SDF equipment if you worked for Rosoboronexport

As some of you may know that Scotland is voting for independence next year on the 18th september. One of the big points is defence and what it will look like and what equipment it will have.

It has been hlighlighted that Scotland will only have a defence force, and it will unlikely get involved in wars abroad, but it will still take part in UN operations. The decision of NATO membership is still on the table, even if it was to join NATO its contribution would be small. Scotland currently gives £3.3 billion (GBP) to defence, if it forms a defence force this will be lowered to £1.8 billion (GBP) but please note this isn't setup costs which will of course be a lot higher, this budget will be once it has bought all it needs to buy and this will be running costs.  

The main challenges a scottish defence forces face are:

1. protection of its large coast line.
2. protection of its islands( Scotland has 790 islands with 99 being populated, 94 of which are off shore islands).
3. protection of gas and oil off shore rigs.
4. terrorism (although the threat is thought to decrease if scotland becomes independent due to foreign policy and foreign involvement abroad).

Scotland has also expressed a removal of trident nuclear missles and submarines from scotland.

Scotland should be entitled to a proportion of UK forces equipment, however westminister has said it can get reserve equipment and some current equipment, for example: some challenger 2 tanks/ warriors AFV's, some transport helicopters, but they will receive no modern fixed wing aircraft but will instead get some BAE hawks (probably T1's) and no Boeing AH-64 Apache instead they will be given helicopters from the reserve stocks, old Aérospatiale Gazelle's and some westland lynx's.

I personally think if they are going to get old equipment and a possible crap deal on what it will get it would be easier to get money instead and then that way it could buy new equipment and equipment more suited to Scotlands needs and budget.

So my question to you is if you were in charge of the Scottish defence force or you are working for Rosoboronnexport and was tasked to buy new equipment what would you buy and please consider budget running costs and Scotlands needs. Also any views on what you think about what westminister is wanting to give Scotland.
*******PLEASE NOTE I ONLY WANT ARMY EQUIPMENT IN THIS THREAD IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON AIR DEFENCE OR AIRCRAFT PLEASE POST IN THE THREAD IN THE AIR FORCE SECTION OF THE FORUM, DIDNT WANT TO CLUTTER BOTH SUBJECTS***********

d_taddei2 wrote:As some of you may know that Scotland is voting for independence next year on the 18th september. One of the big points is defence and what it will look like and what equipment it will have.

It has been hlighlighted that Scotland will only have a defence force, and it will unlikely get involved in wars abroad, but it will still take part in UN operations. The decision of NATO membership is still on the table, even if it was to join NATO its contribution would be small. Scotland currently gives £3.3 billion (GBP) to defence, if it forms a defence force this will be lowered to £1.8 billion (GBP) but please note this isn't setup costs which will of course be a lot higher, this budget will be once it has bought all it needs to buy and this will be running costs.  

The main challenges a scottish defence forces face are:

1. protection of its large coast line.
2. protection of its islands( Scotland has 790 islands with 99 being populated, 94 of which are off shore islands).
3. protection of gas and oil off shore rigs.
4. terrorism (although the threat is thought to decrease if scotland becomes independent due to foreign policy and foreign involvement abroad).

Scotland has also expressed a removal of trident nuclear missles and submarines from scotland.

Scotland should be entitled to a proportion of UK forces equipment, however westminister has said it can get reserve equipment and some current equipment, for example: some challenger 2 tanks/ warriors AFV's, some transport helicopters, but they will receive no modern fixed wing aircraft but will instead get some BAE hawks (probably T1's) and no Boeing AH-64 Apache instead they will be given helicopters from the reserve stocks, old Aérospatiale Gazelle's and some westland lynx's.

I personally think if they are going to get old equipment and a possible crap deal on what it will get it would be easier to get money instead and then that way it could buy new equipment and equipment more suited to Scotlands needs and budget.

