Midtguardian Defence Forces

[Bozoo2]

ngatimozart and OPSSG. Thanks guys for Your input. The Gulfstream G 550 is a good buy for Midtguardia as the airframe is commercally available from Shapeways in 3 D print from around USD 60 a piece in the H0 scale. Even so, it requires a good deal of work to convert the airframe to the AEW "Fat boy" Version and then airbrushing the Paintcoat and designing and applying national markings.

I have not yet decided on national markings for the air force. One alternative is a Three ring roundell in the national colors light blue, dark blue and white. See the final Picture of the Midtguardian frigate MNS Jarl Einar to see the flag. Another idea is to superimpose a triangel into this roundell as the Royal Norwegian Air Force has done. Any other suggestions?

Midtguardia will now Place a request With several Shapeways designers to request a feasability study and a price quatation for the modification of the design to "Fat boy" configuration from the producer of the air frame. If this is not too expensive (within the USD 150 p p bracket) I will order one to make sure the quality is satisfactory.

The ting is, the design cost may vary depending on the number of airframes in the final order. How many "Fat boy" airframes do I need. I do not envisage more than Three, but may rethink this if there are compelling reasons. Please be aware that total price pr piece will be around 150 USD, so
extra air frames will compete With all other Investments. Can I operate the AEW satisfactory With Three airframes?

Another question is of course combat attrition. What is Your assesment of G 550 AEW vulnrability in an armed conflict With Norway/Sweden? With a
US expeditionary force? With a Russian agressor?

Generally, Midtguardia cannot expect to be able to replace lost airframes during an armed conflict, which makes the case for the fourth airframe. On the other hand if I have allready lost one or two G 550 AEW machines, I will probably have lost a most of my Eurofighters as well and another AEW will probably not make a lot of difference. What do you think? One of my greatest worries is loosing airframes on the ground. This is partially alleviated by dispersing fighters to motorway runways, but individual birds will have to og back to base for 3. and 4. line maintenance and major combat damage repair as the dispersed locations will not have the necessary Resources to deal With this.

I specially worry about MLRS launched ATACMS Block 1 A and similar weapons With a 300 km range and submunitions able to saturate a part of the airbase as Midtguardia has no defence against such weapons. A number of the fighters will be protected as we have 12 hardened shelters on each airbase, but larger airframes have no protection. Unfortunately, we just cannot aford Patriot or Thaad. (much more expensive in H0 than in airframes)

Another question. Elint/Sigint missions are currently undertaken by two F 4 Gs. Ideally I would like to use G 550 for this as well, but it seems like an unecessary luxury as long as the Phantoms behave. Am I right? Will a EW configured G 550 have basically much better EW performance than the F 4?

Just as an afterthought, I will probably buy a G550 airframe as a VIP flight if I buy the G 550 AEW as this will give commonality of spares and Equipment.

I do love the G 550 alternative.

 

[Bozoo2]

Regarding scratch building, I wasn't expecting you to scratch build the whole platform from the beginning, but only the bits to alter an existing model, that's all. Something like a standard G550 to an AEW one, for example, by making and adding on the extras.

No problem, fully within my capabilities and within the range of my own 3 D printer.

 

[Bozoo2]

Yes they do. The Lightening pod is more a targeting pod, whereas the Growler is an EW platform designed to play havoc with an enemies air defence electronic capabilities. It requires an operator in the back seat to monitor the enemy frequency changes etc., and direct the counter effects, plus targetting and launching the anti radar missiles. However the Israelis have a pod that's pretty good as well, not as good as the Growler, but pretty good nevertheless.

I wasn't thinking of the Litening pod, but the ELL 8222 WB Self protection pod.

 

[Bozoo2]

You don't have to get low down and dirty to do CAS these days. In fact in a contested environment it'd be downright dangerous. With modern PGM (Precision Guided Munitions) you can undertake CAS and at height and at distance. If you wanted to get down low and dirty I would suggest attack helicopters.

Very interesting. This does open up some posebilities. Army aviation has a squadron of origianally 12 Apache longbows that regularly Train With foreward observers in the motorized infantry Bn's. Unfortunatly, one was missing important parts from the factory and two have been lost in accidents, so we have 9 left. The technicians are working to see if we can bring one of the damaged birds back by scavenging the two others for parts. The factory has gone broke and no more airframes are forthcoming.

I have the possibility to aquire a squadron of used Tornados quite cheap, but I am unsure wether I need to introduce a thirs fighter airframe into the air force. As far as I gather, the Tornados are well suited to the CAS missions, but it seems a strike package of Typhoons will do the job just as well.

Fair enough. You still require a helicopter capable of lifting troops in and out of combat. You could go with the UH-1Y Venom then that the USMC are now operating, Airbus, or one of the Augusta Westland helicopters.

No probs at all. I am quite enjoying thist.

 

[Bozoo2]

Fair enough. You still require a helicopter capable of lifting troops in and out of combat. You could go with the UH-1Y Venom then that the USMC are now operating, Airbus, or one of the Augusta Westland helicopters.

