Midtguardian artillery logistics

Bozoo

New Member
Midtguardian Defence System - Artillery logistic question

For information on the Midtguardian Defence Scale HO 1:87 scenario, please refer to corresponding thread on general defence.

The Midtguardian defence system deploys one artillery Bn on divisional level. This batallion has the following forces:

2 batterys each of 6 M 109 A3G 155 mm SPA
1 battery of 8 M 110 203 mm SPA
1 battery of 8 M 43 obsolecent 155 mm SPA
2 batterys each of 6 LARS2 (Light Artillery Rocket System) with FERA fire control

I have a question about logistics.

The M 109 batterys are organized in two gun fire sections with a fire control vehicle for each fire sections. The question is how to organize ammo transport to ensure the guns have the neceassary shells in a combat situation.

As far as I can understand, the guns have a sustained rate of fire of one round pr minute (burst rate of three rounds pr. minute the first three minutes)

I'm worried about counter battery fire. As far as I understand, there are now artillery locating radars beeing able to backtrack incoming rounds and direct counter battery fire from the first round, probably only avaliable to first tier countries. Question: Are such radars now operational? Do they have such quick reaction capability?

Due to this, I have a "shoot and scoot" policy of max 5 minute fire mission before relocating the gun section when operating against a first tier nation, generally letting the guns fire for max 3 minutes before starting redeployment, thus utilizing thye guns three minute burst rate and maximizing the rate of fire while minimizing the risk of counter battery fire.

The guns of each battery would be deployed in "dispersed mode" with the two gun sections dispersed from each other. With the requirement of more sustained fire, I would let one gun section fire for three minutes, then relocate to next prepared position, the guns of the next two gun section opening fire as the first start relocating, and the same again for the last gun section.

Hopefully, the first gun section will have redeployed in the six minutes it takes for the next two gun sections to complete their fire missions, and so on and so forth. By this I hope to be able to lay down continuing fire from two guns until the guns must reload ammo.

If necessary, this can be co-ordinated with the 2. battery og M 109's for a continual fire of four guns, or, if more prolonged fire is needed, the 2. battery will take over when 1. battery is reloading. There is also the option to co-ordinate with the 8 gun battery of the armoured brigade.

Question: Will this schemme for laying down fire and relocatring within six minutes be feasable? Will it protect against counter battery fire in sufficient way?

This tactics employed, each gun will fire 3 minutes of 3 shells every 9 minutes of the hour, giving a shell requirement of 9 x 6,5 = 58 shells every hour pr. gun. I do not know the exact weight of the shells, but presume that these weigh approx 10 kg a piece, giving a transport requirement of 580 kg pr. gun pr. hour for sustained fire. Would this be correct?

With this in mind, each gun section of two guns are deployed with two 10 ton 8 x 8 offroad MAN transport vehicle with a loading crane, putting a total of a little more than 8 hours worth of ammo for one gun on each truck.

Logistically, the gun sections would empty one of the two trucks every four hour. The empty truck, integral to the section, would then return to the nearest ammo dump to pick up a new load, and preferably be back again in time to replace the second truck.

Is this a litely scenario, or am I way off base? I would of coarse, prefer to give every gun section a third ammo truck, but this is way down on my priority list. Should I give this a better priority. Be advised that the transport batallion also has ammo trucks that will be able to assist if not beeing used elsewhere.

All comments appriciated.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Your scenario is possible, provided they don't have the ISTAR to target the loading trucks, or ammunition dumps. Better yet just call in an airstrike on your arty positions. If they have recon UAVs providing data, you're not likely to be able to escape in time.
 

11561

New Member
Fire-finding radars are common, operational, and relatively cheap, and counterbattery fire can be absolutely devastating. Shoot-and-scoot isn't only encouraged, but completely mandatory for the survival of your arty. Mitguardia might want to invest in a few of these systems for it's own use. Depending on who/what you expect to be shooting back, you can adjust the window from shoot to scoot. I've heared 2 minute bursts before (As many shells as a crew can gget off in 2 minutes) but I might be off base there. If the enemy is using fire-finder radars with MLRS for counterbattery fire you could probably stay a bit longer in each firing position as rockets take a bit longer to get to their target and rockets can be fired from further away than gun arty (Russian Smerch is good for 70-90km and US MLRS is similiar and can supposedly also fire a guided missile out to 300km).

