Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[B.Smitty]

I never said that the guns could out-range the MANPADS. My opinion remains unchanged, a combination of both Gun and Missile is necessary. I guess you could say that you could use the gun for easier targets like Helos and the missiles for those pesky airplanes. You'd save on buying more MANPADS.

The last time I checked, missiles with guidance systems tend to be more expensive than their projectile counterparts. Unless you want to continually produce a lot of rockets in the outbreak of a war, I'd say having a gun-missile combination is a good deal. Anyways, isn't it entirely up to us on the choice of which missile we want to outfit on our GBADs?

You can buy a lot of $<100k missiles for the price of one SPAAG.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do. I just like to discuss the pros and cons of systems as a learning exercise. I personally don't see the value in big, expensive SPAAGs anymore, especially ones that have a unique (for us) powertrain and chassis like Tunguska and Gepard. It's just another set of spares we have to maintain and another set of support folks we have to train.

Like I said earlier, CV90 AAV is there, if we want something that integrates with a CV9040 based formation.

 

[B.Smitty]

That "some degree of protection" gives you blast shelter in a nuclear strike (of course if not too close to the target), NBC-protection, shrapnell-protection and the air conditioner protects your troops from the adverse weather. Think about that.

Yikes. Are we really worried about NBC protection? Our tiny military (and the world in general) is in deep trouble if nukes start flying. I think NBC-protecting our APCs will be the least of our worries.

I agree APCs have value. My thought was, in a conflict with Orange, which is going to be better for us: buying a $1+million Pandur or Piranha, or buying 10 more Milan firing posts and missiles?

Orange greatly outnumbers us on the ground and in the air. We need to look at asymmetric approaches to deal with this. Massed ATGMs worked for Hezbollah. Having wheeled APCs don't help us except to protect our infantry from artillery and small arms.

But if we don't think war with Orange is that likely, and we want our military to be able to assist in peacekeeping ops around the world, then having a lighter APC certainly makes sense. Or if we just want to save money on more expensive tracked IFVs.

 

[BuSOF]

Orange greatly outnumbers us on the ground and in the air. We need to look at asymmetric approaches to deal with this. Massed ATGMs worked for Hezbollah. Having wheeled APCs don't help us except to protect our infantry from artillery and small arms.

Not really. If you care to read what kato has written fully mobilized Orange has two divisions against us. We also have two divisions plus a division-sized reinforcements from our neighbours in the border area.

But if we don't think war with Orange is that likely, and we want our military to be able to assist in peacekeeping ops around the world, then having a lighter APC certainly makes sense. Or if we just want to save money on more expensive tracked IFVs.

What is that worldwide obsession about peacekeeping all about?! We are a small country that at the given time (1995) has much more problems with staying independent than actual world recognition if we read once more the given scenario. Peacekeeping is for:
1. World powers like USA, UK, France etc.
2. Countries that have done someting bad recently and wanna make things good again. Example: At the time things about Iraq were going wrong just before the invasion of 2003 Ukraine has send SAMs to Baghdad. The result was the overtly oversized contingent.
3. Countries that wanna gain some credit for a shift in international politics. Example: Finland started participating in such missions after it has left its neutrallity, at least towards the EU.

We only want to join the EU and are going to achieve this anytime around the end 1995. So what's the deal anyway?

 

[B.Smitty]

Not really. If you care to read what kato has written fully mobilized Orange has two divisions against us. We also have two divisions plus a division-sized reinforcements from our neighbours in the border area.

Hmm, ok. I guess I was looking at their 580 Leopard 2s, 320 Leopard 1 and 610 Marders and thinking they were fully manned.

I do see where he says Orange has roughly 15 brigades (six of which in reserve). Sorry about that. I was thinking all along that we were vastly outnumbered. However, that's still 5 divisions worth (assuming 3 brigades per division), with 3 active and 2 reserve.

