Hypothetical Forces : Transformation

[kato]

I guess the Chapparal AD system would be obtainable (like - old stuff), especially if we could buy the all aspect sidewinders. Not great, but better than nothing.

Considered one of the worst AD systems ever...

Well you put this situation in a Cold War secuence but what is your point one of this nation or a few one began to take an hostil atitude against their neighboors or became some problems for the control of some resources in the every nation where are you going with that probally another memebers which are probiding their knowledge could help me to understand in what direction is going thank you.

Original direction: Develop a military outfitted with systems and units inherited from a Cold War army into a viable structure to support its country in the near future, while considering the changed circumstances.

 

[BuSOF]

Prices especially for the time around 1995 is really not my strenght. So if you could post the presumable prices it would be a lot easier.

For the first year I think that priorities are:
1. additional 40 Leopard 2s (will probably be delivered in a year time)
2. additional Gepard SPAAAGs (will probably be delivered in a year time)
3. a battalion of Buks or 2 batteries of Aspide (within 2 years time probably)
4. 2 battalions of BTR-80s. (will probably be delivered in less than a year time)
5. Air Force flying inventory acquisitions in the range of $100 mln. (Bo.105s to arrive in short time, first two Bryzas could probably come after a year, a year and a half, then a couple every half a year)

Anything beyond that should better be left for later as probably some of those deals that don't go through.

For the second year:
1. the deal for Leopard 2s (if it didn't go through the first year)
2. 2 Aspide batteries (to complete a battalion)
3. I consider the BTR-80s a temporary solution, so a choice about the APCs should be made by that time. I was in favour for a refurbished Piranha solution in order to clear some money for new AIFVs

=====================================================

Anyway, CN.235 or ATR.42 doesn't really matter all that much, so ATR it is then. But my AIFV/ APC solution stays BMP-3 plus refurbished Piranhas.

 

[kato]

Leo 2 = around 5 million per unit (200 million total).
Gepard = hmmm, difficult, none were ever sold since the 80s... let's put them at 80% of a Leo, 4 million per unit (let's say 50 million per battery flat).
Aspide... i'll put em at 60 million per battery, Buk at 50 million.

BTR-80 - If temporary only, we could probably lease something from somewhere for a lot less money for a few years. Maybe M113 from Italy, or BTR-70/80 from Russia "with an option to buy [...] from them".
A mixed BMP-3 / Piranha buy later on, at least money-wise, would likely be possible (say 140 BMP-3 for around 420 million, 350 Piranha for around 700-750 million, plus 50 Piranha for Gendarmerie for 100-120 million), although we'd have to pull some 100-150 million from the next 5-year plan - not something i'd prefer.

 

[BuSOF]

I wouldn't buy tracked APC. As the main task of that machine is to transport troops which will dismount for battle the infantrymen will be pretty worn down before they arrive to the scene.

For the numbers of the BMP-3 and Piranhas I would order two BMP-3 battalions in the first year, then another one in year 3 or 4 and possibly a fourth one (or a mechanised reconnaissance battalion) after the fire year plan.

About the Piranhas I would order one battalion plus an upgrade programme preparation in the first year, then two battalions in the second year and a battalion each in year 3 and 4.

The way I see it we need:
- 3 tank battalions in each brigade
- 4 AIFV battalions:
--- 1 in each of the two readiness brigades
--- 1 Panzegrenadierlehrbataillon in the 3rd
--- 1 Panzegrenadierbataillon in the 3rd taht could also be used as an OPFOR or a divisional mechanised reconnaissance battalion (otherwise motorised on MOWAG Piranha)

As for artillery I have another plan:

Panzerartilleriebataillon, 1 Panzergrenadierbrigade
Panzerartilleriebataillon, 2 Panzergrenadierbrigade
Panzerartillerielehrbataillon, 3 Panzergrenadierlehrbrigade

Artillerieregiment 100, 1. Division
- Stabs- und Versorgungsbataillon
- Smerch Bataillon
- Smerch Bataillon (Reserve)
- Panzerartilleriebataillon
- Artillerieaufklaerungsbataillon (Reserve)

Artillerieregiment 200, 2. Division
As that division will comprise infantry regiments then I sugest that all its artillery assets be kept in that artillery regiment
- Stabs- und Versorgungsbataillon
- Artilleriebataillon (Reserve)
- Artilleriebataillon (Reserve)
- Artilleriebataillon (Reserve)

I really don't know yet what the procorement plan would be, except that I would put priority as:

1. SP Artillery battalion M109
2. Smerch battalion
3. SP Artillery battalion M109
4. Smerch battalion
5. SP Artillery battalion M109

Then
6. towed Artillery battalion FH-70
7. Artillery radars etc.
8. towed Artillery battalion FH-70
9. towed Artillery battalion FH-70
etc.