Now a thought about your choice of resupply truck: I might have gone with a cheaper, smaller vehicle do accomplish resupply, and bought more of them. With, say, two smaller vehicles per gun, you halve the chances of the gun being rendered useless because it's supply truck got whacked. And if the smaller trucks only carry 4 hours worth of ammo instead of 8, well hard cheese. The basically defensive role I see the Mitguardian army playing means that concealed ammo dumps should be no further than an hour's drive from the front, so that the huge quantity of ammo you're carrying now w/ the 10x10's would be superfluous. I'm definitely not criticizing you, just explaining the way that I'd do things. Another free vehicle also means that in the event that one gun in the section is hit, there's a vehicle free to drive any casualties to the hospital without affecting the output of the remaining gun.

Whatever you do, make sure to have a lot of prepared but somewhat concealed firing positions available and programmed into the SPG's GPS units and get plenty of practice driving around from one spot to the next, shooting, and scooting.

A thought for everyone now: Would it be a good idea to attach the 203mm's to the divisional HQ as sort of the "General's personal shotgun"? So that if recon or anyone else found something that needed to die immeadiately, they wouldn't have to re-task a battery of 155mm's. 8" shells are expensive and AFAIK out of production, so what real use would they be out on the line w/ the 155's? I also don't believe the 203mm chassis is near as mobile as the 155mm chassis, but I might be wrong.
 

shrubage

New Member
Whatever you do, make sure to have a lot of prepared but somewhat concealed firing positions available and programmed into the SPG's GPS units and get plenty of practice driving around from one spot to the next, shooting, and scooting.

A thought for everyone now: Would it be a good idea to attach the 203mm's to the divisional HQ as sort of the "General's personal shotgun"? So that if recon or anyone else found something that needed to die immeadiately, they wouldn't have to re-task a battery of 155mm's. 8" shells are expensive and AFAIK out of production, so what real use would they be out on the line w/ the 155's? I also don't believe the 203mm chassis is near as mobile as the 155mm chassis, but I might be wrong.
203's even though self propelled take pretty extensive preparation of the ground before they can fire. Also because the range isn't any better than 155mm its role as a divisional asset is debatable. I'm sure ammo is probable still manufactured by third country but you won't get any of the base bleed or rocket assisted projectiles that were being produced in the 90's. In fact the 203 was never really a success which is one of the reasons it went out of service.

Everybody and his dog has mortar locating radars, and they're getting cheaper and more sophisticated.

How suitable is mitguardia for these systems I worked with an AS90 regiment for a while and the logistics trail was huge, sure if you're moving between prepared and positions it might be easier but still I really have my doubts.

Why did you pick the LARS are they still being manufactured? you really have a lot of old kit already that your ammo and spares acquisition is going to be interesting. How about the south african valkiri? fit it onto whatever existing trucks you have and you're all set.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #5
Your scenario is possible, provided they don't have the ISTAR to target the loading trucks, or ammunition dumps. Better yet just call in an airstrike on your arty positions. If they have recon UAVs providing data, you're not likely to be able to escape in time.
What is ISTAR - anything like JSTARS? The airstrike might not be as easy as one would think, as the battery would be under the air defence umbrella provided by my 12 F 4 Phantoms with Amraams augmentet by Hawkeye AWACS in combination with Gepard GBAD. Would my search radar miss the UAV's?
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Now a thought about your choice of resupply truck: I might have gone with a cheaper, smaller vehicle do accomplish resupply, and bought more of them. With, say, two smaller vehicles per gun, you halve the chances of the gun being rendered useless because it's supply truck got whacked. And if the smaller trucks only carry 4 hours worth of ammo instead of 8, well hard cheese. The basically defensive role I see the Mitguardian army playing means that concealed ammo dumps should be no further than an hour's drive from the front, so that the huge quantity of ammo you're carrying now w/ the 10x10's would be superfluous. I'm definitely not criticizing you, just explaining the way that I'd do things. Another free vehicle also means that in the event that one gun in the section is hit, there's a vehicle free to drive any casualties to the hospital without affecting the output of the remaining gun.
Thank you ever so much for your feedback, its just what I'm looking for. Your critique is very much appreciated.