What is that worldwide obsession about peacekeeping all about?! We are a small country that at the given time (1995) has much more problems with staying independent than actual world recognition if we read once more the given scenario. Peacekeeping is for:

Upon joining the EU, we will be asked to participate in EU and UN sponsored peacekeeping missions around the world. It will certainly win us "good citizen" points if we say yes to at least some of them.

 

[BuSOF]

Hmm, ok. I guess I was looking at their 580 Leopard 2s, 320 Leopard 1 and 610 Marders and thinking they were fully manned.

I do see where he says Orange has roughly 15 brigades (six of which in reserve). Sorry about that. I was thinking all along that we were vastly outnumbered. However, that's still 5 divisions worth (assuming 3 brigades per division), with 3 active and 2 reserve.

These numbers are about the whole inventory. You do realise that Blue is not th eonly Orange neighbour and that it cannot just throw everything it has against us alone. Plus we are talking about german (ie consisting of THREE, not five brigades) divisions. What kato posts is that in the border area with Blue Orange has 2 tank and 2 mechanised active brigades and that Orange couldn't push significantly bigger forces than 7-8 brigades against us in case of war.

Upon joining the EU, we will be asked to participate in EU and UN sponsored peacekeeping missions around the world. It will certainly win us "good citizen" points if we say yes to at least some of them.

We have the "good citizen" point form everyone that matters to us.

 

[B.Smitty]

These numbers are about the whole inventory. You do realise that Blue is not th eonly Orange neighbour and that it cannot just throw everything it has against us alone. Plus we are talking about german (ie consisting of THREE, not five brigades) divisions. What kato posts is that in the border area with Blue Orange has 2 tank and 2 mechanised active brigades and that Orange couldn't push significantly bigger forces than 7-8 brigades against us in case of war.

I do realize they are three-brigade divisions. I said as much. 15 total brigades / 3 equals roughly five division-equivalents. Of course not all will be available for an invasion.

If they can only muster 7-8 brigades against us, then a major war hardly seems likely. Their invasion force won't outnumber us at all. That alone should give them pause. Unless of course they think airpower will push the results their way.

Which brings us back to the GBAD discussion.

 

[kato]

Which brings us back to the GBAD discussion.

Let's pick it up once again

Maybe starting from a theoretical approach?

Our opponent musters (post #9):
- 110 Tornado IDS
- 50 Alpha Jet A
- 30 RF-4E
- 68 F-4F/ICE

Due to the force structure, of the above, only the Tornado IDS and Alpha Jet A are of immediate concern to us. The remainder do not carry air-to-ground munitions (in Orange service, at the moment).

Tactical Distribution:
Ground-Attack Squadrons 1-3 (16 Alpha Jet A each)
Strike Wing 1 to 3 (ea 2 squadrons of 18 Tornado IDS each)

Geographical Distribution, Basing:

GAW, Sq 1 : Bearing 300 degrees, Distance 100 km (Hahn)
GAW, Sq 2 : Bearing 250 degrees, Distance 100 km (Saarbrücken)
GAW, Sq 3 : Bearing 2 degrees, Distance 240 km (Lippstadt)
SW1, Wing : Bearing 330 degrees, Distance 180 km (Cologne)
SW2, Wing : Bearing 308 degrees, Distance 130 km (Büchel)
SW3, Wing : Bearing 3 degrees, Distance 400 km (Bremen)

Bearing and Distance from our capital. Reduce distance by about 40 km for the distance to the border to Blue territory.

Strike attacks can be flown from bearings between 230 degrees and 30 degrees (from capital). Bearing 30 to 95 degrees is our border to Green 1, Bearing 95 to 205 our border to Green 2, Bearing 205 to 230 degrees our border to France. To get an overall picture.