So my question to you is if you were in charge of the Scottish defence force and was tasked to buy new equipment what would you buy and please consider budget running costs and Scotlands needs. Also any views on what you think about what westminister is wanting to give Scotland.
*******PLEASE NOTE I ONLY WANT AIR FORCE EQUIPMENT IN THIS THREAD IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON ARMY EQUIPMENT PLEASE POST IN THE THREAD IN THE ARMY SECTION OF THE FORUM, DIDNT WANT TO CLUTTER BOTH SUBJECTS***********

what this has to do with russian military?

i am asking if they were to buy russian equipment what would you buy for the defence force??? I thought id post it here as i wasnt sure exactly where best to put it, and thought id get a better response here. The question isnt un reasonable as with scotland budget and them wanting their set up costs to be as low as possible, and having a choice of what equipment and where to buy it from they might just end up buying cheaper and easier to maintain russian equipment than EU/USA equipment. sorry

George1 wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:As some of you may know that Scotland is voting for independence next year on the 18th september. One of the big points is defence and what it will look like and what equipment it will have.

It has been hlighlighted that Scotland will only have a defence force, and it will unlikely get involved in wars abroad, but it will still take part in UN operations. The decision of NATO membership is still on the table, even if it was to join NATO its contribution would be small. Scotland currently gives £3.3 billion (GBP) to defence, if it forms a defence force this will be lowered to £1.8 billion (GBP) but please note this isn't setup costs which will of course be a lot higher, this budget will be once it has bought all it needs to buy and this will be running costs.  

The main challenges a scottish defence forces face are:

1. protection of its large coast line.
2. protection of its islands( Scotland has 790 islands with 99 being populated, 94 of which are off shore islands).
3. protection of gas and oil off shore rigs.
4. terrorism (although the threat is thought to decrease if scotland becomes independent due to foreign policy and foreign involvement abroad).

Scotland has also expressed a removal of trident nuclear missles and submarines from scotland.

Scotland should be entitled to a proportion of UK forces equipment, however westminister has said it can get reserve equipment and some current equipment, for example: some challenger 2 tanks/ warriors AFV's, some transport helicopters, but they will receive no modern fixed wing aircraft but will instead get some BAE hawks (probably T1's) and no Boeing AH-64 Apache instead they will be given helicopters from the reserve stocks, old Aérospatiale Gazelle's and some westland lynx's.

I personally think if they are going to get old equipment and a possible crap deal on what it will get it would be easier to get money instead and then that way it could buy new equipment and equipment more suited to Scotlands needs and budget.

So my question to you is if you were in charge of the Scottish defence force and was tasked to buy new equipment what would you buy and please consider budget running costs and Scotlands needs. Also any views on what you think about what westminister is wanting to give Scotland.
*******PLEASE NOTE I ONLY WANT AIR FORCE EQUIPMENT IN THIS THREAD IF YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON ARMY EQUIPMENT PLEASE POST IN THE THREAD IN THE ARMY SECTION OF THE FORUM, DIDNT WANT TO CLUTTER BOTH SUBJECTS***********

what this has to do with russian military?

hi garry thanks wasnt exactly sure where best to put them, i will also edit it.

GarryB wrote:This is not Russian Army related and does not belong in this thread.

Considering the intent of the thread I will move both this thread and the Air Force thread to the "Russian Arms Export Contracts" section where we could rephrase the concept of the thread slightly to "You are working for Rosboronexport... what products would you push and why do you think they will be suitable.

I will leave the Army and Air Force threads separate but repeat this message in both moved threads.

I will also have a bit of a think before putting my response to these two threads...

here is a list of what i would go for.

