Jump to content


Photo

Cold War, The Reimagined Series


  • Please log in to reply
7999 replies to this topic

#7981 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,155 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 1212 PM

 

 

 

...  You should sit down and do the math - how many NATO airfields supporting tactical aircraft are left in Western Europe and the UK (the UK has four, Germany has six and Poland has five - each would take just a few cruise missiles to put its runways* out of commission)

 

 

I think you ask the wrong question.  I think it should be, "How many airfields are there that NATO can use to service their aircraft from, including road systems."

 

if i understand correctly, finnish standard procedure is that aircraft take off at point A, do their thing, then fly to point B , where road-bound service vehicles wait, service them and then aircraft take off and do their thing, then fly to point C where the same (or another) ground team wait them 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=_hgjY_za9vA

 

of course , finnish repertoire and fleet differs significantly from USAF for example, but still


  • 0

#7982 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 1428 PM

 

 

 

...  You should sit down and do the math - how many NATO airfields supporting tactical aircraft are left in Western Europe and the UK (the UK has four, Germany has six and Poland has five - each would take just a few cruise missiles to put its runways* out of commission)

 

 

I think you ask the wrong question.  I think it should be, "How many airfields are there that NATO can use to service their aircraft from, including road systems."

 

 

Unlike Finland and Sweden, W. Europe hasn't gone to the trouble of building lots of straight, wide roads to operate from in wartime, probably partly because those same roads would likely be packed with refugees heading West. You also have the issue that, with freedom of movement and cell/satphones, the location of the road bases would not remain unknown for long. However, the clincher is that the Russians get to choose when to kick off. What are the odds that NATO fast air and its supporting logistics would be camped out at dozens of highway bases when they did?. 


  • 0

#7983 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,244 posts

Posted 30 September 2019 - 1508 PM

Beg to differ. 29 in Germany alone, though a lot of them were built back after the Cold War, and it's probably not been trained to use the dozen remaining in a long time.


  • 0

#7984 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 01 October 2019 - 0152 AM

https://www.geschich...laetze-nlp.html

 

I was interested to note there is one near Tallinn that was built by the Soviets that is still viable.

https://www.forgotte...-strip-269.html


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 01 October 2019 - 0158 AM.

  • 0

#7985 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,155 posts

Posted 01 October 2019 - 1054 AM

i´ve seen A-10´s and CH-47´s and UH-60´s there   :wub:


  • 0

#7986 bd1

bd1

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,155 posts

Posted 01 October 2019 - 1058 AM

 

 

 

 

...  You should sit down and do the math - how many NATO airfields supporting tactical aircraft are left in Western Europe and the UK (the UK has four, Germany has six and Poland has five - each would take just a few cruise missiles to put its runways* out of commission)

 

 

I think you ask the wrong question.  I think it should be, "How many airfields are there that NATO can use to service their aircraft from, including road systems."

 

 

Unlike Finland and Sweden, W. Europe hasn't gone to the trouble of building lots of straight, wide roads to operate from in wartime, probably partly because those same roads would likely be packed with refugees heading West. You also have the issue that, with freedom of movement and cell/satphones, the location of the road bases would not remain unknown for long. However, the clincher is that the Russians get to choose when to kick off. What are the odds that NATO fast air and its supporting logistics would be camped out at dozens of highway bases when they did?. 

 

Chris you´re  worse than my wife when depressed

´´problem is not that it´s  glass half full or half empty, but that it´s not a glass, but urine sample container´´  - real life example that last one  :D


  • 0

#7987 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 01 October 2019 - 1058 AM

Lucky git. :)
  • 0

#7988 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,923 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0512 AM

