Some unrelated recent military procurment storiess since I am getting bored of Ukraine

[I WUB PUGS]

Conon,

I posted some months ago in a response to good ole Caelius (did he finally run away) about the defenses from missiles.

A pivotal point that lay people don't understand is that the earth is actually round and radar does not penetrate through the ocean and come out the other side and then return to the transceiver. Over the horizon capability is almost completely limited to to low frequency ground waves that are completely useless for tracking and targeting........ or you need to RAISE your radar mast. We achieve large over the horizon capability by putting those radar masts in the air... on planes. The latest radars even on the DDX do not have the ability to compensate for what AWACS brings to the table.

I did the math in that thread for an Arleigh-Burke with IIRC SPY-2 or whatever it is (I'm not going to go digging since forum search is dicked). Basically, I guestimated the radar focal point height on the superstructure of the destroyer to get my mast height, then I put an object at 50 feet to simulate a sea skimming missile. Simple antenna height calculators are available for anyone to use. At sea we don't need to worry about ground clutter like buildings and trees, but waves do cause a pretty big distortion for radars looking down at the surface. Objects can pretty effectively hide down there. Anyway, the point was about the fixed radar on the Arleigh-Burke. Essentially what it boils down to is that an object at 50 feet can't be detected until its a few miles away, not like 5, more like 10 or 20 IIRC given the mast height I gave the destroyer. I just did the math. An object travelling at mach 3 can cover 20 miles in just over 30 seconds. This is 30 seconds to identify, track, get authorization and finally engage. Then you've got 2 objects converging with one another at mach 6. Even a microsecond of miscalculation or delay from the guidance system and you've got a miss.

Now imagine this on a scale of dozens.

The math combined with the realities of radio just doesn't paint an inspiring picture. There are limits to what we can achieve, people like to forget this whenever we're "upgrading". There are some concrete laws that we still don't know how to break, that law in this scenario being that the horizon is actually a thing that we have to deal with.

There has not been a "swarm" attack simulation done that I can find.

I did however source an MIT-LL/US Navy project from the 90s that is bearing fruit now. This project took some inspiration and even some technology from our low noise receivers from our long range early warning radars. Those giant antennas in Canada that use ground waves to see if the Commies were launching missiles. Again, terrible for tracking, really doing anything other than giving a heads up. Anyway, the problem has always been for radars in general that the receive side just isn't good enough. This is especially true in X-Band (the most widely used band) where the transmit and receive frequencies are practically overlapping. This causes tons of problems because you've got to build in a lot of filtration on your receive side just to be able to contend with your own transmissions. Building better low now amplifiers has always been the priority. Amplifiers don't matter. Need to extend the range of the radar? Just push more power, but if you can actually pick anything up from extreme ranges...........well that's a receive side problem. Anyway, in short, this test was actually conducted using a ground station atop a mountain in Hawaii. This was to simulate the use of an AWACS plane (obviously AWACS fly much higher). The ground station and an Arleigh Burke were tied together probably using some early data link technology. The ground station was able to pick up and transmit targeting info to the destroyer and the result was 3 for 3 kills. Essentially, the "AWACS" was slaved to the DD or the DD was slaved to the "AWACS". The Arleigh Burke radar was totally useless as these kill shots were launched well over the ship's radar horizon. Although IIRC two of the kills should've been possible with the ship's radar as they occured at higher altitude and within like 50 miles, so they only did one low altitude test. The "AWACS" radar was however imperative for the ship to be able to get early warning because at say 200 miles, even if the missile is at relatively high altitude...............yeah..........horizon. Its all about antenna height.

Keep in mind that these kills were done against our standard drone ASM which is basically an orange dummy tomahawk....soooooo pretty slow. Our missiles are great and our ship radars are great too, but they simply cannot defeat the horizon. They don't even operate on a frequency that allows early warning via ground waves, not that it would do much good since they're useless for tracking. So imagine you're standing on top of a ship and you're looking at the horizon, what you can see, is quite literally as far as that radar can see. Sure, you can't pick up that airplane that's 200 miles away at 30,000 feet and the radar can, but you and the radar are both stuck wondering what's below the horizon.