I absolutely agree with your assessment of using four trucks pr 2 gun gun section instead of two large trucks, this enhancing both felxibility and surviviability. I have therefore decided to redeploy 24 Faun 912/21 trucks from the transport BN and transfer these to the M 109 batteries, which will result in two resupply trucks for every gun. The Faun trucks are also more rugged and capable of off-road travel while fully loaded than the large MAN trucks. Even though the Fauns are also rated at 10 ton load capacity, they have a much smaller loading area, and would therefore load somewhat in exess of 60% of the MAN trucks, giving each truck ammo for 5 hours of firemissions. The Fauns also have a loading crane on every truck, which I deem necessary for transporting 155 mm ammo.

The 12 large MANs are redeployed as transport Bn assets, where they are uniquely suited because of their large loading area. This will be carried out at first conveniance, that is when I have time to pull the two units to replace the trucks.

Generally, your assumption about the mainly defensive combat operations, are correct. On the other hand, Midtguardian defence strategy calls for an immediate armoured assault on Norway or Sweden following hostilitys from these countries, partly to gain manouver room for our forces and partly to threaten the adversarys capitol cities to inspire their will to negotiate a peace, thus exploiting Midtguardias superior fighting will and these mainly benevolent democracies unwillingness to fight an ugly war when they can end the fighting by simply granting Midtguardia its freedom and territorial supremacy behind our own borders.

Our strategy makes the assumption that the governments of these countries would come to thye conclusion that peace is better then war quite quickly if they see that their capitols are threatened, even though Midtguradia of coarse have neither the rescources nor the manpower to fight a prolonged war necessary to overcome these countrys totally.

This is why Midtguardias armoured brigade exists and the lynchpin of Midtguardias defence strategy from the countrys inception, as we would never be able to fight a protracted war behind our own borders.

Even though the armoured brigade has its own integral artillery, this battery of 8 guns will probably not be enough, wherefore we anticipate offensive operations also for the artillery Bn.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
What is ISTAR - anything like JSTARS? The airstrike might not be as easy as one would think, as the battery would be under the air defence umbrella provided by my 12 F 4 Phantoms with Amraams augmentet by Hawkeye AWACS in combination with Gepard GBAD. Would my search radar miss the UAV's?
ISTAR refers to Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Recon. It's part of the larger C4ISTAR.

Again depends on who you're fighting. Norway and Sweden both have large enough airforces to trade planes 2 for one, and still have enough air left to perform CAS and strike missions. I don't know who else you'd be fighting, so within that context, again it would be hard.

The UAVs, again context dependent. I'll admit ignorance, I don't know what either Sweden or Norway uses in that regard, but given rapid modern developments in the area of VLO UAVs, I would expect them to appear in your potential opponents air forces within a decade. What search radars are you using?
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
I have another concept I would like some feedback on.

I have three old M 53 SPG's. These are large and cumbersome beasts badly suited for rigors and speed of frontline duty. But I do have Copperheads, that is 155 mm terminally laser guided munitions specially adopted for anti-tank warfare.

I use these as close defence units for the artillery batteries. That is, I place these three guns aprox 20 km behind the artillery batteries, and thus out of range from any counter battery artillery fire. If my batteries are in danger of beeing overrun by enemy units, they can call down laser guided artillery fire from these three guns, which would be able to fire with impunity for some time as the enemy would not have had time to establish their own artillery batteries within range of these guns whikle trying to press home their attack. This would, hopefully, give my M 109 batteries, a chance to escape the attacking units and fight another day. As far as I am concerned, my M 109s are some of my most valuable assets. Would this be a viable operative tactic?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sounds viable. Do you have the depth (in terms of national territory) to employ this effectively multiple times? And how deep in your territory are your M109? I mean they should have the range to fire across your entire country from one end to the other, from the sound of your territory. I would not question the validity here, but the necessity.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #10
ISTAR refers to Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Recon. It's part of the larger C4ISTAR.