 

[kato]

Looks good, except for that fourth PzArtBtl (in ArtRgt 100). I think that one btl supporting three maneuver units each (tank + 2 inf in each brigade) should be enough there, especially considering having two RakArtBtl at division level.

The artillery units in ArtRgt 200 would at the beginning receive pretty much anything "left over": FH-70, M110, FH-105; M110 and FH-105 could then relatively quickly, as money permits, be phased out and replaced by more FH-70, so we'll have a single artillery ammo caliber.

 

[BuSOF]

Looks good, except for that fourth PzArtBtl (in ArtRgt 100). I think that one btl supporting three maneuver units each (tank + 2 inf in each brigade) should be enough there, especially considering having two RakArtBtl at division level.

The artillery units in ArtRgt 200 would at the beginning receive pretty much anything "left over": FH-70, M110, FH-105; M110 and FH-105 could then relatively quickly, as money permits, be phased out and replaced by more FH-70, so we'll have a single artillery ammo caliber.

The brigade Panzerartilleriebattaillons have their task and the divisional Panzerartilleriebattaillon has another tasks.

Of course the simplest thing that could be said is taht it is better to have that battalion and not need it than to need it and not have it.
But also we have two divisions that automatically leads to the need for corps artillery assets. In that case that are the two Smerch battalions that I have put in the divisional artillery regiment to simplify the order of battle. Otherwise the Panzerartilleriebataillon should stay a single divisional asset and the Smerch battalions form a Corps artillery regiment. That automatically leads us to the question about the Artillery recon battalion. The brigade SPH-battalions are simple, as they could use the brigade ISTAR assets for targeting. But where should we put the artillery recon unit as in that case it should support:

- a divisional SPH-battalion, which is mandatory and not optional for operational flexibility
- two MLRS battalions
- a second line towed artillery regiment of three battalions.

Another point of concern is that MLRS is not as nearly as flexible as SPH-artillery. It has greater firepower, so it is significant to have it But it could not replace SPH.
And you are forgetting that the SPH-battalion could be used independently. To use one of the three brigade battalions means to put it outside the brigade structure, which would drastically lower both its and the brigade's effectiveness.

Another aspect is that you could tailor a battlegroup of a randon number of infantry, engineer etc. units from the second division and the corps assets. In that case if that battalion doesn't have other tasks at the moment to perform it could automatically provide the fire support for it. Because even as we put it the artillery assets in the 2nd division are rather thin, with one towed artillery battalion to 8 infantry battalions.

I think that the number of guns or howitzers in a battalion should not be lower than 18. In that case we fulfill your view for 50 SPHs needed to procure as we already have 18 M109s. Additional 3 battalions of 18 M109s each means 54 units. I really wouldn't like it, but I would compromise in bringing battalion numbers down to 12 units for 18 existing plus 30 obtainable M109s for a fourth towed artillery battalion of 18 units, but scratching the divisional SPH-battalion completely off is not something that could be overcome by other means.

As it is I consider the 4 Panzerartilleriebataillons; 2 Raketenartilleriebataillons and the 3 Artilleriebataillons the minimum. Not to mention that we don't have offensive air assets or plans for them.

 

[Tavarisch]

The brigade Panzerartilleriebattaillons have their task and the divisional Panzerartilleriebattaillon has another tasks.

Of course the simplest thing that could be said is taht it is better to have that battalion and not need it than to need it and not have it.
But also we have two divisions that automatically leads to the need for corps artillery assets. In that case that are the two Smerch battalions that I have put in the divisional artillery regiment to simplify the order of battle. Otherwise the Panzerartilleriebataillon should stay a single divisional asset and the Smerch battalions form a Corps artillery regiment. That automatically leads us to the question about the Artillery recon battalion. The brigade SPH-battalions are simple, as they could use the brigade ISTAR assets for targeting. But where should we put the artillery recon unit as in that case it should support:

- a divisional SPH-battalion, which is mandatory and not optional for operational flexibility
- two MLRS battalions
- a second line towed artillery regiment of three battalions.