The technology that was VALIDATED in Hawaii with the 3 for 3 kill using the new radar technology has been put into the E-2D Hawkeye. Which are on order, not at all in active service (although there might be like 2 or 3 in the fleet already). And again, it doesn't much help out those ships or flotillas that DO NOT have an aircraft carrier near by with E-2D's providing AWACS. Those ships and flotillas will always be stuck wondering what is below the horizon.

This is why we have a 2 layer defense for ships without air cover and 3 layers for those with air cover. However with the end of the F-14 and Phoenix program, our perimeter is a lot closer and even then, AWACS was just early warning with no ability to actively guide missiles onto target. When the E-2D comes online we will have a lot more capability.

This still does not solve the fundamental problem of launch authorization though. Remember the kills at 20 miles despite tracking the targets several hundred miles away. The more moving parts, the slower the response, but the more you automate, the higher chance of a system making a booboo. The F-14 was actually largely killed by what has effectively been the death of BVR combat. We've talked about it here before. All this stealth and radar and missile range is quite frankly pointless now. The Navy saw the writing on the wall when they shot down that Iranian passenger liner and that wasn't even from a jet. We have to VID targets now, there's just no way around it with the level of civilian traffic. The military can't even get away with being off the civilian networks anymore. They're putting TCAS and MODE-S and ADS-B on military planes now. Its just too crowded out there and the military can't operate in a vacuum anymore, not in the air space at least.

What we hope to achieve with the E-2D is the ability to at least extend the engagement envelope far enough over/below the horizon that we can maximize our missiles. They are fast and have great range. They are great against ballistic threats, but again, I'm sorry to say, Mother Gaia doesn't care and her horizon will always be a problem.

My suggestion for ships that cannot get the benefit of the E-2D is that we give them an additional system. Tethered or a recoverable drone or upgrade the Seahawk to carry a "baby" version of the E-2D radar and datalinking to the fire control of the ship.

This still doesn't solve the problem of a large number of mach 3+ missiles coming at us when we can't even get authorization to start engaging them until they're 40 miles away (if we're lucky). The SeaRAM is certainly preferable for CWIS since the 20mm round range limited. I guess really, you just keep adding layer upon layer of defenses, but in a " is going down" scenario, it is totally unreasonable to believe that we aren't going to bleed and bleed heavily. The math just doesn't work in the favor of the defender.

[I WUB PUGS]

I've read something about the rifled gun on the Challenger versus smoothbore on everything else. Would I be right in saying the smoothbore has a higher muzzle velocity?

The L44 and L55 guns from Rheinmetall do have higher muzzle velocity than the L30 on the Challenger II. Keep in mind that the L30 is actually an L55 (55 calibers long) so the designation is a bit confusing. The rifling slows the L30 down a bit, but it is supremely accurate. The British still love their HESH rounds which really need the rifling to maintain stability.

What's interesting is if the Challenger's armament is inferior..... I understand the Chally 1 holds the record for the longest range tank on tank kill ever (over 3 miles), and I seem to remember reading about one action where a Chally 1 put the same round through two Iraqi T-54s, both in GW1.

Challenger 1 had a different gun than the Challenger II although both were/are 55 calibers in length. Keep in mind that the Abrams and pre-Leopard 2A5's had L44 guns. There is discussion about putting the L55 120mm from the 2A5 and 2A6 into the M3 Abrams.

I've also read a few times about the Abrams' gas turbine engine gives it tremendous power, but it guzzles prodigious amounts of fuel. I think in GW1 Gen Schwarzkopf had to get the US armoured divisions to slow down because they were advancing too fast for their logistics to keep up and were in danger of running out of fuel.

The Abrams turbine engine is probably the most overrated piece of equipment ever put into a tank. It makes them more flammable since its essentially a jet engine. The US military uses the same fuel for everyone. I don't know why people have thought the Abrams is special. Even HMMWVs run on various JP's, its just kerosene/diesel. Difference is that since its a jet engine, it uses the fuel differently so its like an aerosol whereas everything else is just a normal diesel and so it doesn't burn. I say the engine is overrated because it gives it a retarded amount of power and speed, like its amazeballs. The tankers I've spoken too (not in the Corps) in the Army said it could get up to 90mph on the road and the only thing preventing it from doing that overland was that you'd throw out the drive. So overland, its just as fast as the tanks it competes against like the Leo and Challenger. It also needs to stay with the Bradleys and the Bradleys are slow as dog . Anyway, yeah, the Abrams guzzles fuel but it isn't special. Uses the same fuel as everyone else. Not that you asked about its fuel, but it usually comes up in threads like these.