The Air Force operates 12 CH 53 Super Stallions that can lift 55 fully equipped soldiers. We would usually lift an infantry platoon at the time With 42 personell. Only two CH 53s at the time will be used in a high threat environment and then only subject to Army Aviation supplying air cover With AH 1 Cobras. Most of Our Cobras have been fittet With Air-to-Air capability, mounting AIM 9 L all aspect Sidewinders.

No probs at all. I am quite enjoying thist.

Me too!

 

[Bozoo2]

Another question entirely.

I find I grapple With understanding how the Ptarmigan MSE (multiple subscriber Equipment) really Works. I do understand the general principle of Direct line of sight microwave communication affording secure communication between units irrespectable of their tactical location enabling contact to be made without knowing the geografical location of the subscriber, thus looking for the user much like an ordinary cell phone service.

I do understand the MSE Node centers, relay stations and switches and how they are deployd throughout the battle area with redundant nodes to enable operations with continous line of sight communication, this necessitating the enemy to interpose themselves between two nodes to be able to intercept traffic and partly also to be able to jam communications. I have integreated this into the Midtguardian army so that every unit of batallion strenght is supplied with an access node giving the Bn command centre access to the MSE network.

The way this is organized in the Midtguardian army, this enables only Bn command centres to communicate through the MSE with other Bn command centres, and also to connect to civilian land lines and sat nav through signals Bn services. What I do not understand is how smaller units, i.e. artillery batteries, infantry companies and maintence units connect with the MSE, as any practical use of the system entails the ability to communicate with lower HQs to enable division commander and his staff to control the battle.

My assumption is that there is some way lesser units access the MSE through the combat radio network, using i.e. SINGCARS radios, but I do not understand how this works. I am of course only interested in this to be able to make the necessary models. I have up until now solved this by supplying enough radiovans to all such lesser HQs manually switching these into the MSE from the CRN. This does however negate the OPSEC quality of the MSE as CRN radios transmit in 360 degrees, thus giving the enemy a chance both to listen in and to jam the transmissions. The OPSEC aspect has been partially solved by placing the com vans as far from the front line as possible and hardlining from the combat HQ to the com van, but this does not seem right to me.

Do you have any suggestions where I can place this question, as I am sure you have someone from the british armed forces among your members who can enlighten me, as the UK utilized the Ptarmigan system until quite recently. It has now been replaced and I suppose that an answer to my inquiry does not violate any classified information.

Bozoo

 

[Bozoo2]

For Your information, Midtguardia has just requested a quotation for the design and Production of four Gulfstream G 550 AEW Fat Boy H0 scale from Shapeways Zverse.

 

[ngatimozart]

I take it the Tornadoes that you are looking at are the Luftwaffe ones that Germany are retiring. To be honest, they'd be pretty knackered, would require significant upgrading and would be expensive to operate and sustain. They wouldn't been maintained that well either because the Bundestag didn't fund the Luftwaffe enough for maintenance and operations.

If you really wanted to go down that path, you could acquire F-15s or F-16s parked up in the USAF AMARC also known as the Boneyard. Pay to have them reactivated and then undertake thorough Mid Life Upgrades. Cheaper than buying new ones and you could get up to 8,000 flight hours out of each one.

Now on to GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence). The current GBAD that you have is a tad ancient and should be replaced over time. What you should aim for is an IADS (Integrated Air Defence System) which makes it more difficult for an enemy to achieve air superiority.

I would suggest mobile sensors, weapons, command and control, because any fixed permanent system will be destroyed reasonably quickly. They are very high value targets. I do have my preferences and they are mostly European. For your auto cannon I strongly suggest the Rheinmettall 35 mm Millennium Gun with the company's AHEAD ammunition. It's a revolver with a good rate of fire and range, plus it's deadly. For your SAM, I suggest the MDMA CAMM. It actually comes in 3 variants; air land and sea. In this case we're looking at CAMM(L) which is known as Land Ceptor in UK service. It has a range in excess of 25 km and from memory the height ceiling is around 60,000 feet. It is mounted in a box multi-launcher on the back of a stand truck. The launcher has the footprint to fit inside a standard ISO 20 ft ,TEU container. This means launcher is hidden from view until firing. Hence the truck and launcher could be disguised as a container delivery service. You could also acquire MANPADS for your army as well, but more on that later.

The sensors are the eyes and ears without which the shòoters cannot work. The Millennium gun has its own radar, plus it can link into a local network. Radars unfortunately are noisy when they operate and invite fairly quick response from the enemy. Modern electronicly scanned arrays (phased array radars) are the best at the moment, especially because of their frequency hopping agility. But they still get detected. That's why I strongly suggest mobile units because you can up stakes and move quickly. Another method of detection for closer in is IRST (Infrared Sense and Track) which is used for detection and targeting. That is passive detection because the sensor is not emitting any radiation, so the first inkling that the target has that they are being tracked is when they have a high speed close encounter with a SAM and / or a stream of cannon shells. Tends to ruin their day. However having said that I would still invest in a chain of phases array radars located on high points giving you full 360° coverage of the area surrounding your homeland out to at least 400 km.

