General military questions thread

[bintananth]

Is the AEGIS radar necessary in this case?

Yes.

The AEGIS system is also so stupidly expensive that $8.2 billion would basically eat 1/6 of Russia's military budget all by itself.

 

[Buba]

in the absence of the Ukraine crisis, Russia would eventually get those Mistral-class ships that IOTL ultimately went to Egypt. But here's a thing: would a Japanese Hyuga-class helicopter destroyer or a Spanish Juan Carlos I-class ship be better than the Mistral-class ship?

"Better" is very relative. In some ways they would be better, in others worse.
AFAIK both are "too much" carrier/ASW platform, so would not fit the role the Russian Navy wanted.

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

"Better" is very relative. In some ways they would be better, in others worse.
AFAIK both are "too much" carrier/ASW platform, so would not fit the role the Russian Navy wanted.

I'm not sure why OTL Russia even bothered to try and purchase the Mistral-class carriers when their doctrine might not be suitable for such carriers.

 

[Buba]

@TheRomanSlayer - the Mistrals are LHD, not carriers.
I think

 

[TheRomanSlayer]

@TheRomanSlayer - the Mistrals are LHD, not carriers.
I think

How would a light helicopter destroyer fit in with the Russian Navy though?

 

[Buba]

How would a light helicopter destroyer fit in with the Russian Navy though?

Define "light helicopter destroyer".

 

[bintananth]

@TheRomanSlayer - the Mistrals are LHD, not carriers.
I think

There's not really much of a difference becauase most countries can't even afford one of either.

 

[Buba]

The Polish Army is looking at modernising its BMP-1 IFVs (why would they do it to 40 year old vehicles is beyond me).
The photo show the interior of one of the proposals - an unmanned turret, seats on sides, exit ramp, 3 crew +6 dismounts.
To my eyes this does not look good but I suppose that this is an early visualisation of concept.
Nevertheless I have a feeling that there is quite some space wasted?

 

[Marduk]

The Polish Army is looking at modernising its BMP-1 IFVs (why would they do it to 40 year old vehicles is beyond me).
The photo show the interior of one of the porposals - an unmanned turret, seats on sides, exit ramp, 3 crew +6 dismounts.
To my eyes this does not look good but I suppose that this is an early visualisation of concept.
Nevertheless I have a feeling that there is quite some space wasted?

They are looking at it since decades.
It's either a demonstrator for foreign customers or another favor for Ukraine, because Poland is planning to switch to Borsuk and\or KF21 variant soon.

Also that deceptively "spare" space is most likely a correction for BMP-1 in original setup being very cramped for soldiers with modern kit and body armor.

 

[Buba]

Also that deceptively "spare" space is most likely a correction for BMP-1 in original setup being very cramped for soldiers with modern kit and body armor.

Could be ... it was designed before body armour became widespread, after all.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The Polish Army is looking at modernising its BMP-1 IFVs (why would they do it to 40 year old vehicles is beyond me).
The photo show the interior of one of the proposals - an unmanned turret, seats on sides, exit ramp, 3 crew +6 dismounts.
To my eyes this does not look good but I suppose that this is an early visualisation of concept.
Nevertheless I have a feeling that there is quite some space wasted?

The amount of work needed to do this, it would be cheaper to simply build brand new vehicles, at least then you are not dealing with leftover decades old components.

 

[ATP]

The Polish Army is looking at modernising its BMP-1 IFVs (why would they do it to 40 year old vehicles is beyond me).
The photo show the interior of one of the proposals - an unmanned turret, seats on sides, exit ramp, 3 crew +6 dismounts.
To my eyes this does not look good but I suppose that this is an early visualisation of concept.
Nevertheless I have a feeling that there is quite some space wasted?

Why did it? manufacturies who do not get production of anything new would be still existing.And workers who knew how built military vechicles would be avaiable.
Only explanation i could think about.

They are looking at it since decades.
It's either a demonstrator for foreign customers or another favor for Ukraine, because Poland is planning to switch to Borsuk and\or KF21 variant soon.

Also that deceptively "spare" space is most likely a correction for BMP-1 in original setup being very cramped for soldiers with modern kit and body armor.

I remember at least 2 - one with 23mm gun in unmanned turret,second with 40mm Bofors.
30 years ago both would have sense.Even 20,but now?

 

[Marduk]

I remember at least 2 - one with 23mm gun in unmanned turret,second with 40mm Bofors.
30 years ago both would have sense.Even 20,but now?

Even 30 years ago they would have been meh. Borsuk should have been built 20 years ago. Many countries had BMP-1's then, only few small ones did such modifications, and they are getting rid of those modernized ones too.
The problem with BMP-1's potential is in the tin can level of protection (it's similar to lightest variant of wheeled APC Stryker, minus the mine protection, that's not good enough for a IFV) combined with cramped inside and motive systems meant for low weight. That means no matter how much money you shove into it, it will never have the protective qualities of heavier cold war IFVs like Bradley or Marder (there is just no weight or volume capacity to put in even those that don't need structural integration), nevermind modern IFVs like CV90.

A better idea would be to get rid of the turret and turn them into cheap "workhorse" utility APCs like MT-LB and hulls for specialist light armored vehicles like tank destroyers as soon as the IFV role can be taken by something that can do it better.