INFANTRY SMALL ARMS
• MP-443 Grach
• AK-74M/AKS-74U
• RPK-74 (LMG)
• SVD 7.62mm
• SV-98 7.62mm
• OSV-96 or KSVK 12.7mm
• PKP Pecheneg 7.62mm (MMG)
• KORD 12.7mm (HMG)
• AGS-30
INFANTRY ANTI-TANK
• RPG-7
• RPG-29
• RPG-30
• RPG-32
• AT-13 METIS-M
• AT-14 KORNET
INFANTRY MORTARS AND SUPPORT
• 2B14 PODNOS 82mm Mortar
• 2B11 SANI 120mm Mortar
• 2B9 VASILEK 82mm Automatic Mortar
• ZU-23-2
• RPO-M Shmel-M
WHEELED ARMOUR
• BTR 82A
• 2S23 Nona-SVK
• GAZ 2330 Tigr-M (Multi purpose vehicle)
TRACKED ARMOUR(including MBT’s)
• BMD 3 or 4
• MT-LBM (various-apc/command/mortar/anti-tank/anti-air/23mm cannon.etc)
• BMP-3
• T-72B2 (or T-90 if budget allowed)


ARTILLERY
• 2S19 MSTA-S
• 2S9 Nona
• 2A18 D-30 122mm howitzer
• 2S4 Tyulpan 240mm mortar (would like but not essential)
• 2S7M Pion 203mm self propelled gun (would like but not essential)
ROCKET/MISSLE ARTILLERY
• 9A52-4 Tornado (MLRS)
• BM-21 Grad (MLRS)
• 9K720 Iskander-M/SS-26 stone ( to be used as a non nuclear deterrent after removal of Trident)

here is a list of what i would buy.

AIR DEFENCE
• Pantsir S1
• S-400
• SA-18
FIXED WING AIRCRAFT
• MIG-29 SMT
• YAK 130 (to be used as trainer/recce/anti air/anti ship/ground attack
• SU-25 frogfoot
HELICOPTERS
• MI 35 (multiple variants)
• MI 8/17 hip (multiple variants)
• MI 26 halo
• MI 28 (would like)

NAVAL HELICOPTERS/FIXED WING

• MI 14
• KA 27
• II-38
• KA-52 (would like)

FIXED WING TRANSPORT
• Antonov AN-12
• Antonov An-26
• II-76MD-90A

Let me just go get my armchair general's ushanka  
Good thing I played all those grand-strategy video-games  

OK let's start with the geography before discussing anything else:

Scotland can be divided into two parts -

The lowland, more densely populated South
And the highland, sparsely populated North

Both are at least moderately forested; there is little in the way of plains and flat farmland. This gives the defender the advantage and even in our age - greatly improves the possibilities for concealment, guerrilla warfare, ambushes and defensive positions.
It also reduces the possibilities for maneuver and brings a penalty to any attacker wishing to employ tanks and mechanised infantry. Which again is a boon to the Scots; they can be expected to be heavily disadvantaged in such capabilities & vehicles compared to a potential adversary such as Great Britain or the Europeans.
An adversary attacking with ground forces from the South would face a quickly narrowing strip of land leading to the main population and urban centres of Scotland along the horizontal Glasgow-Edinburgh axis. From then on its urban warfare and moving past that - the highlands; which would pose even more problems for a conventional mechanised/armour assault.

However Scotland does have a weakness inherent in its geography too and a very serious one at that. Namely - the huge amount of amount of coastline that it has relative to its overall territory/area. By means of shipborne cruise missile attack, amphibious landings or quick commando raids it would be possible to assault a wide variety of Scottish military bases or facilities, cut supply-lines, encircle formations and generally wreck havoc on what would otherwise be a straightforward strategy of funneling enemy forces attacking from England into one big chokepoint

Scotland would be best-served by prioritising the defense of its coastline and national waters, as well as its airspace (vital to deny not only the enemy airforce but also naval cruise missile attacks). Money should be allocated for high-tech capabilities in these branches first and foremost, while the army can make do with less expensive gear; it needs no sophisticated equipment to wage a fighting retreat from one fortified defense line to another, and with the right use of ambushes and terrain; engagement distances can be made much shorter and even obsolete equipment can be as highly effective as anything else.

I envision a sort of vehicular guerrilla warfare on the part of Scotland's air, coastal defenses, mobile artillery units and small naval vessels that would be able to continue to inflict severe losses on enemy air, naval power and marines even when faced with heavy enemy superiority in air and naval forces (which is pretty much a given).
It's also a given that Scotland's air force, centralized air defense and coastal co-ordination will be suppressed and destroyed too sooner or later - which is why its important for the equipment used to be capable of operating completely autonomously if required.