Again depends on who you're fighting. Norway and Sweden both have large enough airforces to trade planes 2 for one, and still have enough air left to perform CAS and strike missions. I don't know who else you'd be fighting, so within that context, again it would be hard.

The UAVs, again context dependent. I'll admit ignorance, I don't know what either Sweden or Norway uses in that regard, but given rapid modern developments in the area of VLO UAVs, I would expect them to appear in your potential opponents air forces within a decade. What search radars are you using?
Thanks. I'm not sure about the ISTAR, but it seems to be a development of JSTARS which would require overflight of recce units, something which probably could be denied by my airforce, or satelite imagery, which would not be realtime and could be fooled by camouflage.

I'm not currently up to date on Sweden, but Norway presently has less than 50 F16 operational. Swapping 2 - 1 with my Phantoms would deplete the norwegian air force by 50%. With 6 Amraams pr fighter I would theoretically be able to shoot down 72 enemy fighters, e.a. the entire Norwegian air force. Even though this is of coarse purely theoretical, target info and intercept control from the Hawkeyes would greatly improve my chances, while the Norwegians, lacking any AWACS capability, would have to rely on their NADGE systems, which would immediatly come under attack from my special forces units at the outbreak of hostilities.

Even then, the surviving F 16's would be confronted by Gepards, Rolands and Chapparal systems when executing CAS missions. I don't think I would be hopelessly outmatched as soon as converting the Phantoms to Amraams is finished.

I have three AN/TPS-43E mobile search radar systems. Currently no fixed ADGE installations, and plans for aquireing big search radars and establishing an SOC are on the backburner as the funds have been directed to procuring the Hawkeyes.

Be advised the Gepards have their own search radars and the Hawkeyes will also give good radar coverage against low flying UAVs. I have no idea what UAVs Norway and Sweden have, but know both countries operate UAV, as do Midtguardia.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Sounds viable. Do you have the depth (in terms of national territory) to employ this effectively multiple times? And how deep in your territory are your M109? I mean they should have the range to fire across your entire country from one end to the other, from the sound of your territory. I would not question the validity here, but the necessity.
No. 30 x 50 km. Max range 155 mm base bleed ammo is 21 km. I have not decided on where the artillery should be placed, but probably in the mountain range surrounding the Midtguardian territory. The M 53 idea is mainly fore use following an offensive into enemy terretory. Nice to hear that my concept seems viable.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
How suitable is mitguardia for these systems I worked with an AS90 regiment for a while and the logistics trail was huge, sure if you're moving between prepared and positions it might be easier but still I really have my doubts.
What is AS90?

Could you give me an idea of what functions should be included in the logistics trail. As far as I can see, I need ammo trucks, fire control units, surveying parties, maintenence and recovery for trucks and guns, meteorology, HQ, close defence, recon and general supply units.

At present, I have only deployed the gun sections with dispersed mode fire control units and ammo resupply trucks. Could you give me an idea of what an artillery Bn HQ would look like?
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Thanks. I'm not sure about the ISTAR, but it seems to be a development of JSTARS which would require overflight of recce units, something which probably could be denied by my airforce, or satelite imagery, which would not be realtime and could be fooled by camouflage.
No. No, no no. It's not a platform. It's not a unit. It's a concept. It refers to primarily tactical level intel, recce, and targetting capabilities.