The third part is you command and contrl (C2). This too is mobile and if it can be in vehicles that give no clue as to their function, then they reduce their chances of being targeted by enemy forces. Each ground force C2 will be integrated into the IADS C2, enabling both air and ground forces (+ naval forces) to work together all the time. That is the whole basis of an IADS.

Your IADS C2 has to be in a very secure location, safe from air, missile and ground forces attack. Inside a mountain is good where not even a USAF 30,000 lb bunker buster is going to penetrate.

Something for you to ponder over.

Because the modernization of your defence capabilities is putting pressure on the Principality Treasury, you might have to flog the peasants some more and increase their taxes

 

[OPSSG]

For Your information, Midtguardia has just requested a quotation for the design and Production of four Gulfstream G 550 AEW Fat Boy H0 scale from Shapeways Zverse.

1. Excellent idea to acquire 4 G550AEW for the Midtguardian Air Force. Singapore also deploys 2 EL-2022/ELM-2083 radars on areostats at a height of 600m. These 2 aerostat radars are connected to the integrated air defense system (IADS) and complements radar coverage from the FPS-117 ground air defense radar on Bukit Timah Hill, so as to provide 24/7 airspace control. The ground based radar and aerostats augment the coverage of Singapore’s G550 AEWs. You may want to consider an aerostat for the Midtguardian Air Force. Each aerostat system is manned by a team of 8, enhances any ground based IADS network with the advantage of an elevated sensor.

2. If you want to read up more, there are a number of resource threads related to AirPower that may be of interest to you. These resources were not available when you joined more than 11 years ago.

• Air Power 101 for New Members (read this second)
• A brief history of LO (read this first, for the foundation to understand the other threads)
• F-35 Program - General Discussion
• F-35 - International Participation
• F-35B/C - Naval Air Discussions (USN & USMC)

3. With a defence budget of S$15.5 billion for FY2019 (up from S$14.8 billion for FY2018), Singapore is the most densely defended country in Southeast Asia. Singapore’s force structure (air force, army and navy) shown during NDP 2019 is designed for overmatch against a potential regional aggressor. Watch the 2019 NDP video below of the men and machines on parade in Singapore, to get an idea of the size of our armoured forces available for forward defence — to serve as a reference point to the Midtguardian army.

4. Since the arrival of the E-2C AWACS in Mar 1987, Singapore no longer thinks in terms of plane vs plane contest. At a seminar in Feb 2007, Singapore's then chief defence scientist stated that Singapore's goal is:

(i) to acquire a systems capability [rather than too much focus on a single platform]; and​

​

(ii) to invest in key technologies that ensure a clear lead.​

Like Sweden, there are several other roads in Singapore which can be turned into alternate runways in emergencies. Exercise Torrent 2016 is a demonstration of alternate runway operations capability (on public roads) in the event of enemy attack on Singapore air bases.

5. At a system of systems level, a tertiary air force needs to perform in all 4 roles of Air Power despite enemy attack (including, AEW, air to air refuelling, SEAD and EW support). The goal of a tertiary air force is be able to take an enemy’s first punch; thereafter render the enemy deaf and blind via EW (with MBDA’s SPEAR EW, developed for the Eurofighter Typhoon) and to conduct Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD) missions, if required. Therefore, any new fighter aircraft purchase is not just to enable a country’s fighters to face-off against the enemy in close combat. Rather the goal is to have the systems to contest for control of the air and the electromagnetic spectrum at stand-off ranges.

• Israel and the US have demonstrated the importance of the conduct of the SEAD mission, via the dominance of the electromagnetic spectrum, in Bekka Valley in 1982 and in Gulf Wars I and II. Hence, the concern with electromagnetic space.

• The Midtguardian Air Force does not have access to F-35 technology nor is it supported by 16 NATO E-3As.
• IMO, the 3.5 squadrons of Eurofighter Typhoons, that are AESA and Praetorian Evolution EuroDASS equipped along with the ELL-8222WB or ELL-8251 pods, have a slight advantage against Sweden’s Gripen E/F that are only equipped with Saab’s Arexis system and capable of advanced Electronic Attack.
• Small countries like Midtguardia cannot afford to buy too many different types of aircraft with the same or similar capabilities. Each aircraft type, like the Eurofighter Typhoon (and aging F-4 Phantom) must play a district role in the electronic order of battle - so that they are carrying the correct ordinance or pods for efficient air tasking to perform the 4 roles of air power. Hence the focus on a systems fight at BVR ranges with a strong focus on stopping the enemy’s electronic attack and thereafter killing force multipliers like the Saab 340 AEW&C.

6. Over a weekend after the tensions between Malaysia and Singapore rose in Dec 2018, Singapore mobilised all 5 fighter squadrons, changed our naval force posture, and made significant announcements in new weapon procurement shortly after. Please feel free to share your thoughts or ask any questions on force design for a small country, like Singapore at The best strategy to defending Singapore Island or Midtguardia in this thread.

 

[Bozoo2]

I take it the Tornadoes that you are looking at are the Luftwaffe ones that Germany are retiring. To be honest, they'd be pretty knackered, would require significant upgrading and would be expensive to operate and sustain. They wouldn't been maintained that well either because the Bundestag didn't fund the Luftwaffe enough for maintenance and operations.