The Russians also put a turbine in the T-80 line so at least we aren't the only retards, but they at least stuck to the T-72 line which is all a T-90 is. The Ukrainians stuck with the T-80 line but I dunno if they changed out the engine.











My vote for best tank is probably the Challenger II. Its got the beefiest armor and the gun difference is really minimal. LeClerc is really nifty too though. If we go by exports though, seems like A LOT of people like the Leopard. Abrams has minimal export exposure. LeClerc only has one customer outside of France and I think Challenger II is still waiting on a buyer.

[Condottiere 40K]

Thirty miles per hour cross country, if I recall correctly; otherwise the crew will be very unhappy.

[I WUB PUGS]

Whatever 55 kmh converts to is the stock one I've heard for like all vehicles.

Oh yeah, that 90 mph on the road for the Abrams........................not much "road" left afterwards.

BUT VEHICLE OF GLORIOUS DESIGN!

[Shneckie]

My vote for best tank is probably the Challenger II. Its got the beefiest armor and the gun difference is really minimal. LeClerc is really nifty too though. If we go by exports though, seems like A LOT of people like the Leopard. Abrams has minimal export exposure. LeClerc only has one customer outside of France and I think Challenger II is still waiting on a buyer.

Oman have Challenger 2's. As for the Leopard, a lot of my instructors in training liked to compare the Chally with the Leopard and how it is a very reliable wagon. Compared to the Chally though, that is not hard as the Chally breaks down A LOT. I was a happy man when I learned by regiment was getting rid of them.

[Pielstick]

The NATO Plan was to conduct a fighting withdraw to the Eider and Rhine Rivers and Alp Mountains and halt the Warsaw Pact there or if that failed hold at the Pyrenees and Alps. As such they needed to be able to preserve their forces, and high quality equipment was needed to do so. The high quality MBTs would also by time to evacuate the West German Government and NATO Civilians.

Also, NATO knew they could afford to replace equipment a lot easier than the USSR. The USSR had, at the closest, one third of the GDP of the US, and Western Europe was far more economically strong than Eastern Europe. As such even with the more expensive MBTs they could still out produce the Warsaw Pact.

Interesting about NATO being able to outproduce the Warsaw Pact. I would have thought the kind of stuff that NATO would be throwing around in a 1980's scenario like Abrams, Challenger, Bradley, Warrior, F-15, F-16, Tornado, Harrier etc don't exactly lend themselves to rapid mass production - let alone getting stuff produced in the US over to Europe and to the units that need it before the Soviets were soaking up the sun on the Algarve.

I always thought that NATO's plan was if it starts to look bad they'll use tactical nukes to stop the Warsaw Pact. Obviously once nukes are used all bets are off. I wonder in the event of a WW3 scenario in central Europe which side would have used nukes first? My money would be on NATO.

The math combined with the realities of radio just doesn't paint an inspiring picture.

I've done so many exercises and drills where we get hit by an anti-ship missile, and we always go through the motions of "Five seconds to impact! BRACE BRACE BRACE!", and then having a Seawolf or Phalanx miraculously save us. They usually like to hit us at the climax of the exercise, and when they're serious they give us two hits and see how we deal with it... sending out damage control and firefighting teams.... I always get dirty looks from the grown ups when I point out the size and speed of the Russian missiles are such that we wouldn't stand a bloody chance. I just hope it would be quick as I don't relish the prospect of burning to death or drowning.

Not that you asked about its fuel, but it usually comes up in threads like these.

NATO F76... you can run marine diesel engines and gas turbines on it Aviation fuel (AVCAT) is F44 - good for starting barbeques on the flight deck. I'd need the DEFSTAN documents to check the differences between them... I think F44 has a higher flashpoint.