I'm actually highly optimistic of the West's ability to deter Russia, but only if we radically rethink what we spend our defence budgets on and the infrastructure and other preparations we have in place, which requires a degree of political will that I simply can't see being forthcoming. In the short term, our best bet is making Russia believe that the economic pain from territorial acquisitions will outweigh the political benefits. In the meantime, it pains me to see money misspent on massively expensive things that would be either sidelined or destroyed by around D+30 minutes into a conflict. For  example, for the price of one F-35 ( c $85M) and its ongoing costs (an F-35 currently costs $30k per flight hour vs $25k for an F-16), Poland could buy an awful lot of highly survivable kit that would pose real problems to an aggressor. Again for example, for that cost, you could have about 2125 MBT-LAW launchers or give the Home Guard A LOT of advanced anti tank mines. Another alternative would be a truly survivable* medium/long range SAM system like Land Cepter or its ER variant. I'm sure you could get a battery of those with ample reloads for the cost of an F-35A and its ongoing costs would be staggeringly less.  If you want offensive capacity, you could purchase 700 GMLRS rockets or which would have negligible ongoing costs.

 

*As long as you don't leave it parked in an unprotected shed with black and white concentric circles painted on the roof.


  • 0

#7989 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0524 AM

Its Poland. Its unreasonable for us to say they dont need to invest in a total force, with the memory of what happened in 1939 and nobody came to their help. Yes, some of it may be vulnerable, but the Russians will be unable to destroy it all with the first strike. Look at all the kit the Iraqi's had to play with after the first night in 1991. Technology may have moved on, but its not moved on THAT far for the Russians. Their targeting capability certainly has not. More to the point, look at how wholly ineffectual SS21 strikes were in the Georgian Campaign. Even allowing for the extra range, we have absolutely no data Iskander is any more effective than Scud if it came down to it. Its never been used in combat.

 

As for Poland, I think they might be better buying superhornets which probably have more capablity and availability, but they want to play with the first team. I dont think we have a right to condemn them for that.


  • 0

#7990 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0743 AM

Poland should invest heavily in the ATACMs replacement when it becomes available. That would allow them to have a very mobile option to engage targets at 500km plus. Two competitors are to test their weapons in early 2020 with both saying more range can be had now the INF is no longer an issue. They swap out two for one in anything that can launch ATACMs.


  • 0

#7991 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0753 AM

I think I remember reading they are talking about buying an ALCM for the F16? I cant recall which one. That might be an alternative to ATACMs. Though I would side that with investing in more road airstrips to make it viable.


  • 0

#7992 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0840 AM

I hadn't heard that. AGM-158 is compatible with US F-16s; not sure how difficult that would be for Poland. I still think a ground mobile system is a much more viable deterrent, and the Poles have the rather double edged advantage of not needing a lot of range to hit Russian targets. PrSM (ATACMs replacement) seems perfect for their situation. It looks like they are already slated to be sold HIMARS launchers anyway; why not make those long ranged semi ballistic launchers on top of the normal rockets? At some point the US will probably come up with a terminal guidance version which would allow it to be used on sea targets in the Baltic as well. Cheaper than aircraft, more survivable, faster reaction times if paired with sufficient C3 infrastructure.


  • 0

#7993 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 0923 AM

Yeah, here we are, AGM158. They supposedly already took delivery of it.

https://theaviationi...ruise-missiles/

 

I dont know. My own view is, with Russia as nuts about special forces as they are, any ground based weapon is potentially vulnerable. So are aircraft mounted weapons of course, but a permanent QRA is some guard against that kind of thing I suppose.

 

Should NATO as a whole be investing a lot more in medium range strike capablities though? Absolutely. Although I still think sea or subsea based weapons are probably the best option.


  • 0

#7994 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 1014 AM

Well I'm all for Poland having both; it doesn't seem like a one or the other decision to me. AGM158s put a lot of stuff deep behind the lines at risk. But so would PrSM, at lower cost with far less infrastructure.


  • 0

#7995 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,615 posts

Posted 04 October 2019 - 1449 PM

Poland requested the "ER" variant a few years ago. Presumably they've all been delivered by now?