The closest airports to our border are those of GAW Sq 1 at 75 km and GAW Sq 2 at 55 km. Strike Wings have been deliberately placed outside the maximum range of offensive weapon systems (legally) available to us.
From terrain features, sorties from GAW Sq 1 can be picked up up to 50 km from the border, sorties from GAW Sq 2 from up to 40 km. Sorties from the strike wings can in theory be picked up at up to 60 km from the border, although ground clutter will complicate this considerably with Orange using LO-LO attacks.

For our purposes, we will consider each of the above squadrons capable of generating exactly 1.0 sorties per aircraft per day*. This means we would - on average - be facing 2.0 CAS sorties and 4.5 strike sorties per hour, hence 6.5 sorties total per hour. During peaks, we'll have to be handle about 3 times that, meaning 19.5 sorties per hour.

This is considering Orange focussing its airforce on us, without Green 1/2 coming into play.

We will not have to cover a full 360-degree arc with our allies - or neutrals - at our back, so we'd more likely focus air defense on the above 160 degree arc towards our enemy. The perimeter at our border over this arc is roughly 150 km long, in order to defense the full border region from our capital itself, we'd need a system with 60 km range. A 50-km-range system could defend our border over the full arc from two positions west and northeast of our capital. A 25-km-range system with some overlap at the extreme range would need at least four positions.

The system would in any case need to be able to intercept an aircraft flying at Mach 1.0 to Mach 1.3 at altitudes below 200 ft against ground clutter in hilly terrain.

---
*- 1.0 is not low, about average for aircraft of that generation

 

[kato]

Short addendum:

Above "pick-up times" means that hostile aircraft will take minimum 4 minutes flight time (arbitrary, in LO-LO, terrain-hugging) between the farthest position where we can conceivably pick it up on radar and our border. Terrain-hugging radar evasion, ground clutter and ECM might bring this down to about 50-60 seconds (12-15 km) in practice from certain approach angles.

This means we will definitely need some quick-reaction system, or a two-tier system with a quick-reaction lower tier.

Other threats to be considered (or not):
- Recon: Orange operates about 35 CL-289 drone systems that it will use to attempt to get detailed information on unit positions in case of war. These would fly at about Mach 0.5 at altitudes above 500 ft, so not hard to deal with. Additionally, two RF-4E squadrons would fly recon missions, up to one per hour.
- Helos: Orange does not operate general attack helicopters; doctrine has dedicated anti-tank helos operating in direct support of the front line.

 

[BuSOF]

We will not have to cover a full 360-degree arc with our allies - or neutrals - at our back, so we'd more likely focus air defense on the above 160 degree arc towards our enemy. The perimeter at our border over this arc is roughly 150 km long, in order to defense the full border region from our capital itself, we'd need a system with 60 km range. A 50-km-range system could defend our border over the full arc from two positions west and northeast of our capital. A 25-km-range system with some overlap at the extreme range would need at least four positions.

The system would in any case need to be able to intercept an aircraft flying at Mach 1.0 to Mach 1.3 at altitudes below 200 ft against ground clutter in hilly terrain.

---
*- 1.0 is not low, about average for aircraft of that generation

That about the 360 degree angle is not exactly right.
Nothing hinders the enemy Air Force from deploying Tornados to airfields in the far south of the opposing country and then flying strike mission(s) following the route east-southeast --- north right through the capital area while another strike force stays in a safe area in the air (could even provoke our fighter force for an interception). Then the forward-deployed flight performs a Wild Weasel operation, in addition it strikes our fighter airbase, knocks out our air defenses and leaves our airspace bearing north. At that moment the main strike force crosses the border in direction south and performs a massive strike operation on numerous targets in our country. Most probably that force would also include fighter aircraft that would ambush our QRA fighters.

What would prevent the enemy from that performance? Opposing Air Force has more than 100 Tornados!

