Mirage 2000's role was primarily a high-altitude fighter first, not a bomber.
Depends on the version, but the most likely model would at this time be some variant of the Mirage 2000-5 Mk 1 - which is primarily a air superiority fighter. The Mk 2 upgrade later on gave it full multi-role capability. Mk 1 could operate MICA EM, but not MICA IR.
The Mirage 2000N/D is the dedicated bomber version.

[B.Smitty]

Belarussian MiG-29SE had N-019, Russian models had N-019M (and could therefore use R-77). I think N-019 also has severe limitations in the number of targets it could track.


I've also read that the Mig avionics (at least in older models) made BVR a real pain compared to Western designs.

Given the size of our country, however, I wonder how much BVR we really could expect?

If we had aircraft airborne and at altitude, perhaps.

But by the time we scramble and climb, enemy aircraft will be on top of us.

OTOH, if we had a doctrine of preemptive strike, perhaps we would find more use for BVR.


Depends on the version, but the most likely model would at this time be some variant of the Mirage 2000-5 Mk 1 - which is primarily a air superiority fighter. The Mk 2 upgrade later on gave it full multi-role capability. Mk 1 could operate MICA EM, but not MICA IR.
The Mirage 2000N/D is the dedicated bomber version.

Ahh, right, I forgot about the N/D models.

[kato]

If we had aircraft airborne and at altitude, perhaps.


Looking up Orange's airbases... mostly between 200 and 300 km away.
200 km dist - 2 bases - 36 Tornado, 34 F-4F
350 km dist - 2 bases - 50 Alpha Jet, 34 F-4F
500 km dist - 3 bases - 30 RF-4E, 74 Tornado

Although they could move closer of course. There are airfields available within 100 km of Blue in theory.

[B.Smitty]

Looking up Orange's airbases... mostly between 200 and 300 km away.
200 km dist - 2 bases - 36 Tornado, 34 F-4F
350 km dist - 2 bases - 50 Alpha Jet, 34 F-4F
500 km dist - 3 bases - 30 RF-4E, 74 Tornado

Although they could move closer of course. There are airfields available within 100 km of Blue in theory.

Their bases are fairly far away, but we likely wouldn't detect a low-altitude, inbound raid until they were almost on top of us.

Not to beat a dead horse, but if we had Phalcon, we could detect aircraft from the closer bases as soon as they took off (assuming no terrain masking).

[kato]

Summary, Airforce Issues

Fighters:
- Shortlist down to: MiG-29SE, Su-30MK, Mirage 2000-5
- issue of medium range air superiority vs straight intercept remaining so far
- AEW support to be considered, but unlikely (also cost issue: Phalcon is around 200 million per unit; Erieye around 70-80 million later on)
- Strength: 1/2 squadrons? (ie 12-16 or 24-32 units?) - presumably also cost issue; suspect one squadron with the pricier stuff or two squadrons with MiGs.
- not discussed so far: multirole aspect (ground attack)? EW considerations?

SAMs:
- 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

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?

Utility/Liaison/Light Transport:
- Take up Do-28D-2 for such functions?
- Alternatives? New Do-228? Defender BN2P/BN2T? An-3T?
- other aircraft? maybe a Gulfstream or two?
- Note: could also be used as base aircraft for light AEW with Erieye, should fit in a Do-228 rather well

Transport:
- 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)

Training:
- L-39? Hawks? Alpha Jet?
- must-have or should other countries be approached for joint training?
- light prop trainers? needed? SF.260 / G-115 / Saab Safari ? doubt we'd ever need them for patrol/combat role.

[kato]

Summary, Ground Force Propositions

Overall:
- rebalance to medium/light (B.Smitty)
- peacekeeping equipment pool for heavy units (Jon K)
- SF btl (Jon K, BuSOF) - transform from existing light inf unit?

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

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

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

Border Guard:
- expand to 3-5 btl?
- keep/merge MP?
- merge with some security assets?

Engineers
- pretty much keep as is?
- expansion of bridging capability? LCUs?
- reduction of NBC capability?