 

https://www.dsca.mil...oland_16-72.pdf


  • 0

#7996 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,574 posts

Posted 05 October 2019 - 1049 AM

It looked like this shipment was the 'A' version in the article I read.


  • 0

#7997 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,615 posts

Posted 05 October 2019 - 1121 AM

That was apparently an earlier request:

 

https://www.dsca.mil...and_14-44_0.pdf


  • 0

#7998 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 0226 AM

https://www.euronews...-dutch-pm-rutte

The EU needs the US for protection against China and Russia, the Dutch Prime minister, Mark Rutte, said in a speech at the Dutch Atlantic Association on Friday.

He advocated for the EU to increase funds to keep NATO afloat in the face of growing threats from China, Russia and other countries.

"We cannot guarantee our own security", Rutte said, arguing that Europe has no alternative to its alliance with the US.

This, he added, means that Europe should agree to US president Donald Trump's demands and cultivate a good relationship with the United States: "We do not like it, but the time when Europe could hide under the US security umbrella for a tiny amount of money is over", he said.

In regards to his own country, the Dutch PM said his analysis was based on a Netherlands Atlantic Association study. "Almost three-quarters of all Dutch people consider NATO membership to be important for our security", he noted.

For years, US President Donald Trump has been pushing for NATO members — and especially the EU — to increase their contributions. The US has also reduced some military spending in Europe to finance, such as the border separation wall with Mexico.

In 2014, NATO members agreed to increase military spending to 2% of their gross domestic product by 2024.

The Dutch military spending has increased by 25% since 2014, but still only reached 1.2% of GDP last year. The Rutte government plans to further increase defense spending in the coming years. "But we have to be honest, that we won't reach 2% by 2024," Rutte said.

Some analysts and leaders wonder if it is not time to bury NATO. To put pressure on his partners, Trump declared last year that "he may be outdated".

The US is the country that contributes most to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, with 22% of direct contributions. NATO recently turned 70.


  • 0

#7999 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,494 posts

Posted 06 October 2019 - 1244 PM

https://www.euronews...-dutch-pm-rutte

The EU needs the US for protection against China and Russia, the Dutch Prime minister, Mark Rutte, said in a speech at the Dutch Atlantic Association on Friday.

Where is China-EU border for US troops to defend? :)
   Meanwhile Russia is investing heavily in developing transsiberian rail capacity to allow more Chineese good to Europe 
https://www.utlc.com...oubled-in-2016/
Transit volume between China and Europe via Russian railway network doubled in 2016


  • 0

#8000 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 54,553 posts

Posted 07 October 2019 - 0327 AM

This is from RussiaDefence.net.

 

Formation of new units in the Western Military District

Three new regiments have been created in the combined arms army of the Western Military District, the district’s press service reports. “For the first time, the motorized rifle, tank, and engineering regiments that were formed in 2019, as well as a separate electronic warfare unit using the first Palantin-K electronic warfare complex in Russia, will be involved in the audit,” the report said.

Thus, the 144th Motor Rifle Division completed the formation of the 254th Guards Motor Rifle Regiment named after Alexander Matrosov (Klintsy, Bryansk Region) and the 59th Guards Tank Lublin twice the Red Banner, orders of the Suvorov and Kutuzov Regiment (Yelnya Smolenskaya Oblast). As part of the 20th Combined Arms Army, the 16th Engineer-Sapper Regiment was deployed on the basis of a separate engineering battalion.

https://bmpd.livejou...om/3794056.html

 

The 448th Missile Brigade of the 20th Combined Arms Army in Kursk is re-equipping with Iskander-M operational-tactical missile systems (OTRK). The armament will replace the Tochka-U complex in conjunction. Now the rocket men are learning how to manage the new OTRK, the press service of the Western Military District said. Oleg Salyukov, Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces of the Russian Federation, announced plans to re-equip the Kursk missile brigade back in September. https://tvzvezda.ru/...1259-9BraV.html


  • 0