 

[ATP]

Even 30 years ago they would have been meh. Borsuk should have been built 20 years ago. Many countries had BMP-1's then, only few small ones did such modifications, and they are getting rid of those modernized ones too.
The problem with BMP-1's potential its tin can level of protection (it's similar to lightest variant of wheeled APC Stryker, minus the mine protection, that's not good enough for a IFV) combined with cramped inside and motive systems meant for low weight. That means no matter how much money you shove into it, it will never have the protective qualities of heavier cold war IFVs like Bradley or Marder (there is just no weight or volume capacity to put in even those that don't need structural integration), nevermind modern IFVs like CV90.

A better idea would be to get rid of the turret and turn them into cheap "workhorse" utility APCs like MT-LB and hulls for specialist light armored vehicles like tank destroyers as soon as the IFV role can be taken by something that can do it better.

Borsuk and Krab should be built 20 years ago.Commies and Tusk fucked our militart badly.
P.S i still think,that Goryl would have sense !

 

[Marduk]

Borsuk and Krab should be built 20 years ago.Commies and Tusk fucked our militart badly.
P.S i still think,that Goryl would have sense !

A similar problem - at best we would invest a lot of money into a small production run of an average tank held back by an old hull with an armor setup that belongs in the 70's, and it was a cheap one even then. For comparison Abrams was made in the 80's and got few significant armor updates since then. The only way to salvage the T-72 based PT series would have been to not shut down the hull and turret production, modernize them with exchangeable armor modules like in newer tanks, import up to date composite armor or tech and material to make it, replace all the old tanks with new ones, and then hope someone buys these tanks to pay off for all that investment.
No idea who would shell out the fortune needed to pay for all of this in the 90's though.

 

[Buba]

Would it had been worthwhile for Poland to take up the Soviet offer and produce the Su-25 under licence? Planned start date was 1985.
I'm certain that Poland would still be operating them (look at the career of the Su-22). Could Poland be still making them today for export?

 

[Marduk]

Would it had been worthwhile for Poland to take up the Soviet offer and produce the Su-25 under licence? Planned start date was 1985.
I'm certain that Poland would still be operating them (look at the career of the Su-22). Could Poland be still making them today for export?

Poland is trying to replace the Su-22 desperately (that's where the F-35's come in), not using them because they are that good. And even those are at least supersonic. They are kept only to keep the crews training on something and for some utility missions like air policing.
Su-25 is ok for third world low intensity wars, much like A-10, but not much more than that at this point.
Also Georgia makes Su-25's.

https://eurasianet.org/georgia-developing-non-russian-su-25

Can't find anything about customers lining up though.
Even they don't want to use them anymore, for the above reason:

https://defence-blog.com/georgia-plans-to-remove-from-service-su-25-frogfoot-combat-aircraft/

 

[Buba]

Poland has a slightly larger economy than Georgia - with an aeuronautuc sector still in existence today - and may had produced a larger share of parts in-country off the bat. I'm fairly sure Poland made Su-25 class engines already.
I wonder if it could had eliminated Russian (other ex-Soviet suppliers OK?) providers of parts entirely in the '90s?
I was in fact thinking of the 3rd World as a market. Not everybody needs F-16, F-15SE or Rafale to rain death upon their enemies.

 

[ATP]

Poland has a slightly larger economy than Georgia and may had produced a larger share of parts in-country off the bat. I'm fairly sure Poland made Su-25 class engines already.
I wonder if it could had eliminated Russian (other ex-Soviet suppliers OK?) providers of parts entirely in the '90s?
I was in fact thinking of the 3rd World as a market. Not everybody needs F-16, F-15SE or Rafale to rain death upon their enemies.

Good idea,but PZL P.320F Scorpion would be much better.

A similar problem - at best we would invest a lot of money into a small production run of an average tank held back by an old hull with an armor setup that belongs in the 70's, and it was a cheap one even then. For comparison Abrams was made in the 80's and got few significant armor updates since then. The only way to salvage the T-72 based PT series would have been to not shut down the hull and turret production, modernize them with exchangeable armor modules like in newer tanks, import up to date composite armor or tech and material to make it, replace all the old tanks with new ones, and then hope someone buys these tanks to pay off for all that investment.
No idea who would shell out the fortune needed to pay for all of this in the 90's though.

I think,that you are right.
Still pity,that we do not take over Swiss or Sweden tank projects,and made them in Poland.Since both countries abadonned it,they would be happy to sell it relatively cheaply.
Especially Sweden 140/40 tank - it was really cool looking,and cool looking is important for tanks!

 

[Marduk]

Poland has a slightly larger economy than Georgia and may had produced a larger share of parts in-country off the bat. I'm fairly sure Poland made Su-25 class engines already.
I wonder if it could had eliminated Russian (other ex-Soviet suppliers OK?) providers of parts entirely in the '90s?
I was in fact thinking of the 3rd World as a market. Not everybody needs F-16, F-15SE or Rafale to rain death upon their enemies.

But would Poland get those customers? Considering the record with selling the ex-Soviet tech it was making, wouldn't bet my money on it. Georgia's sale records don't seem to be great either. As usual, good fucking luck competing with China in this kind of stuff, especially with all the other crap China is willing to throw into these deals.

Good idea,but PZL P.320F Scorpion would be much better.



I think,that you are right.
Still pity,that we do not take over Swiss or Sweden tank projects,and made them in Poland.Since both countries abadonned it,they would be happy to sell it relatively cheaply.
Especially Sweden 140/40 tank - it was really cool looking,and cool looking is important for tanks!

Sweden is a good example of complexity and economies of scale cutting the number of tank manufacturers that can keep up with the tech and market at the same time. In the end, despite having own industry that was keeping up for a time and not being in NATO, in the end they shut that down and went with Leo 2.