Another point of concern is that MLRS is not as nearly as flexible as SPH-artillery. It has greater firepower, so it is significant to have it But it could not replace SPH.
And you are forgetting that the SPH-battalion could be used independently. To use one of the three brigade battalions means to put it outside the brigade structure, which would drastically lower both its and the brigade's effectiveness.

Another aspect is that you could tailor a battlegroup of a randon number of infantry, engineer etc. units from the second division and the corps assets. In that case if that battalion doesn't have other tasks at the moment to perform it could automatically provide the fire support for it. Because even as we put it the artillery assets in the 2nd division are rather thin, with one towed artillery battalion to 8 infantry battalions.

I think that the number of guns or howitzers in a battalion should not be lower than 18. In that case we fulfill your view for 50 SPHs needed to procure as we already have 18 M109s. Additional 3 battalions of 18 M109s each means 54 units. I really wouldn't like it, but I would compromise in bringing battalion numbers down to 12 units for 18 existing plus 30 obtainable M109s for a fourth towed artillery battalion of 18 units, but scratching the divisional SPH-battalion completely off is not something that could be overcome by other means.

As it is I consider the 4 Panzerartilleriebataillons; 2 Raketenartilleriebataillons and the 3 Artilleriebataillons the minimum. Not to mention that we don't have offensive air assets or plans for them.

Speaking of mobile artillery, was Panzerhaubitze 2000 released yet at this time period? I am unsure but something like that with the ability to put 60 rounds a minute into the enemy is pretty scary. This thing could sync 8 rounds onto a target.

 

[B.Smitty]

Hey guys.

Where did the consensus end up with regards to air defense?

Last I saw the CONOPS was GCI fighters using Mig-29s, Su-30s, Tornado ADVs or Mirage 2000s, backed by a tiered SAM system. Is this still the general idea?

On our ex-German hardware (e.g. Leos, Marders), can we come up with a viable plan for spares and support, given much of the industry we need is now in not-so-friendly hands? Is it a viable plan to strip out the important bits and replace them with indigenous- or "friendly"-sourced ones?

 

[kato]

Speaking of mobile artillery, was Panzerhaubitze 2000 released yet at this time period?

PzH 2000: Development 1987-1990, trials 1991-1995, (for Germany order 1996, delivery 1998.

Where did the consensus end up with regards to air defense?
Last I saw the CONOPS was GCI fighters using Mig-29s, Su-30s, Tornado ADVs or Mirage 2000s, backed by a tiered SAM system. Is this still the general idea?

We've so far given up for the current procurement plan on fighters/interceptors; allies use Tornado ADV (and probably F-5E/F). Could budget for interceptors in the next 5-year plan probably.

On our ex-German hardware (e.g. Leos, Marders), can we come up with a viable plan for spares and support, given much of the industry we need is now in not-so-friendly hands? Is it a viable plan to strip out the important bits and replace them with indigenous- or "friendly"-sourced ones?

The Marders will likely not be sustainable, there are too few even if we fleece our Allies for theirs. And are due for a replacement anyway, originally plans were made for a Marder replacement with a prototype tested in 1993.
Leopard will be sustainable. If necessary, there would even be plants in other not-so-unfriendly countries that have built Leos and parts for them before (e.g. Thun in Switzerland).

 

[BuSOF]

Yes, the question about the air defenses is a good one. In order to work that topic out we need to clear:
- the formations we will have at the end of year 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, plus probably the roughly structure of forces for the second 5-year plan
- the money we have for spending yearly and for the whole 5-year time for armed forces combined and for the air force particularly. Because I didn't understand what those figures you kato listed are. Obviously they are the yearly expenditures, but I got confused about the amount we could spend on new equipment.

 

[kato]

The ones in post #207? Those are the overall expenditures over the 5-year-plan.
That is, out of 5.5 billion total over 5 years; can deliberately spread the individual costs over that term, with 1.1 billion per year.

If we spread them evenly, that's each year:
- 374 million for Army projects
- 308 million for Airforce projects
- 48 million for Territorial Forces projects
- 62 million for Gendarmerie projects
- 78 million for SKB forces
- 190 million for general modernization
- 40 million as overhead security marge for cost overruns
(total: 1100 million)

Let's take that as +- 10% for each year, fixed. That is, for any year, the airforce for example should spend between 272 and 339 million, as long as the sum for the airforce over 5 years is 1540 million (and for each year the overall sum is 1100 million).