If you really wanted to go down that path, you could acquire F-15s or F-16s parked up in the USAF AMARC also known as the Boneyard. Pay to have them reactivated and then undertake thorough Mid Life Upgrades. Cheaper than buying new ones and you could get up to 8,000 flight hours out of each one.

With what I have learned about stand off strike capabilities I think I will drop the Tornados, as I can obviously use the Typhoons in a strike capacity. I am now thinking about rearranging my squadrons to the proposed 14 ship squadrons, With a mix of Litening targeting pods and self prrotect ECM pods.

This har prompted Midtguardia to consider an expantion of the Typhoon fleet from 48 to 56 allowing four 4 Complete squadrons. With four Complete squadrons I will be more willing to risk some Typhoons performing strike missions without the loss of air frames putting too much of the air superiority mission at risk. (The 4 two seaters at the air academy comes on top of these) This means aquiering another 8 air frames of Typhoons which I think is preferable to buying the used Tornados - especially taking spares and maintenance into account. Anyway, we are still producing squadron nr 3 and the cange will not commence before we have Three Complete squadrons operational.

The preliminary reports from Shapeways Zverse suggests the cost of the four Gulfstreams to be USD 1800, so I will buy four ordinary G 550 airframes for USD 240 instead and convert them to the AEW "Fat Boy" (Harley??) Versions myself.

 

[Bozoo2]

Now on to GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence). The current GBAD that you have is a tad ancient and should be replaced over time. What you should aim for is an IADS (Integrated Air Defence System) which makes it more difficult for an enemy to achieve air superiority.

I would suggest mobile sensors, weapons, command and control, because any fixed permanent system will be destroyed reasonably quickly. They are very high value targets. I do have my preferences and they are mostly European. For your auto cannon I strongly suggest the Rheinmettall 35 mm Millennium Gun with the company's AHEAD ammunition. It's a revolver with a good rate of fire and range, plus it's deadly. For your SAM, I suggest the MDMA CAMM. It actually comes in 3 variants; air land and sea. In this case we're looking at CAMM(L) which is known as Land Ceptor in UK service. It has a range in excess of 25 km and from memory the height ceiling is around 60,000 feet. It is mounted in a box multi-launcher on the back of a stand truck. The launcher has the footprint to fit inside a standard ISO 20 ft ,TEU container. This means launcher is hidden from view until firing. Hence the truck and launcher could be disguised as a container delivery service. You could also acquire MANPADS for your army as well, but more on that later.

The millennium gun is available in H0 mounted on a Boxer. As I am allready operating Boxers for the Armoured Rangers Elite Bn, the Medic Bn and Transport Bn, this I think will be a good idea. I'm not throwing away the Gepards or Rolands though. BTW, I don't see any radars on the Milleniums, how is this arranged. Looking into the Mathis system as well - transportable, but not vehicle mounted, and I do like air defence permenantly mounted on vehicles - for operational reasons.

Mod note: Can you fix your own quotes, going forward? I edited the others for you. Click on the edit button (hidden in the ‘...’ at the bottom left) to see how it is done.

 

[Bozoo2]

The sensors are the eyes and ears without which the shòoters cannot work. The Millennium gun has its own radar, plus it can link into a local network. Radars unfortunately are noisy when they operate and invite fairly quick response from the enemy. Modern electronicly scanned arrays (phased array radars) are the best at the moment, especially because of their frequency hopping agility. But they still get detected. That's why I strongly suggest mobile units because you can up stakes and move quickly. Another method of detection for closer in is IRST (Infrared Sense and Track) which is used for detection and targeting. That is passive detection because the sensor is not emitting any radiation, so the first inkling that the target has that they are being tracked is when they have a high speed close encounter with a SAM and / or a stream of cannon shells. Tends to ruin their day. However having said that I would still invest in a chain of phases array radars located on high points giving you full 360° coverage of the area surrounding your homeland out to at least 400 km.

Now my sensors are not all that bad. The 1. division has an air defence Bn With a air surveillance Company. This consists of four Remote, mobile radar units each With 3 vehicles.

The first vehicle is a AN/TPS 74 air surveillance and Control radar mounted on a M 548 tracked transporter. The radar is a 3 D phased array radar With a frequency diversety capability and a tilt function enabling near Space search. It has a buildt in IFF transceiver and a 350 km range. The vehicle has a crew of Three of which one is a certifed radar technician.

The radar vehicle tows a 100 KVA generator on a trailer supplying the necessary Power both to the radar and to the accompanying Communications vehicle.

The second vehicle is a Ptarmigan Access node microwave link transceiver on a M 113 chassis connecting the radar input to the Ptarmigan MSE system as well as an independantly targetable Direct microwave communication station connecting the radar directly to the IADS network, thus giving the radar site two independant communication alternatives to contribute to the common radar Picture.

This vehicle tows a trailer With a fuel supply for the generator as well as a decoy transmitter on the same frequency as the radar.

The Third vehicle is an M 557 command post vehicle With technical Equipment and Control consoles for the radar, as well as tentage and mess gir for the platoons 11 personell.