The way I see it (I urge once again for two S-300 battalions, plus all the possible additional AD assets):

In peacetime in order to act on a possible sudden air strike we should have
1) 2 fighter aircraft on air patrol along the northern- northwestern border +
2) 2 fighter aircraft on 5 minutes QRA +
3) 2 fighter aircraft on 20 minutes reaction alert
This would be our front-line air defenses. Of course all the radar facilities are at high alert 365 days a year.

4) 2 S-300 batteries would cover the capital. First one would be deployed to the east of the capital and the second one would be deployed to the south of the city. As we know missile air defense systems have a blank conus right above them that prevents them form engaging targets in it and makes them vulnerable. So the two batteries (plus all the other S-300 batteries should be deployed in such a system that allows for each of them to cover the blank conus of the others). These two batteries should be at 30 minutes readiness.

5) 2-3 batteries of Ozelot-type mobile missile/gun air defense systems that should be deployed in the valleys and that should concentrate on countering a major recon/ ECM UAVs, plus a secondary mission to counter low flying Alpha Jets in the blank areas of the radar coverage of the air space.

In wartime in addition to that the whole fighter force is put at high readiness plus all the reserve air defense formations. The fighters then are to be pulled to second-line air defense, mainly covering the theater air defenses.
Additional missile air defense battalions (Hawks, Aspide if available) should be put to business, reserve MANPADS, AAA, observation and signals formations should be activated.

Roughly that would do if we are to face an aggression all by ourselves.

 

[B.Smitty]

The way I see it (I urge once again for two S-300 battalions, plus all the possible additional AD assets):

How many batteries are in each S-300 battalion? Two? Three? So you are saying buy 4-6 batteries plus their associated control systems?

 

[kato]

What would prevent the enemy from that performance? Opposing Air Force has more than 100 Tornados!

The 160-degree arc is formed through France to the southwest, and Green 1 to the east. Any attack from the other 200 degrees will either have to go over one of those two first.
With its 108 operational Tornados in the Strike Wings, the Enemy can perform 108 sorties in the first day; within the system i laid out, we could expect these in roughly 8 separate waves of between 10 and 15 aircraft each in say usually 4 to 6 flights.

I'd support the general strategy of having a somewhat central defence system near the capital, preferably long-range; with a short- to medium-range system farther out. The question is what range these systems actually need.

A hostile flight will - depending on its flight profile - pop up on our systems at a range (from the capital) between 50 and 100 km. "Outer" units would be stationed at a range between 25 and 35 km from the capital, and would provide an engagement capability to at least between 40 and 50 km from the capital.
Now, preferably, the long-range system should obviously engage a hostile flight at a range spectrum between those 100 km maximum coverage and the 50 km border set by the "outer" units. As we'd likely not station the system within the city itself (but, as an example 10 km out), that is reduced to a range spectrum of say 40-90 km. Of course then we'd have to take flight time of the intercepting missile itself into accord - if we pick up the enemy at 90 km distance, and send missiles into the computed sector 10 seconds later, the hostile flight and our missiles will meet at roughly 70 km range from launch. This "intercept range" number should under no circumstances be below 45-50 km, in order for this system to "engage first". A number of 40 km would still be suitable if stationing the system farther out.

I do agree that this does look increasingly like a job for at least two batteries of S-300, although we could probably bridge it with a MR SAM such as Aspide or Hawk until alternative (SAMP/T) or successor systems (S-400) become available.

 

[kato]

How many batteries are in each S-300 battalion? Two? Three? So you are saying buy 4-6 batteries plus their associated control systems?

4 batteries with 12 launchers each per battalion in standard configuration (in Russian and Chinese use at least). The number of launchers per battery and batteries per battalion varies extremely between users. Most "smaller" users use 5 or 6 launchers per battery.

Intercepting 15 aircraft simultaneously would require a minimum of 12 launchers, preferably 18-20 or more. Considering simultaneous Alpha Jet attacks, drones and escorting fighters that may need long-range interception as well, we'd probably have to take that at 150% for real coverage, with e.g. 2 SAM battalions with 2 S-300 batteries (ea 8 launchers) each, and a third battery in the battalion with a shorter-range system for self-defense.