 

[BuSOF]

The ones in post #207? Those are the overall expenditures over the 5-year-plan.
That is, out of 5.5 billion total over 5 years; can deliberately spread the individual costs over that term, with 1.1 billion per year.

If we spread them evenly, that's each year:
- 308 million for Airforce projects


Let's take that as +- 10% for each year, fixed. That is, for any year, the airforce for example should spend between 272 and 339 million, as long as the sum for the airforce over 5 years is 1540 million (and for each year the overall sum is 1100 million).

So Priority Number 1 is to establish air defenses of the territory, as we lack those. Naturally we cannot use MANPADS, AAAs or even Low Level IR missile systems. We have also dumped the fighter solution for the second 5-year plan.

Solution 1 - We order an S-300 battery yearly with two years delivery time. In that case around the time the second plan starts we will have a potent Air Defense Missile Regiment. Negative side is that this will drain all the money we dedicate to GBADs. Naturally it brings an extremely efficient system. But this will also force us to stick to nothing more than 2 Gepard battalions for the 2 readiness mechanised brigades.

Solution 2 - We order Aspide battalion in the first year. Then we enhance the air defense C4I System in the second year, order a second Aspide battalion in year three, in years 4 and 5 we take care of mobile GBADs and in the begining of the second plan place the order for fighters plus a third Aspide battalion.

 

[kato]

Naturally we cannot use MANPADS, AAAs or even Low Level IR missile systems.

Why not?

Solution 2 looks better in my opinion btw.

Btw, what also will come out of the Airforce budget will be upgrades of any airports, although part of that will also come out of the modernization budget (lets say 50/50).

Currently, there are in larger airfields:
- Karlsruhe/Baden : 3.000m concrete, rated PCN 50 RBXT (ie can take up to A320 family)
- Speyer : 1.250m asphalt, rated for 20-ton aircraft (near capital)
- Mannheim : 1.100m asphalt, rated for 10-ton aircraft (in capital)
- Worms : 800m asphalt, rated for 10-ton aircraft (near northern border)

In addition, there are five airfields suitable for helicopter operations (one up to 20t, four up to 5.7t), all but one of the smaller located in the east of Blue.

The Karlsruhe/Baden airfield can be taken as-is for anything we field, but would need a few dozen million investment for any aircraft shelters etc.

 

[B.Smitty]

We've so far given up for the current procurement plan on fighters/interceptors; allies use Tornado ADV (and probably F-5E/F). Could budget for interceptors in the next 5-year plan probably.

Thanks kato. I tried to go through the various proposals in this thread, but there are a lot of pages.

Might still behoove us to buy a squadron of fighter-trainers to keep some semblance of a pilot corps. If fitted with HMDs and a HOBS missiles like ASRAAM, they could even be useful in a conflict.

The Marders will likely not be sustainable, there are too few even if we fleece our Allies for theirs. And are due for a replacement anyway, originally plans were made for a Marder replacement with a prototype tested in 1993.
Leopard will be sustainable. If necessary, there would even be plants in other not-so-unfriendly countries that have built Leos and parts for them before (e.g. Thun in Switzerland).

How old are our Marders?

We have 46 currently, right? That's enough for a single, tracked AIFV battalion, if we zero-timed and upgraded them. Maybe we could pick up a few more for attrition spares and to replace our oldest ones.

Then we could buy 2-3 battalions-worth of new wheeled APCs.

 

[BuSOF]

Why not?

As the center of the whole air defense system. They could be used as secondary assets but we cannot develop a comprehensial air defence structure with only MANPADS and AAA in mind. We simply cannot integrate them in an automated system.

 

[kato]

The current structure so far has at least three mechanized (IFV) battalions and three motorised (APC) battalions. A follow-on APC/IFV program should be in the current 5-year plan, providing for procurement of some 450 vehicles (IFVs and APCs), including APC-type vehicles for other units.

The Marders would by 1995 be between 20 and 24 years old; let's say of the 46, 2 are Marder 1A4, 31 are Marder 1A3 and 13 are Marder 1A2 (the difference can be found on wiki).

As the center of the whole air defense system. They could be used as secondary assets but we cannot develop a comprehensial air defence structure with only MANPADS and AAA in mind. We simply cannot integrate them in an automated system.