The Royal Navy uses marinised versions of the Rolls Royce Olympus (Vulcan and Concorde) and Spey (Buccaneer, British Phantoms and the A-7) in its warships. One of the guys on HMS Westminster told me at max power their Speys burn over 50L of fuel per minute. I read many years ago that the Su-25 could run on common diesel if needed to.

Wiki says the M1's gas turbine can run on normal petrol, aviation fuel, marine diesel (not really helpful as marine diesel covers a huge range of fuel from stuff that is pretty much the same as you get from the pump at a petrol station to utterly horrible crap you could probably tarmac a road with ) or regular diesel. Interesting.

I think Challenger II is still waiting on a buyer.

Oman has them.

Edit - Shneckie beat me to it

[Mangalore]

...
I always thought that NATO's plan was if it starts to look bad they'll use tactical nukes to stop the Warsaw Pact. Obviously once nukes are used all bets are off. I wonder in the event of a WW3 scenario in central Europe which side would have used nukes first? My money would be on NATO.

...

Everybody. There plainly weren't any serious plans by either side not to use nukes. Both sides knew that the campaign would have to be ended quickly and tactical nukes would be the only option to gain a sufficient advantage. On the plus side that raised the threshold to war to a situation where you assumed that an escalation was inevitable... and that the whole thing was going down the toilet anyway.

[I WUB PUGS]

Yeah I don't know the NATO designation for the fuel. I just remember it being JP8 or was it 7 or 6. God I don't even remember. Just know the only fuel we used in our HMMWVs was the only fuel for vehicles in the Corps and it was diesel basically. Higher UPS freaking out over guys smoking around it..... Idiots, its not gonna catch. My dad used to tell me stories from his navy days though. He was a weapons guy for F-4s. Used to smoke on the deck in Vietnam as long as the turboprops and their super high octane gas wasn't out. Although that cig was the quick way to check seekers on sidewinders when they were ready to launch. Light the cigarette and move it in front of the seeker head and listen to whatever inside to verify the seeker was working.

Totally forgot Oman bought Challenger II. I knew UAE bought LeClerc. Saudi has M1A2SEP. Iraq and Egypt have boo boo M1A1.

[Farnan]

Everybody. There plainly weren't any serious plans by either side not to use nukes. Both sides knew that the campaign would have to be ended quickly and tactical nukes would be the only option to gain a sufficient advantage. On the plus side that raised the threshold to war to a situation where you assumed that an escalation was inevitable... and that the whole thing was going down the toilet anyway.

What level of nukes is a question though. I don't think it would have escalated beyond nuclear artillery and short range missiles aimed at strategic military objectives. I highly doubt there would be attacks on population centers as that benefits no one.

[Condottiere 40K]

For the Russians, everything between the Elbe and the Channel was fair game.

[Farnan]

For the Russians, everything between the Elbe and the Channel was fair game.

Not really. There is no advantage to capturing a barren wasteland. Also, France was Nuclear so you wouldn't want them to fire into Russia.

[Pielstick]

Well in the mid 1980's the Red Army consisted of about 210 divisions. I don't think anybody expected NATO - even with its relative technological advantage - to stop a Warsaw Pack offensive by purely conventional means.

Which is why pretty much all the NATO air forces had access to small(ish) yield nuclear weapons. If, as expected NATO was going to be overwhelmed by the Red Army then they would simply drop a bunch of nukes on the advancing Soviets. Large swathes of Germany would be turned into a car park, but that would probably be the price if halting a Soviet advance. Of course once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle the stakes become a lot higher...

As Farnan points out, both France and the UK had strategic nuclear deterrants exactly for this situation..... would the US escalate to nuking the USSR if the Soviets nuked France or the UK but not the USA? Kind of nice to have an insurance policy against such a potential situation.

[I WUB PUGS]

The French doctrine is the most telling. A lot of light vehicles including their tanks that packed a big punch but couldn't possibly slug it out with Soviet Armor. They were definitely being pragmatic with their designs. Save the "retreat" or "surrender monkey" jokes, but they were definitely intending to perform a fighting withdrawal over the Rhine.

I don't think the Soviets would have been able to make it through France. In the retreat we would have almost certainly destroyed our air fields or maybe the Russians would hit them with tactical nukes or massed artillery. Either way, they wouldn't have made it through the initial phase of the war. By the time they reached the Rhine, they would be within range of the bases in England and France and without any bases in Germany. Blow the bridges and attempt to grind it out.