The Air defence Bn has four of these units, Three of which are independant, while the fourth is deployed With the tactical, mobile SOC, sector operation centre, establishing track Production and intercept Control as well as ECM/ECCM capabilities in the Field.

The established radar Picture is cross telled to the Gepards and the Roland units, thus establishing the IADS as all these units are interconnected both With army air defence and air force assets. When the Gulfstream AEW comes on line, their contribution will be Integrated into the system.

I have tried to evaluate the vulnerabilty of these radars. The main threats are attacks from Harm missiles, long range MLRS misslies With submunitions, air strikes With presision guided bombs, artillery attacks, special forces attacks and helicopters.

The main risk is from HARMs. This is countered by swithching the radar off. There is a separate console in the tactical SOC With a single mission and that is to monitor the radar Picture for possible Harm launches and to alert the pertinent radar head. When the alert is made the M 548 radar vehicle will automatically start its engine as well as shut Down the radar emissions. During operations there must always be a driver seated in the cab and he will immidiatly drive away from the previous site.

At the same time the fuel trailer With the decoy transmitter, placed only meters away from the radar vehicle will start transmitting on the same frequency as the radar, thus convincing the Harm that it still has a Lock on. The two other vehicles will also drive away, but they are somewhat protected as they are allready located som 60 meters away from the radar vehicle.

Taking the speed and blast radius of the Harm as well as the CEP (circular error probability) into account, we beleive the radar vehicle has a reasonable chance to Escape a Harm attack provided the monitor station raises the alarm soon enough. Th Harm launch is quite possible to observe on the radar screen as the track seperation on launch is observable and the speed of the missile will identify it as a Harm and the direction will give a good indication of its target. There is also a Limited number of active emitters that can be targeted, so identifying a Harm target will often be possible for the monitor.

A radar head will always be situated at least 30 km behind the FLOT (foreward line own troops) and will therefore be out of range for enemy tube artillery, even if pushed right up into no mans land. Conventional air strike is not a specific risk for the radar head, as it will always be situated under Our GBAD umbrella and in an area where Our air defence fighters will attempt to acheive air superiority. Even so, major enemy strike packages will always be able to penetrate this, but we expect other targets to be the missions for such large strike packages.

If the radar unit is to be located in the vicinity of the FLOT we will normally deploy one or two Gepards to the site to act as perimeter defence both against ground troops and helicopter Assaults.

Then remains the 150 km range MLRS missiles With submunitions. We really do not have any protection against these. They will not be fooled by decoy transmissions and their "blast radius" is so large that I doubt an alarm will be sufficient to enable the vehicles to drive out of the blast area in time. There is also the added problem of identifying the radar head as the target.

While the Harms are specific to the SEAD mission, an MLRS missile can have any number of targets and the long range and general direction will suggest multiple possible targets for a launch, the only way to handle this is to shut Down all radar emissions every time an MLRS launch is observed, thus effectively blinding the entire radar Picture, this again offering an opportunity for enemy action while the radars are turned off. The only way to Counter this is to compensate With air Picture from AEW, which is why the Gulfstreams are very important additions to the Inventory.

 

[ngatimozart]

Sounds like you have a comprehensive air defence system there and you understand the IADS concept.

Looking at your Air Combat Force, I like how you are structuring it. I would suggest if possible, looking at some way of networking them in real time with your C2 and ground and naval forces, so that data can be passed between all units. This would be a long term project and probably would require something like Link 16 at a minimum. It would also mean that you would have to invest in expensive new helmets for your combat aircrew.

Navy.
I do hope that your navy still issues the daily tot of rum. If it does you'd have a lot of ex NZ and Australian navy sailors wanting to join up, myself included

I note that you're looking for a new frigate and want good air defence capability. What I would suggest is one of two frigates available at the moment.

The first is the BAE Type 26 frigate that is being built for the UK Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navy. It is an ASW frigate but each navy is building it to their own specifications. The hull and machinery are the same across all three variants, but the sensors, weapons, combat management systems (CMS) etc., vary. All 3 have the AEGIS anti air warfare system, but are using different radars. This is a new design and steel has just been cut on the first ship.

The second frigate is the OMT F370, a Danish design with 1 class already operational with the Royal Danish Navy as the Iver Huitfeld class. This is a proven mature design and has a good design philosophy. It is a personal favourite of mine because of how it was designed with ease of maintenance and upgrading in mind. It displaces about 6,600 tonnes and has plenty of room for upgrades. It has diesel power plants and the machinery can be rafted.

Both ships can be fitted out to the customer's specifications, so it is up to you to decide what you want. If it was me, I would have 32 Mk-41 VLS cells minimum, 48 if I could afford to load them. I'd split the cells with half on the main deck behind the main gun and the rest up top behind the main mast. This is to ensure that you don't lose all your missile load to 1 hit. I would also spend the money and acquire AEGIS baseline 6 along with the Lockheed Martin radar that is being installed in the Canadian Type 26 frigates. Just remember that Norway has AEGIS on its frigates, but I think that the baseline 6 is a newer version. I would acquire the SM-2 missile and SM-6. Because I would be using Land Ceptor I would acquire Sea Ceptor, but you could also acquire ESSM Blk 2.