So.. taking all this in mind:

AIR DEFENSE
- S-300/S-300PMU2; perfectly adequate, highly-mobile unit for the job of long-range air-defense and defeating cruise missile strikes, denying enemy air support. These units will however be the centre of attention and will eventually all be caught and destroyed. Employing these older models as opposed to the newer S-400s will enable money to be saved for an even more vital part of the air defense envelope..
- BUK-M3; the very latest variants. The most important parts of Scotland's air defense network, and crucially - the most survivable. Certainly the best ratio between survivability and price/capabilities. These critters proved themselves in the 2008 Georgian war; continuing to inflict casualties even in the face of Russian air superiority. Normally they work as a part of a unit, together with specialised vehicles - but if need be, they can scatter like ants to different locations or simply hide in the forest, mountains, etc... because each vehicle has its own radar and can operate autonomously. Coupled with ammunition& fuel resupply vehicles, they can continue operation for weeks after the air defense network has broken.
- Pantsir-S1; fulfills two major functions - SHORAD for Scottish airfields & other vital military facilities, and mobile air defense & ground fire support for army brigades. Should be acquired in relatively small numbers (its vital but expensive) in variants appropriate for both roles.
- Igla-S; MANPADs to fend off enemy helicopter assaults, CAS aircraft and destroy transport helicopters. Should be acquired in large numbers and issued extensively to ground forces, naval coastal defense forces, the territorial army and as part of base garrisons. Enemy air power and transportation can be expected to be extensive; and large amounts of man-portable AA missile systems can greatly increase the effectiveness of a guerrilla campaign if it comes down to it.

FIXED-WING AIRCRAFT
- SU-30MK2; optimised for the role of naval attack, but can be equipped as air superiority fighters in order to support the air-defenses, depending on the circumstances. But the main idea is that they would carry Scotland's supersonic anti-ship missiles and inflict heavy pain on any frigate-size or larger enemy naval vessels that have arrived to deliver precision strikes or support amphibious operations. The MiG-29/35s would be just as good for the purpose of air-superiority; taking into account Scotland's relative small size - but their range and radars would not be enough for the purpose of long-range anti-ship operations. Meanwhile the Su-35 only really has an advantage over the Su-30MK2 in terms of maneuverability; which is not vital for the role.
- SU-25 Frogfoot; in several modernized variants and outfitted for specific roles such as anti-tank. Su-25s will also serve gladly for the role of trainer via their 2-seat trainer variants (Su-25UBM), that can also be employed in battle as full-fledged Su-25s. Making a tactical reconnaissance variant/mod of a dozen in partnership with Rosoboronexport could be an option too; I know there was such a variant on the drawing board 20 years back. Yak-130s or L-139s would be nice of course as trainer and light-attack aircraft (albeit not CAS), but they're expensive and the money spent on them would be better spent on more Su-30MK2s or modernized Su-25s.

I'll finish the rest later.

flamming_python wrote:
- SU-25 Frogfoot; in several modernized variants and outfitted for specific roles such as anti-tank.

The SU 34 Fullback would be a better option . It can provide air cover to helicopter units, engage mechanized units and can also be used in the role of a fighter .

SU 34 Fullback would be great, but i think the SU 25 would suffice, and the cost would be a lot cheaper, think of the budget.

Deep Throat wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
- SU-25 Frogfoot; in several modernized variants and outfitted for specific roles such as anti-tank.