The French spent heavily on short and medium range ballistic missiles. They were prepared to nuke their own territory to save the majority. I've read that they would have had no scruples in nuking the Soviet Union with their submarines should France fall. Avoiding another shameful defeat like 1940 was the primary objective. And its pretty ridiculous to think that a France that got left to rot for a 2nd time in 50 years would give a damn about the US or UK trying to keep their strategic option out of play. I think the missiles would fly.

One thing is for sure tough. No matter how many Leopards, Challengers, Abrams, Apaches and Warthogs you throw into Germany.............. Germany was going to fall. I don't think anyone would want to live there afterwards either.

Nukes : The tanks and personnel carriers were all CBRN compliant. Basically, I'm sure there would just be dozens of mini-nukes going off trying to stop the hordes to minimal effect. Hope you hit close enough and the vehicles aren't dug in or protected by microterrain and hope the crews get jellied by the shock wave. Germany would probably be a wasteland even without the use of large nukes on the cities.

[Adar]

Looking at worst case scenarios seem to be something natural to mankind but I really think you should take a look at the logistics of Eastern Europe before worrying about the Red Army rolling across the Rhine.

There are only 4 major roads traversing across Poland connecting the Soviet Union with East Germany and the average quality is far from impressive. Furthermore the two Northern Roads would also be vulnerable to disruption by the destruction of the Włocławek Reservoir built in 1970. In Sweden we've had similarly underdeveloped infrastructure in order to support a defensive war and my impression is that the Soviet Union expected Poland to act as a buffer zone prior to a victorious counter attack rather than the staging ground for an initial offensive (quite similar to this scenario).

So a Soviet invasion into West Germany would not only have to be preceded by an major mobilization. They would also have to either make major troop movements beforehand and invest in major infrastructure improvements in Poland to make a conventional attack plausible.

[Condottiere 40K]

Going by Red Storm Rising, fuel depots and pipelines would be priority targets, after the skies are cleared of AWACS and bridges are destroyed.

[I WUB PUGS]

So a Soviet invasion into West Germany would not only have to be preceded by an major mobilization. They would also have to either make major troop movements beforehand and invest in major infrastructure improvements in Poland to make a conventional attack plausible.

That goes without saying. They would have to invest East Germany with troops and equipment well beforehand and it wouldn't go undetected. The Soviets could move troops in via rail and sea to East Germany and possibly into Czechoslovakia. Driving through Poland doesn't make any sense.

The whole "speedbump" of German, British and American troops and I suppose French ones that would fall back over the Rhine is based on the premise that the Soviets would launch the first strike against West Germany.

There would be no way for them to hide the movement of that many troops and there wouldn't be an easy way for NATO to win in West Germany. The assault stops at the Rhine with the French blowing the Rhine bridges and using tactical nukes and a fighting withdrawal to stop the push.........if the Soviets even attempted that.

All WWIII scenarios in West Germany are inherently idiotic anyway. There's no way any of these scenarios can work without everyone going on alert and preparing for WWIII. There wouldn't be any surprises and it would be mass carnage for a week to 10 days. Both Germanies are wastelands with the bordering nations getting damaged too. Nobody wins. Logistically there just isn't a way for the Soviets to get through France with the infrastructure in Germany obliterated. Same goes for a NATO counter-attack.

The end result is a holocaust on the German people and everyone calls it quits or it goes into "nuke it all" mode.

[Farnan]

There is also the fact the Soviets KNEW they would lose a sustained conflict so they had no reason to start a war. And the West THOUGHT they'd lose a war so they had no reason to start one.

[Stavroforos]

The end result is a holocaust on the German people and everyone calls it quits or it goes into "nuke it all" mode.

I thought you said nobody wins.

[I WUB PUGS]

And Greece picks up the pieces. Gyros and olives for everyone!

[Stavroforos]

And Greece picks up the pieces. Gyros and olives for everyone!

WWIII would have been great! Though I'd be interested to see what would have happened when the Warsaw Pact invaded Greece, considering huge numerical superiority in tanks isn't really as decisive on the mountainous terrain of Greece.