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

[BuSOF]

Not to beat a dead horse, but if we had Phalcon, we could detect aircraft from the closer bases as soon as they took off (assuming no terrain masking).
Yes, but show me a country other than Israel and Singapore (two of the wealthiest nations on the planet) of th esize of BLUE that has an AEW&C capability.
As for the Mirage 2000, it has never been developed for an air superiority fighter. Firstly only heavy fighters such as the F-15, Su-27, F-14 and MiG-31 are capable providing air superiority, otherwise it could also be won by a huge force of light fighters, but that will be only temporary and superiority would be very fragile. The Mirage 2000 is not a heavy fighter, it is even lighter than its counterparts. The 2000-5 is NOT an air superiority fighter, it is a multirole fighter with extensive fighter capabilities. It is NOT a high altitude fighter, this is where it stands a chance against F-16 for example. The greeks have proven that at their Air Combat Tactics Center.
As for th ecapabilities of the MiG-29 radars this is another nonsence. Tell me, how could anybody say it is better or worse when there are no great quantities (if there are any) in operational service? But there comes someone form, say Raytheon, or EADS, or whatever and says: "Why buy russian? It's cheap but doesn't worth a damn." And that's it it is not even proven but everybody takes that statement for granted.

As for the fighter competitors shortlist and the issue about operational doctrine:
Main Orange air bases are 200-300km away. When forward deployed for war aircraft will use bases 100km away from BLUE territory.
Erieye has a declared detection range of 350 km. I wouldn't bet on that. When it comes to marketing EVERYBODY exadurates. Nevertheless 270-280km is more probable. So you got a valluable asset which needs protection. You cannot divert fighters for that purpose, so the other option is to keep it away from the border, say 150km away. Wartime Orange bases fall on the edge of its capabillities that way. So anyway when Blue Air Force is capable to take actions the attackers will be around 50km from our capitol. Either way. In that case what do we need the AEW&C for?
In order to face that threat we need more units and airborne patrols even in peacetime. That means 2 squadrons. Ground attack capability doesn't stand a chance and will be moled by the superior Orange fighter numbers.
History shows that when a country chooses a fighter type for its multirole applications but chooses to put an emphasys on air defense and leaves the development of the ground attack capability it takes a military defeat for its planners to remember that. EW is needed, but I say we keep up to 5 business-jets stuffed with that equipment.

SAMs are definitely needed and that is the mobile type, as only it has survivability in the circumstances BLUE is put into.
The type I suggested has a firing range of 30km. As I recall types fyring over 50km are prohibited by treaty. So Patriot i snot an option. Hawk is far inferior compared to the Buk, but if you insist on it and put it on an MBT chassis I might settle for that option. Aspide does not provide u swith the same range, the same mobility and is a lot more expensive.

Take the Bo.105s. Yes, but we gotta keep in mind that they are a stopgap until something better comes down the road.
Medium transport helicopters: yes, up to 20 Mi-17-1V
It has unmatched capabilities and is a lot cheaper:
32 fully equipped soldiers or 12 casualties and medical staff or 4000 kg (onboard or on external load)
Armament 12,7mm MG
1500kg of ordnance on 6 pilons
up to 6 rocket launchers for 16x55mm rockets or 32x57mm
or 6 250kg bombs (could be flown in CAS)
or 2 gun-pods with 23mm guns
or 4 ATGM (a unique anti-tank capabillity)
Thus an airmobile capability is existant.
If russian avionics bother you in 1995 a westernised variant is in the making. We buy them and equip them with navigation system EDZ-756, meteoradar P700, altitude radar AA-30, combined radio-navigation complex VG/DG 14 and Primus II, Transcoil engine control system, Marconi doppler navigation system etc. IAR-330 is the absolutely lowest possibillity of the four here. Cougar is good, but it is not superior than the Mils. It is 2008 and I still don't see cougars deployed to Afghanistan for example. If it is really that good, how come? As for the Mi-17 it's combat proven all around the globe.
So I say a utility squadron of Bo.105s, a transport squadron of 6-8 Mi-17s and an airmobile operations squadron of 12-14 Mi-17s. I would like to see a squadron of AH-1Ws around 2005 if embargo is lifted.:rolleyes: Just the way I voted for that aircraft in another hypothetical thread I vote for M-28 Bryza as a light transport. Cessna 650 is also an option but we're talking about a really small country here. As for an improvised AEW it takes a whole lot more to develop such a type than just fit the system into the hull.