The SU 34 Fullback would be a better option . It can provide air cover to helicopter units, engage mechanized units  and can also be used in the role of a fighter .

thanks for the really great info you have given, and quite agree on what you have said, especially the weakness of having a large coast, naval and air defence forces would have to be priority, ground units wouldnt need as high tech equipment, if you look at my other thread on the same subject but about ground forces(thought it was best to split both ground and air) ive said BMP-3 and BTR 82A and some T-72B would be ideal for ground forces.

flamming_python wrote:Let me just go get my armchair general's ushanka  
Good thing I played all those grand-strategy video-games  

OK let's start with the geography before discussing anything else:

However Scotland does have a weakness inherent in its geography too and a very serious one at that. Namely - the huge amount of amount of coastline that it has relative to its overall territory/area. By means of shipborne cruise missile attack, amphibious landings or quick commando raids it would be possible to assault a wide variety of Scottish military bases or facilities, cut supply-lines, encircle formations and generally wreck havoc on what would otherwise be a straightforward strategy of funneling enemy forces attacking from England into one big chokepoint

Scotland would be best-served by prioritising the defense of its coastline and national waters, as well as its airspace (vital to deny not only the enemy airforce but also naval cruise missile attacks). Money should be allocated for high-tech capabilities in these branches first and foremost, while the army can make do with less expensive gear; it needs no sophisticated equipment to wage a fighting retreat from one fortified defense line to another, and with the right use of ambushes and terrain; engagement distances can be made much shorter and even obsolete equipment can be as highly effective as anything else.



I'll finish the rest later.

Deep Throat wrote:

flamming_python wrote:
- SU-25 Frogfoot; in several modernized variants and outfitted for specific roles such as anti-tank.

The SU 34 Fullback would be a better option . It can provide air cover to helicopter units, engage mechanized units  and can also be used in the role of a fighter .

The SU-34 and Su-25 are in different classes; the Su-34 being a tactical bomber while the Su-25 is a close air support aircraft. Their roles naturally have some overlap; but by and large these are different aircraft with different characteristics, that will be employed according to their own strengths and generally speaking against different targets from each other.

Su-34s and similar class aircraft will be assigned high-priority targets for precision bombing; bridges, enemy communications, airfields, ammo & fuel dumps, air defenses. Enemy columns and so on will also be potential targets but whatever the case - they will attack from considerable altitude with guided bombs and often from range too - employing stand-off weapons such as A2G or cruise missiles.

Su-25s on the other hand will fly in pairs perhaps, at very low altitudes in direct support of advancing (or retreating) friendly ground units and will focus on opportunity or pre-planned attacks on enemy armour and other formations. For long-range tactical bombing with precision weapons they make a far poorer choice than the Su-34 but on the other hand they are a far better choice for closing in at low-altitude and sowing chaos and explosions among enemy ranks due to their heavy armour, ability to withstand heavy damage and 2x30mm main cannon (as opposed to the 1x30mm of the Su-34) with depleted uranium ammo.

In the Russian Air Force these 2 classes of air craft (Su-24/34 and Su-25) complement each other, not compete. But Scotland won't have the money to opt for both.
The Su-34 is of course a more expensive aircraft, more valuable, and a lot more versatile. It can target enemy ground units directly too, but can also be employed for air superiority, reconnaissance, naval attack and EW with only so much as a quick refit at the airfield needed.
However it is also far more fragile; the Su-25 can operate from a greater variety of conditions and worse or bombed-out runways (the Georgians kept them flying right up until the end of the war), requires less maintenance and is simpler to repair. And realistically these are the conditions that the Scottish Air Force will have to operate in, in case of a war against undoubtedly a superior enemy. Therefore it makes more sense to make the Su-25s the mainstay of the air force.
Instead of Su-34s; if tactical strikes are required then it might be wiser to invest into more Su-30MK2 multirole fighters instead; which can fulfill such roles quite well themselves.

d_taddei2 wrote:thanks for the really great info you have given, and quite agree on what you have said, especially the weakness of having a large coast, naval and air defence forces would have to be priority, ground units wouldnt need as high tech equipment, if you look at my other thread on the same subject but about ground forces(thought it was best to split both ground and air) ive said BMP-3 and BTR 82A and some T-72B would be ideal for ground forces.

One should look to Vietnam as an inspiration. Also a naturally defensible country with only a narrow border with China. But with a long, exposed coastline.