Since you had bad experiences with the NH90, I would suggest the Sikorsky MH-60R for your shipboard ASW / ASuW helo. It uses the Mk-54 Light Weight Torpedo which can also be launched from the frigate.

With regard to the number of frigates acquired, in NZ we currently have 2, both of which are currently laid up in Canada being upgraded. We have always known that 2 was never enough, but the politicians didn't listen and now they still think they don't need 3 and that we live in a benign environment. So my advice is to verify carefully consider how many will you actually require, remembering that you require one available 24/7. This is where the rule of 3s applies.

That's it for the moment.

 

[Feanor]

Now on to GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence). The current GBAD that you have is a tad ancient and should be replaced over time. What you should aim for is an IADS (Integrated Air Defence System) which makes it more difficult for an enemy to achieve air superiority.

I would suggest mobile sensors, weapons, command and control, because any fixed permanent system will be destroyed reasonably quickly. They are very high value targets. I do have my preferences and they are mostly European. For your auto cannon I strongly suggest the Rheinmettall 35 mm Millennium Gun with the company's AHEAD ammunition. It's a revolver with a good rate of fire and range, plus it's deadly. For your SAM, I suggest the MDMA CAMM. It actually comes in 3 variants; air land and sea. In this case we're looking at CAMM(L) which is known as Land Ceptor in UK service. It has a range in excess of 25 km and from memory the height ceiling is around 60,000 feet. It is mounted in a box multi-launcher on the back of a stand truck. The launcher has the footprint to fit inside a standard ISO 20 ft ,TEU container. This means launcher is hidden from view until firing. Hence the truck and launcher could be disguised as a container delivery service. You could also acquire MANPADS for your army as well, but more on that later.

The sensors are the eyes and ears without which the shòoters cannot work. The Millennium gun has its own radar, plus it can link into a local network. Radars unfortunately are noisy when they operate and invite fairly quick response from the enemy. Modern electronicly scanned arrays (phased array radars) are the best at the moment, especially because of their frequency hopping agility. But they still get detected. That's why I strongly suggest mobile units because you can up stakes and move quickly. Another method of detection for closer in is IRST (Infrared Sense and Track) which is used for detection and targeting. That is passive detection because the sensor is not emitting any radiation, so the first inkling that the target has that they are being tracked is when they have a high speed close encounter with a SAM and / or a stream of cannon shells. Tends to ruin their day. However having said that I would still invest in a chain of phases array radars located on high points giving you full 360° coverage of the area surrounding your homeland out to at least 400 km.

The third part is you command and contrl (C2). This too is mobile and if it can be in vehicles that give no clue as to their function, then they reduce their chances of being targeted by enemy forces. Each ground force C2 will be integrated into the IADS C2, enabling both air and ground forces (+ naval forces) to work together all the time. That is the whole basis of an IADS.

Your IADS C2 has to be in a very secure location, safe from air, missile and ground forces attack. Inside a mountain is good where not even a USAF 30,000 lb bunker buster is going to penetrate.

Something for you to ponder over.

The South Koreans have an interesting SAM-SPAAG hybrid (K30 Biho - Wikipedia), what about that instead of the Rheinmetall? It's mobile so you can standardize the SHORAD you pair with your bigger SAMs and the SHORAD you use to protect your mech and armor on the move and it combines guns and missiles for best PK. You could even go full RoK and pair it with their KM-SAM. With both systems coming from the same country, it would likely be easier to integrate them.

Also what about ground-based ELINT/SIGINT listening posts, and jammers?

 

[OPSSG]

I am now thinking about rearranging my squadrons to the proposed 14 ship squadrons, With a mix of Litening targeting pods and self prrotect ECM pods.

Thanks to Kuwait, the Lockheed Martin Sniper targeting pod is also available for the Eurofighter Typhoon.

In 2005, Singapore's Next Fighter Replacement Programme (NFRP) was won by the Boeing F-15SG but my favourite in the contest amongst the 3 platforms shortlisted was the Eurofighter Typhoon.

15 years ago, the platform lacked of maturity as the Eurofighter Typhoon initially entered service as an air-to-air fighter. BAE did their best to sell Eurofighter Typhoon's potential capabilities, including its then deficiency in conducting air to ground missions and lack of an anti-ship missile.

• This has been rectified with the qualification of the 500-pound Paveway IV dual-mode bomb, the Joint Strike Missile, the Taurus cruise missile and the Storm Shadow cruise missile, and Brimstone 2, and the qualification of GBU-54 Laser JDAM and SDB forthcoming. Eurofighter Typhoons have now used both Paveway IV and Brimstone 2 in combat as part of Operation Shader.
• Several anti-ship missiles have been fit-checked and wind-tunnel tested on the Eurofighter Typhoon, including the AGM-84 Harpoon, the Saab RBS15, and the MBDA Marte-ER. The latter are believed to form part of the weapons package being supplied with Qatar’s new Typhoons.
• Leonardo may also brief about Eurofighter Typhoon’s Electronic Warfare capabilities, especially after the May 2919 announcement that BriteCloud has been tested and released for the first time. BriteCloud is an expendable active radar missile decoy that is the size of a soda-can and that can be fired from standard chaff/flare dispensers.