I'm not currently up to date on Sweden, but Norway presently has less than 50 F16 operational. Swapping 2 - 1 with my Phantoms would deplete the norwegian air force by 50%. With 6 Amraams pr fighter I would theoretically be able to shoot down 72 enemy fighters, e.a. the entire Norwegian air force. Even though this is of coarse purely theoretical, target info and intercept control from the Hawkeyes would greatly improve my chances, while the Norwegians, lacking any AWACS capability, would have to rely on their NADGE systems, which would immediatly come under attack from my special forces units at the outbreak of hostilities.
Norweigians are set to receive the F-35. Finally a 2 for 1 swap is a purely fantasy scenario. Realistically your losses would be higher, due to inferior planes, avionics, etc. Also it would take time for your new Hawkeyes to become operational. Realistically by the time you have your Hawkeyes and the modernizations of the F-4s operational, the Norweigians would be starting to get their first JSF in.

Even then, the surviving F 16's would be confronted by Gepards, Rolands and Chapparal systems when executing CAS missions. I don't think I would be hopelessly outmatched as soon as converting the Phantoms to Amraams is finished.
You would indeed be hopelessly outmatched. First off the Norwegians also have GBAD, whose engagement envelopes could (and would) be used offensively to project into your airspace. Second off MLU F-16's are still a whole lot more then modernized F-4s. Finally they have ~50, you have 12. They also have an EW squadron, the 717th, and a UAV squadron (the 718th). I'm not sure what either one of those flies, but that means that they have significant recon assets, as well as jamming support.

Note also (I bet you're tired of hearing this from me), a rather large Norwegian airforce none the less doesn't find the budget money, or the need, to operate any (as far as I can tell) AEW&C. Meanwhile your tiny airforce, consisting primarily of a single squadron of F-4s, and lots of helos, is for some reason is getting 3 E-2s. In my opinion that money would be far better spent replacing the F-4s with something more modern. Well in my opinion you wouldn't have that money if you were really running a country; but anyways.

I have three AN/TPS-43E mobile search radar systems. Currently no fixed ADGE installations, and plans for aquireing big search radars and establishing an SOC are on the backburner as the funds have been directed to procuring the Hawkeyes.
What kind of a budget are you running? I've asked you a couple of times before, and I'm still curious to see how much you're trying to spend to keep this thing going. It really is far too large.

Be advised the Gepards have their own search radars and the Hawkeyes will also give good radar coverage against low flying UAVs. I have no idea what UAVs Norway and Sweden have, but know both countries operate UAV, as do Midtguardia.
What UAVs does Mitguardia operate?
 

11561

New Member
No. No, no no. It's not a platform. It's not a unit. It's a concept. It refers to primarily tactical level intel, recce, and targetting capabilities.

Just like I'm assuming that all Mitguardia's SPA has GPS, they have laser-targeted arty, I hope that this part of the doctrine is established in their war machine also. Like Israel or any small country that needs to fight to survive, Mitguardia can't afford to miss a beat.


Norweigians are set to receive the F-35.


Just like the Russian Navy is set to recieve Bulava. After all the cost overruns, delays and other assorted BS, I'll believe in JSF when I see it. Not holding my breath.


Finally a 2 for 1 swap is a purely fantasy scenario.


True. Just because you can outfit your planes w/ pretty missiles doesn't mean that they'll be effective. Hell, I can shoot a bunch of AMRAAM's off the back of a hummer at the first sound of enemy jets, but that doesn't mean that anything good will come of it. Realistically, the best that'll happen is a 3:2 if your F-4's are used well, then your GBAD gets to test itself against ~24 F-16 b50+. Even w/ E-2, their numerical superiority would be telling.



You would indeed be hopelessly outmatched.



Maybe not hopelessly, but very unevenly. Were war to break out, I wouldn't want to be sitting in the PM's chair


Note also (I bet you're tired of hearing this from me), a rather large Norwegian airforce none the less doesn't find the budget money, or the need, to operate any (as far as I can tell) AEW&C. Meanwhile your tiny airforce, consisting primarily of a single squadron of F-4s, and lots of helos, is for some reason is getting 3 E-2s. In my opinion that money would be far better spent replacing the F-4s with something more modern.


I'd be looking at MiG's and SU's, personally, and an A-50 if I felt lucky. Western friends be damned. I still think that it's not primarialy the kit you've got, but how cleverly you use it. And for the money, Russian stuff can't be beat.