 

[kato]

Perhaps this map explains it just as well:

The large, red circles are the long-range system, the small circles short-range systems.
For graphical purposes, these are set at 70 and 15 km radius respectively here as an example. The LR circles are centered northeast and southwest of the capital respectively, and cover at least 30 km beyond our border in all directions.

The star is obviously the capital. The white lines are borders, whereas the grey line in the northwest is our maximum theoretical detection for LO-LO attacks; it represents a mountain crest along that line, behind which our radar systems physically can't detect low-flying aircraft.

 

[BuSOF]

I would go for 3-battery S-300 battalions. The reason is that 3 batteries provide 360 degree coverage with overlaping areas between them.
For the composition ideally I would put it at 8 self propelled launchers per battery for 5 of the batteries and a double supplement for the sixth (combat/ training) battery. For cost reduction reasons we could go for an 4 self-propelled + 4 towed launchers option.

So I would say a 3-battery battalion would be the minimum. A 4-battery battalion makes much more sence than two 2-battery battalions.

 

[B.Smitty]

What is the consensus pick for the SHORADs system? Crotale? Tor?

 

[BuSOF]

I don't think there is a consensus on that point about any of the two.
If you ask me I would skip both of them and go for the Buk. So my proposition would look like:
Theater SAM system: S-300
Medium range + armoured formations protective screen: Buk
SHORAD: an Ozelot type machine, but Avenger could do just as well combined with a self-propelled AAA system
Bottom line: Rheinmetall AAA and MANPADS, manned by reservists

 

[B.Smitty]

I don't think there is a consensus on that point about any of the two.
If you ask me I would skip both of them and go for the Buk. So my proposition would look like:
Theater SAM system: S-300
Medium range + armoured formations protective screen: Buk
SHORAD: an Ozelot type machine, but Avenger could do just as well combined with a self-propelled AAA system
Bottom line: Rheinmetall AAA and MANPADS, manned by reservists

I can see the draw for a medium range system like Buk. Each 40-50km range battery can cover a significant portion of the country, and holds even high-altitude aircraft at risk.

How much does a Buk battery/battalion cost?

There've been rumors that the early Buks were susceptible to jamming. I wonder if hedging our bets with another system, and another form of guidance, is a good idea?

 

[kato]

How much does a Buk battery/battalion cost?

Number's sorta hard to find. I'd put it at 120 million for a battalion (3 batteries) including radars etc.

There've been rumors that the early Buks were susceptible to jamming. I wonder if hedging our bets with another system, and another form of guidance, is a good idea?

Not just rumours. Finland went to replace it as fast as possible, should tell a lot.

Personally, i'd prefer something like Skyguard-II with Spada/Aspide in that role, with MANPADS and the light guns of the reserve forces below it. Perhaps upgrade the Gepards to Gepard-2 configuration with two twin MANPADS rails, should be cheap. S-300 above it all. Perhaps a few medium-range systems such as Buk or Hawk inbetween.

 

[B.Smitty]

Not just rumours. Finland went to replace it as fast as possible, should tell a lot.

Personally, i'd prefer something like Skyguard-II with Spada/Aspide in that role, with MANPADS and the light guns of the reserve forces below it. Perhaps upgrade the Gepards to Gepard-2 configuration with two twin MANPADS rails, should be cheap. S-300 above it all. Perhaps a few medium-range systems such as Buk or Hawk inbetween.

Is Finland actually replacing their Buks with a different system? Or are they just upgrading them?

 

[Grand Danois]

Is Finland actually replacing their Buks with a different system? Or are they just upgrading them?

They decided not to go with the upgrade. Looks like NASAMS or SAMP/T instead. IIRC the story is legit that the Finnish Hornets could jam the BUK (using ALQ-165 pods ?).