Aspects of BAE’s pitch to Singapore in 2005 were promises of what was to come rather than what was implemented. In hindsight, Eurofighter Typhoon achieved or exceeded every promise — including:

​

(i) Euroradar’s CAPTOR-E AESA radar that improves the effective range of the ramjet powered Meteor missile (also uses by the Gripen) and allows for faster and more accurate detection and tracking of multiple aircraft with lower life cycle costs; and​

​

(ii) the superb Striker II HMD with its next generation night vision and target tracking technology. Using optical sensors embedded in the aircraft, the Striker II HMD calculates the pilot’s exact head position and angle. This means no matter where the pilot is looking, Striker II displays accurate targeting information and symbology. Striker II is significantly lighter than today’s current HMD/NVG solutions, which means pilots can fly longer missions with reduced fatigue. The system also offers a better balance and centre of gravity with its integrated night vision camera configuration — increasing comfort during high G-level manoeuvres on fixed-wing platforms.​

​

The only thing the Eurofighter Typhoon lacks is conforma fuel tanks.

 

[Bozoo2]

Navy.
I do hope that your navy still issues the daily tot of rum. If it does you'd have a lot of ex NZ and Australian navy sailors wanting to join up, myself included

A tot of rum is a small Investment to aquire such exellent competance. As my eldest daughter took her Bachelors degree in NZ, Midtguardia have the highest regard for NZ culture and Outlook on life. Consider yourself invited. (Also, in real life, if you are ever i Norway, drop me a line.)

 

[Bozoo2]

A tot of rum is a small Investment to aquire such exellent competance. As my eldest daughter took her Bachelors degree in NZ, Midtguardia have the highest regard for NZ culture and Outlook on life. Consider yourself invited. (Also, in real life, if you are ever i Norway, drop me a line.)

He, he. I actually managed to fix the quote.

 

[Bozoo2]

Navy.
I do hope that your navy still issues the daily tot of rum. If it does you'd have a lot of ex NZ and Australian navy sailors wanting to join up, myself included

I note that you're looking for a new frigate and want good air defence capability. What I would suggest is one of two frigates available at the moment.

The first is the BAE Type 26 frigate that is being built for the UK Royal Navy, Royal Australian Navy and Royal Canadian Navy. It is an ASW frigate but each navy is building it to their own specifications. The hull and machinery are the same across all three variants, but the sensors, weapons, combat management systems (CMS) etc., vary. All 3 have the AEGIS anti air warfare system, but are using different radars. This is a new design and steel has just been cut on the first ship.

The second frigate is the OMT F370, a Danish design with 1 class already operational with the Royal Danish Navy as the Iver Huitfeld class. This is a proven mature design and has a good design philosophy. It is a personal favourite of mine because of how it was designed with ease of maintenance and upgrading in mind. It displaces about 6,600 tonnes and has plenty of room for upgrades. It has diesel power plants and the machinery can be rafted.

I am looking into the possibility of expanding the Surface combattants of the navy. On the other hand, I am not convinced that the current designs are up to standard. They seem to consentrate heavily on offensive and sensor capabilities and to pay little or no attention to survivability. My impression is that the current designs are very vulnerable to even slight combat damage, the fate of the Norwegian frigate KNM Helge Ingstad, where a gliding collission With a Commercial tanker resultet in the ship sinking and finally beeing scrapped. Also the Falklands sinking of the HMS Antelope due to a single bomb explosion was sufficiant so ultimately sink the ship.

Aquiering two modern frigates, not to speak of Three or four, would be a huge Financial undertaking for Midtguardia. With all this Investment gathered together in one basket With what seems to the untrained eye to be of paperthin quality, is a rather questionable descision. While I have no actual information on this, I suspect the hulls of the Oslo class frigates, based on the design of the WWII Deleay class destroyer Escorts, have a more rugged hull able to withstand more punishment. I beleive the KNM Helge Ingstad incident would not have proven fatal for the Oslo class (which BTW is of the same class as MNS Kong Sverre and MNS Jarl Einar.

I also beleive that the superstructure of the Oslo class frigates are made of steel and not aluminium, steel having a much higher melting point than aluminium and thus giving the damage Control parties more time to work to save the ship if stricken by a single 2000 lb bomb. Please be aware that the specifics of the damage to the HMS Antelope were of such a character that I very much doubt that a more rugged design would have had major effect on the final outcome. It does however, in my absolutely amateur mind, highlight major shortcomings of modern warship design.

So far as my theory is valid, I doubt modern frigate designs are viable for Midtguardia. I would maybe consider a redesign of the Oslo class, replacing the Sea sparrow launcher and the aft gun turret With two VLS's, and adding CIWS, deleting the aft mounted Penguin launchers to give room for a helicopter pad. But this would depend on my theory of the Oslo Class ruggedness actually beeing correct.

Failing this, I beleive I would prefer placing my eggs in different, smaller hulls.

I am also thinking that the capabilities prescent in the Frigates to a large extent could be maintained With a combination of modern submarines of the 212 design coupled With the P 8 Poseidon maritime patrol Craft equipped With additional Surface strike missiles. What do you think?