So what is their strategy then? If you look at their equipment - you can find some of the latest among their navy, coastal defense forces, air force and air defenses; S-300s, Bastion anti-ship complexes, Su-30MK2s, etc...

Their main battle tanks on the other hand are T-55s and their infantry are lightly equipped with AK-74s and obsolete 70s gear. In the jungle I suspect - they don't need much else.

BTW you should make a Scottish navy and coastal defense thread too.

Naval thread now done, with an additional paragraph on another point to consider. Also i think you right in what you say about the SU-34, Scotland has pretty harsh weather and having an aircraft which can cope with such weather without too much maintenance, a realiable, rugged, and robust SU-25 would be ideal. A budget for a defence force would struggle to maintain more expensive aircraft.

flamming_python wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:thanks for the really great info you have given, and quite agree on what you have said, especially the weakness of having a large coast, naval and air defence forces would have to be priority, ground units wouldnt need as high tech equipment, if you look at my other thread on the same subject but about ground forces(thought it was best to split both ground and air) ive said BMP-3 and BTR 82A and some T-72B would be ideal for ground forces.

One should look to Vietnam as an inspiration. Also a naturally defensible country with only a narrow border with China. But with a long, exposed coastline.

So what is their strategy then? If you look at their equipment - you can find some of the latest among their navy, coastal defense forces, air force and air defenses; S-300s, Bastion anti-ship complexes, Su-30MK2s, etc...

Their main battle tanks on the other hand are T-55s and their infantry are lightly equipped with AK-74s and obsolete 70s gear. In the jungle I suspect - they don't need much else.

BTW you should make a Scottish navy and coastal defense thread too.

One of the most critical weapon that Scotland would need is Cruise Missiles .

So if you have a sufficient number of Yakhont or Brahmos in your arsenal it will discourage any potential aggressor .
You can supplement your stockpile of Yakhont & Brahmos with the Iskander E .

I am not advocating a squadron of SU 34s because that's an expensive proposition . However if you have even 10 SU 34s that are armed with Air Launched Brahmos that can be fired from stand off distances you will deter any invasion of Scotland either from land or from the sea.

Quite agree, in my other thread very similar to this but focuses on ground forces, I include the Iskander. As Scotland would lose the Nuclear trident missles as the scottish people dont want them, but the iskander would give Scotland a good non nuclear deterrant, and would be a lot cheaper to maintain than trident+submarines. Like you say having Yakhont or Brahmos+ iskander would put many aggressor off and make them think twice. And back all this up with S300 and Panstir you have and very good reason not to attack Scotland.

Sujoy wrote:One of the most critical weapon that Scotland would need is Cruise Missiles .

So if you have a sufficient number of Yakhont or Brahmos in your arsenal it will discourage any potential aggressor .
You can supplement your stockpile of Yakhont & Brahmos with the Iskander E .

I am not advocating a squadron of SU 34s because that's an expensive proposition . However if you have even 10 SU 34s that are armed with Air Launched Brahmos that can be fired from stand off distances you will deter any invasion of Scotland either from land or from the sea.

AIR DEFENSE (cont.)
-ZU-23-2; a heavily modernized variant. Versatile system capable of not only a stationary AAA role but also short-range fire support for ground troops (hundreds of 23mm rounds per minute up to a range of 2.5km), and can be easily mounted onto a truck or small naval vessel for mobile AAA/fire support. There won't be nearly enough Pantsir-S1s to provide SHORAD/AAA for supply convoys, 2nd line or support troops so ZU-23-2s would be vital to fill in the gaps; mounting a couple onto trucks in truck convoys can provide some limited but cheap defense capabilities in the event of ambush or helicopter attacks. They would also be deadly forming part of the defenses of entrenched and fortified positions. Basically like with the Igla-Ss; Scotland needs a large number of them - they are great value for money. There are a selection of several modernised variants available among which one can find new FCSs, laser rangefinders, thermal optics, electric rotation systems & mounts for MANPADs. Any one of them would do depending on the price and other factors - Russian ZU-23-2M/M1, Polish ZUR-23-2KG, Slovak ZU-23M, etc...