What kind of a budget are you running? I've asked you a couple of times before, and I'm still curious to see how much you're trying to spend to keep this thing going. It really is far too large.


I guesstimate 5 bil usd.QUOTE]
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'd be looking at MiG's and SU's, personally, and an A-50 if I felt lucky. Western friends be damned. I still think that it's not primarialy the kit you've got, but how cleverly you use it. And for the money, Russian stuff can't be beat.
Russian kit is nice, if you pick and choose very VERY carefully. Else you might end up with SMT Fulcrums facing F-35s. Not a pretty scenario. In fact late-gen F-15s with AESA would make a mess out of the SMTs.

Hell, I can shoot a bunch of AMRAAM's off the back of a hummer at the first sound of enemy jets, but that doesn't mean that anything good will come of it.
You want to know something funny? That's what Norwegian GBAD is. :)

Just like the Russian Navy is set to recieve Bulava. After all the cost overruns, delays and other assorted BS, I'll believe in JSF when I see it. Not holding my breath.
Ok. Delays and overruns, I'll give you that. My guesstimate of when Mitguardia might be facing them might be wrong. But it's a large scale international project that will NOT simply fall through. Unless the current financial crisis wipes out the global economy as we know it, and we're all reduced to cannibalism, the F-35 will fly.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
No. No, no no. It's not a platform. It's not a unit. It's a concept. It refers to primarily tactical level intel, recce, and targetting capabilities.
I get it guys. I've got major shortcomings here. I find it extremely difficult to get a grip on the gathering, dissemination and distribution of tactical information. There is really not a lot of information on this out there and it's rather bewildering when I try to think i through on my own.

Taking a look at the armoured brigade, my intelligence gathering looks like this:

The brigade HQ has its own intelligence center with an intelligence officer responsible for collecting all pertinent information and presenting this to the commander and the operations officer as well as breifing staff personell.

The intelligence officer has his own M 577 armoured command vehicle with extensive communications gear as well as a large tent operating as te brigade intelligence center.

He draws on the following information scources:

1. Brigade recon platoon.

This platoon sorts directly under the brigade intel officer. It has 3 M 551 Sheridan light recon tanks where the Shillelagh missile launch tube has been replaced with a REMBASS (Remote Battlefield Sensor System) launcher.

The intel officer deploys these units at will and controls them directly.

Brigade intel also has a detachment of MeBöBl Sp 105 light observation helicopters. This unit is deployed with the brigade HQ and will bivuac close to brigade HQ. It has its own refueling and first line maintenance crews as well as an integral mission control and approach radar on an M 113 APC. These helicopters are integral to the Brigade HQ and are tasked directly by the brigade intel officer.

There is also a small detachment of jeep patrols with 6 men in 3 VW Ilitis jeeps, although these units are used also by the HQ relocation officer for souting out new laocations when moving the brigade HQ.

2. Brigade combat troops integral recon resources

The 4 armoured sqaudrons each have a detachment of 2 M 551 Sheridans with the same REMBASS capability. These remote sensors are deployed solely on the order of the brigade intel officer and controlled directly from HQ.

The mk I eyeball intel gathered by the crews of the armoured units is reported directly to brigade intel center as well as the staff officers and commander of the individual armoured squadron.

These units may also be tasked by the brigade HQ, but then by task requests through the squadron commander.

3. Brigade combat troops IVIS-TACFIRE control network.

All tanks and IFVs as well as command and recon vehicles of the armoured brigade are equipped with IVIS Inter Vehicular Informations System where constant updates from the vehicle commander is routed through a Radio Interface Unit and into the network through twin AN/VRC-92A SINCGARS VHF radios with encryption, burst transmission frequency hopping capability.

4. Tactical intel transmitted from other combat units through the CCIS integrated command system, such information coming from all other command posts from Bn and up.

5. Tactical intel from div. recon Bn.

Recon requests from Brigade HQ can task these units by request through div HQ.