 

[OPSSG]

@OPSSG thanks, I'd forgotten about the Israeli AEW option. Yes I agree that would be the better option and would give compatibility with the EW / ELINT G550 as well.

The Australian mods to their G550 is really interesting and the MC-55A “Peregrine” will pair well with their Growler fleet. I really see, Australia and Singapore having complimentary military capabilities and are suitable a burden sharing coalition partners.

As long as it gives good detailed ground coverage as well as air coverage. That's one thing that the Wedgetail is good at.

P-8A as an ISR platform has fantastic capability for ground coverage with its AN/APY-10 synthetic aperture radar (used for imaging, detection, classification and identification of stationary ships and small vessels and for coastal and overland surveillance) and a bomb bay.

Bozoo originally said that he wanted the P-8A, so I presume that it's a govt purchase. Considering the unfriendlies he has in the area and their capabilities, the P-8A is about the only capability that will cut it.

With his plan to acquire 4 full fighter squadrons, the P-8A suits. Earlier, I was afraid that his fighter fleet might be too small to protect so many high value targets (like the G550 AEWs & P-8As).

He wants to operate Type 212? subs as well so will require a high end platform to sanitize the area before his subs put to sea, especially considering the amount of national treasure invested in them.

Alternatively the 2,200 tonnes Invincible class (aka Type 218SG) as Gotland-class (1,599 tonnes) killers, for the Midtguardian war scenario? But that might be too expensive.

 

[Bozoo2]

Since you had bad experiences with the NH90, I would suggest the Sikorsky MH-60R for your shipboard ASW / ASuW helo. It uses the Mk-54 Light Weight Torpedo which can also be launched from the frigate.

With regard to the number of frigates acquired, in NZ we currently have 2, both of which are currently laid up in Canada being upgraded. We have always known that 2 was never enough, but the politicians didn't listen and now they still think they don't need 3 and that we live in a benign environment. So my advice is to verify carefully consider how many will you actually require, remembering that you require one available 24/7. This is where the rule of 3s applies.

That's it for the moment.

The MH-60 R is, as far as I understand, a Blackhawk variant. The Blackhawks do not excist as an off the shelf Product in H0 and would therefore be prohibitly expensive, so I will continue to use the NH 90 for ASW warfare, possibly also buying two more. But as a substitute for Army Aviations utility and light troop lift helicopters, I beleive the Lakotas would be a good alternative. As the UH 1 D's still perform sterling service, this is very low on my priority list.

The number of frigates needed would ultimately depend on the missions they are supposed to undertake.

In Midtguardia, this is Limited to making an attempt to disrupt enemy blockading operations, flagwaving and protecting Our extensive Merchant shipping.

Just to bring you up to speed as to the strategic situation. Midtguardia operates under two completely different set of strategic environments. The first is establishing a viable defence would it be that Midtguardia excisted in todays real world, taking into account the real challenges such a defence system would confront. This is the topic of the discussions in this forum.

The second scenario is to pit Midtguardia against any other similarly modelled military force. There are in fact, some such forces, the largest of which fileds a total of nearly 500 main battle tanks. The thing is, none of these pay any attention to integrated systems of any kind, and mainly
concentrate on individual weapon platforms. The 500 MTB force (US citizen) has no more than one hundred other vehicles. Little or no supply, maintenance or air defence, rudimentary recovery capability and little infantry support and recon, no artillery and no engineer units.

Illustrative in comparison is my armoured brigade with its 118 Main battle tanks, of a total of nearly 900 vehicles. When this guy had fired the on board ammo, his tanks would be sitting ducks. In this scenario my frigates would be a force to be reconned with, as no one, as far as I know, has any major naval units in H0 other than a single model or two. And no one, I mean no one, has substantial army units, a viable air force and a navy in H0 scale.

Back to the simulated reality scenario. I don not beleive we have the possiblity of building a surface fleet that would have any blue water mission with any realistic survivability against major powers. We would need at least one, maybe two carrier battle groups, which far surpasses any realistic financial resources as well as space considereations. A Nimitz class carrier would be more than three meters long in H0 scale.

The current surface fleet would be chopped wood within hours of the opening of hostilities, unleess re-enforced by substantial air defence and anti ship capabilities. I beleive a Battle group configuration of one Ticondaroga class missile cruiser and three dedicated ASW frigates with limited air defence capabilities and an attack submarine would constitute a minimum battle group. Two or three such battle groups would be necessary. One such battle group is in itself a giant undertaking and I do not beleive this is something Midtguardia would start building in any near future.

My conclusion is, unfortunately, that at the moment ordering a modern frigate would not be well spent money. And we generally would not need three units, because we really don't need one available around the clock. Our frigates would really only come into action when hostilities are opened and that would most probably be more or less an all out effort amounting generally to a suicide mission.

This is very different from the NZ, as one very valuable frigate mission would be to parttake in a joint battle group with allied forces, for which you would definately need a three ship class. Midtguardia, alas, has no allies.

A word about the benign environement. It is my firm beleif that any nation must structure its defence not according to potential enemies intentions but according to their capabilities. What may today seem benign may allready tomorrow morning be the greatest threat.

Bozoo