2-4 Hercules planes, aided by 3-5 CN.235. C-27J would be nicer but still it's 1995 for us. Some 10 M-28s to be used for transport, utility and liaison. Chartered heavy Antonov aircraft to bring in weapons when needed, I guess the IAP can support their operations once to three times a year.

Alpha Jets are old, Hawks are costly. Hawks are something like fighters and something like fighter-bombers and something like air interdiction aircraft, but not quite. So they definitely don't worth their money.
A joint training program with Green 1 and 2, which will include PC-9s, SF.260, AS.550 and Be.200? Any thoughts? It seems feasible to me.
After that Blue Air Force will take care of its pilots on the L-39s or 59s or 139s at home.


Ground Force Propositions

Overall:
- rebalance to medium/light - too dangerous as all our neighbours have mechanised forces, and our terrain is not that adverse to help us out in that.
- peacekeeping equipment pool for heavy units - agree
- SF btl (Jon K, BuSOF) - transform from existing light inf unit? - No, i'd say send the perspective young officers to the UK, RSA, France, Russia, Israel etc. for special operations training and then after the infantry veterans from bosnia come use them to form a new unit. Officers will also be used as instructors that way.

Armour Brigade:
- more/less Leos? - more if possible. Overall up to 180
- transform to MechInf Brigade? - name doesn't matter. You could have an armoured brigade with 2 tank and 2 mechanised infantry units, you could have a mechanised brigade with the same composition. As for the brigade structure you posted it looks OK to me.
- new IFV/APC? - yes, all amphibious and miltirole, to be used in a series of tasks.

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

Artillery Regiment:
- expand? - you've read my prepositions
- extended recon capability? UAVs? - would be quite handy
- replace MLRS? with what? (Astros-II up to SS-40? Russian?) second hand russian Uragan, if not available, then RM-70.

Border Guard:
- expand to 3-5 btl? - 4 field and 1 special is optimal number to me
- keep/merge MP? - If border guard expands fusion is OK, if not I wouldn's recommend that
- merge with some security assets? - military should eb kept aside from civil law enforcement

Engineers
- pretty much keep as is?
- expansion of bridging capability? LCUs? - tank landing craft, so we could save the tanks if Orange pushes us to the river
- reduction of NBC capability? - keep an understrenght battalion

Territorial Defence
- keep as is?
- transform into National Guard essentially? (own medical/eng assets) - I agree on that[/QUOTE]

[kato]

Some Cost Calculations.

We have 1.1 billion Dollar available annually, 5.5 billion total for first 5-year-plan.

Shortlisted Aircraft Possibility, offer for 900-million-dollar contract:

- 20 Mirage 2000-5 (Mk1 standard) (one squadron)
- 24 Su-30MK (electronics modded) (one squadron)
- 48 MiG-29SE (electronics modded) (two squadrons)

Contract includes system-specific maintenance systems, maintenance initial training, some spare parts.
Also, with each offer, a certain proportion (20%) are two-seater weapon training aircraft.

Estimated upkeep is an annual 18% of procurement cost (ie 162 million).
Estimated personnel needs is 32 soldiers and 14 civilians per aircraft, when calculated over the whole squadron. This includes airfield operational staff. Resulting personnel cost is 2.9 million Dollar per aircraft.
Standard Operation cost (fuel, ordnance etc) is set at 2.1 million per aircraft per year.