Ah, sure. Didn't think you meant MANPADS exclusively.

 

[B.Smitty]

The current structure so far has at least three mechanized (IFV) battalions and three motorised (APC) battalions. A follow-on APC/IFV program should be in the current 5-year plan, providing for procurement of some 450 vehicles (IFVs and APCs), including APC-type vehicles for other units.

Since we can't afford a full tracked fleet of CV90s, what about buying some number of IFVs (with turrets) and the rest as APCs with just armored couplas for .50 cals?

The APC should be a LOT cheaper, lighter, and could have seats to carry additional infantry.

At some future date, they could be upgraded to the full IFV variant, if need be.

That way we could have a common, medium AFV chassis.

 

[kato]

Since we can't afford a full tracked fleet of CV90s, what about buying some number of IFVs (with turrets) and the rest as APCs with just armored couplas for .50 cals?

Indeed, we'll probably settle with something like that. Budget allows for a chassis like a (new) Piranha or XA-200, but would also probably allow for some eastern "mixed" model - perhaps something like an updated, westernized, heavier MT-LB?

 

[BuSOF]

Indeed, we'll probably settle with something like that. Budget allows for a chassis like a (new) Piranha or XA-200, but would also probably allow for some eastern "mixed" model - perhaps something like an updated, westernized, heavier MT-LB?

The MT-LB would be the worst option possible. The machine is in NO WAY a combat vehicle! As I see it the topic goes progressively into "Tracked vs. Wheeled", which is complete nonsence. None could replace the other. The way I put things we need:
- tank supporting AIFV fleet of BMP-3s (or any other tracked AIFV you choose)
- follow-on fleet of refurbished Piranhas (or another wheeled APC you put on the table)
So how would you replace the tracked platform with a wheeled one or how would you replace the wheeled platform with a tracked APC in a way that doesn't lead to capabilities compromise? I am curious, please convince me. It doesn't matter to me if it will be a BMP-3 or CV-90, whether it will be second-hand Piranha or XA-200. What bothers me is that I am fully convinced, that the solution I am leaning to is the most cost effective. Of course this is a discussion and everyone is free to express his opinion. Please don't think I am behaving like a child that wants its toys. I just don't see a workable alternative.

As by the way I think about the S-300. I've put the Aspide as a compromise, as the S-300 outperforms it totally. From the beginning of that topic I am trying to avoid naming russian hardware in order to stick to credibility as the question is also a political one and the country would no doubt be reluctant to buy russian. But I wasn't the one that nemtioned the S-300 first.

The way I have formulated things we have the mechanised infantry assets at the lowest prise without compromising capabilities and we have the theatre air defense already fully integrated. It calls for three batteries of the same system. I don't think that even three battalions of Aspide would compensate that.

 

[Tavarisch]

The MT-LB would be the worst option possible. The machine is in NO WAY a combat vehicle! As I see it the topic goes progressively into "Tracked vs. Wheeled", which is complete nonsence. None could replace the other. The way I put things we need:
- tank supporting AIFV fleet of BMP-3s (or any other tracked AIFV you choose)
- follow-on fleet of refurbished Piranhas (or another wheeled APC you put on the table)
So how would you replace the tracked platform with a wheeled one or how would you replace the wheeled platform with a tracked APC in a way that doesn't lead to capabilities compromise? I am curious, please convince me. It doesn't matter to me if it will be a BMP-3 or CV-90, whether it will be second-hand Piranha or XA-200. What bothers me is that I am fully convinced, that the solution I am leaning to is the most cost effective. Of course this is a discussion and everyone is free to express his opinion. Please don't think I am behaving like a child that wants its toys. I just don't see a workable alternative.

As by the way I think about the S-300. I've put the Aspide as a compromise, as the S-300 outperforms it totally. From the beginning of that topic I am trying to avoid naming russian hardware in order to stick to credibility as the question is also a political one and the country would no doubt be reluctant to buy russian. But I wasn't the one that nemtioned the S-300 first.

The way I have formulated things we have the mechanised infantry assets at the lowest prise without compromising capabilities and we have the theatre air defense already fully integrated. It calls for three batteries of the same system. I don't think that even three battalions of Aspide would compensate that.

Well, if buying Russian is so hard, why don't we look for a Western equivalent of the S-300?

Or does no such thing exist?