6. Tactical intel from CIPC (Central Intelligence Processing Center) a large, military intelligence underground intelligence clearing house and collating centre deep underneath the Midtguardian mountains.

This center collects and delivers intelligence information from all national intelligence rescources, tactical as well as strategic.


Its scources are:

Airforce Elint/Sigint operations ( 3 PJ 38s with elint/sigint pods)
Airforce recon info (3 RF 4 recon fighters)
Air defence command structure (3 mobile radar systems + Hawkeye)
Signals Bn intel from Elint/SigInt/Radio Detection/ECM/ECCM units
All unit commanders down to Armoured squadron/infantry Bn level
HUMINT from POW's and undercover agents through MIB (Midtguardian Intelligence Beurau)
Integral Strategic analasys center
UAV wing

Brig HQ can request RF 4 airial recon or UAV missions through CIPC

The totality of the system is more complex but that would take a long time to describe. I'm sure this is not up to standard, but is the best I can do for the moment.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
Midtguardian defence budget.

As I have said before, I have not paid a lot of attention to this, because my interest is to see if I can conceive and set up a viable defence structure, but OK, here goes.

Max possible defence budget pr. year is 1,5 billion USD, taking into account that Midtguardias population takes a favourable veiw on defence spending as well as the fact that all oil earnings are funneled into defence spending in addition to a sizeable contribution by the ruling family through thier international business earnings. The aquesition of weapon systems are on a different budget, as these to some extent are financed by money in the bank.

The budget is a quarter of norwegian defence spending.

Please understand that the affordability problems are not my main concern, but how the Midtguardian military will cope tactically and strategically with the systems that they have, and, especially a need for input and feedback as to shortcomings on the operational and logistic level.

I do understand that the demographics do not support such a large military. A country of 100.000 would not be able to support more than a fraction of todays Midtguardian defence force financially. Iceland, which has a population of 250.000, has no military units what so ever.

An option would of coarse be to enlarge the population by a magnitude of 5, simulating a larger land mass and four more cities in addition to the capitol city, only modelling a population of 120.000 in the capitol. This would allow for a 5 billion USD defence budget and ease the problems of manning the defence force. I am contemplating such a re thinking of the demographics, but will of coarse have to re-write history.:vamp
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #18
What UAVs does Mitguardia operate?
Currently 2 UAVs operative, more under production. Indeginous "Frecle" class. Wingspan 2,5 meters, range 150 km, four minijet engines, rocket launched on old Honest John launchers, retreived by parachute, real time datalink, internal nav system with automatic return to base if jammed.
 

Bozoo

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #19
You would indeed be hopelessly outmatched. First off the Norwegians also have GBAD, whose engagement envelopes could (and would) be used offensively to project into your airspace. Second off MLU F-16's are still a whole lot more then modernized F-4s. Finally they have ~50, you have 12. They also have an EW squadron, the 717th, and a UAV squadron (the 718th). I'm not sure what either one of those flies, but that means that they have significant recon assets, as well as jamming support.

Note also (I bet you're tired of hearing this from me), a rather large Norwegian airforce none the less doesn't find the budget money, or the need, to operate any (as far as I can tell) AEW&C. Meanwhile your tiny airforce, consisting primarily of a single squadron of F-4s, and lots of helos, is for some reason is getting 3 E-2s. In my opinion that money would be far better spent replacing the F-4s with something more modern. Well in my opinion you wouldn't have that money if you were really running a country; but anyways.
Yes, I'm painfully aware of this. As far as I can see, I need two squadrons of 18 MLU F 16's each in addition to the Hawkeyes and a Patriot battery in addition to my F 4 s to handle the norwegian airforce. But that would set me back 10.000 USD, which is just too much. I'll have to settle for what I have complemented by realistic purchases. In the model world the Hawkeye costs nearly as much as an F 16, therefore the Hawkeyes are a good investment as a force multiplier with the means at my disposal.

I have just found a site that sells Patriot launchers, and I could model the control units and power supply quite easily, having greater trouble with the radar units, which have to be built from scratch, a slow and difficult process. But maybe...:p:
 
Top