ESS below: equivalent single squadron, standardized at 24 aircraft

Cost over 5-year-plan:
40% budget, 2.21 billion (20 Mirage 2000-5) => ESS: 2.652 billion
42% budget, 2.31 billion (24 Su-30MK) => ESS: 2.320 billion
53% budget, 2.91 billion (48 MiG-29SE) => ESS: 1.455 billion

Cost equivalent to 24-unit Su-30MK squadron: either 21 Mirage 2000-5, or 38 MiG-29SE.

Hence cost-wise close run-off between Mirage 2000-5 and Su-30MK. MiG-29SE would be the cheap runner, if we only took one squadron.

MiG-29SE as offered:
- N019ME radar, R-77 capable; 10 tracks, 2 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 4 R-77 + 2 R-73
- Strike fittings: max 4,000 kg on 6 pylons, possible: B8M1 20-cell S8 rocket launchers; S-24B rockets; BKF CBU dispenser; FAB-250, FAB-500 freefall bombs
- Possible Strike Upgrade: KAB-500L, KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs

Su-30MK as offered:
- N011M radar; 15 tracks, 4 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 6 R-77 + 6 R-73
- Strike fittings: max 8,000 kg on 12 pylons, possible: B8M1 20-cell S8 rocket launchers; B12L 5-cell S13 rocket launchers; BKF CBU dispenser; FAB-250, FAB-500 freefall bombs
- Possible Strike Upgrade: KAB-500L, KAB-1500L laser-guided bombs; Kh-29L missile

Mirage 2000-5 as offered:
- RDY radar; 24 tracks; 8 track-and-scan, 4 engagements simultaneously
- Fighter standard fit: 4 Mica EM + 2 Mica ER
- Strike fittings: max 6,300 kg of : LR F4 18-cell 68mm rocket launcher; 250kg freefall bombs; (16x) Durandal anti-runway bombs, BGL-1000 laser-guided bombs, Belouga CBU
- Possible Strike Upgrade: AS.30L missile; Armat anti-radar missile

[B.Smitty]

Interesting analysis kato.

Where did you get the cost figures for the various aircraft?

I need to do some more research, but I was under the impression that the Su-30MK and the Mig-29S(+) weren't all that different in flyaway price (surprisingly), at least based on what is known about the actual sales of those aircraft.

Of course determining actual aircraft prices is more art than science.

[B.Smitty]

From http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm,

"Sukhoi has a $1.5-$1.8 billion deal to supply 40 Su-30MK to India" (1997)

$37.5-45 million each, program price.

If found this posting on aircraft prices to be useful. It just tries to list program prices based on known sales.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-30304.html

[kato]

Where did you get the cost figures for the various aircraft?

Lots of guessing, rounding, "making it look nice". By including maintenance training, spare parts and such, there's a good way to smoothen the numbers somewhat. E.g. MiG-29SE don't necessarily have to be sourced entirely from Russia.

The numbers are actually rather optimistic. Also, the prices for these aircraft have been fluctuating extremely in the last 15 years.

Mirage 2000 : ROC price, slightly rounded down (was: $3.8 billion for 60 aircraft in 1992).
Su-30MK : Went by the MKI effective price, pretty much, since we'd need similar "Westernization".
MiG-29SE : There have been a couple fire sales for considerable less even, see e.g. Ecuador ($4 million per aircraft!!!). With somewhat better electronics, i'm aiming for a price between SE and SMT version (see below).

Some contracts upon which i've based it (decisive in cursive):
- The Su-30 MKA cost $1.5 billion for 28 aircraft, in 2006 prices.
- Malaysia got 18 Su-30MKM for $900 million in 2003.
- The MKI cost $35 million apiece minimum.
- Vietnam's Su-30MK2V cost $28 million apiece, in 2007
- Russia offered Egypt 40 MiG-29SMT for 1.5 billion in 2006.
- Sudan ordered MiG-29SE for 10 million apiece in 2001.
- Malaysia got 18 MiG-29SE in 1995 for roughly 500 million (debt repayment by Russia, so i doubt these were exactly cheap at the time).

[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. :D

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 :D
(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,