FIXED WING TRANSPORT & UTILITY
-Il-114 series; a light transport aircraft only more modern than the An-26/32 and considerably less expensive than the An-140; available in versions suitable for tactical/cargo transport (Il-114T), maritime patrol (Il-114P), reconnaissance (Il-114FK), SIGNIT & EW (Il-114PR) and Search & Rescue (Il-140M). All of these modifications could potentially be employed by the Scottish air-force; by using such a common frame for all of these roles as well as troop & cargo transportation duties - maintenance, training, spare parts, etc... costs could be considerably reduced. A limited number were produced during the last 2 decades before production was stopped. Now however, production is scheduled to rebooted - this time in Russia.
- An-70; for the long range and/or heavy transport roles that involve redeploying tanks/APCs/IFVs and large amounts of troops & equipment. Powered by 4 propfans, passed every evaluation, test & foreign tender with flying colours, excellent technical characteristics, a truly promising aircraft. It was developed in order to replace the An-12 but is effectively in a different class; having over twice the payload capacity, 50% greater range, 4 engines as opposed to 2 and being considerably larger in size & cargo space. On the plus side however - this increased payload and range means that it will be able to redeploy even the heaviest Russian-origin tank all the way in one flight from Aberdeen to Benghazi. Compared to the Il-76 series (the closest other Russian aircraft in its class) it has a wider hull which enables tanks to be loaded & transported much easier. The An-70 is however on the expensive side compared to the Il-76, but Scotland would not need many of them and nonthless it's still less than half the price of the A-400M while being more capable at the same time.

totally agree with what you have said about ZU-23-2's cheap and fairly effective and double up as ground support. The Panstir-S1's would only be used in small numbers to defend important areas, airfields, ammo dumps etc. Another option for convoys if they couldnt afford panstir's would be ZSU 23-4M4's which would be pretty cheap now as the russian forces look to replace with panstir, or maybe even the latest Tunguska, this system is suppose to cost a third of the price of panstir-S1, at roughly 5million USD.

The il114 series would be ideal, like you said with the different variants especially martime patrol/anti shipping variant due the vast coast line and numbers of islands.

please feel free to comment on the similar thread for ground forces and the naval thread.

flamming_python wrote:AIR DEFENSE (cont.)
-ZU-23-2; a heavily modernized variant. Versatile system capable of not only a stationary AAA role but also short-range fire support for ground troops (hundreds of 23mm rounds per minute up to a range of 2.5km), and can be easily mounted onto a truck or small naval vessel for mobile AAA/fire support. There won't be nearly enough Pantsir-S1s to provide SHORAD/AAA for supply convoys, 2nd line or support troops so ZU-23-2s would be vital to fill in the gaps; mounting a couple onto trucks in truck convoys can provide some limited but cheap defense capabilities in the event of ambush or helicopter attacks. They would also be deadly forming part of the defenses of entrenched and fortified positions. Basically like with the Igla-Ss; Scotland needs a large number of them - they are great value for money. There are a selection of several modernised variants available among which one can find new FCSs, laser rangefinders, thermal optics, electric rotation systems & mounts for MANPADs. Any one of them would do depending on the price and other factors - Russian ZU-23-2M/M1, Polish ZUR-23-2KG, Slovak ZU-23M, etc...

FIXED WING TRANSPORT & UTILITY
-Il-114 series; a light transport aircraft only more modern than the An-26/32 and considerably less expensive than the An-140; available in versions suitable for tactical/cargo transport (Il-114T), maritime patrol (Il-114P), reconnaissance (Il-114FK), SIGNIT & EW (Il-114PR) and Search & Rescue (Il-140M). All of these modifications could potentially be employed by the Scottish air-force; by using such a common frame for all of these roles as well as troop & cargo transportation duties - maintenance, training, spare parts, etc... costs could be considerably reduced. A limited number were produced during the last 2 decades before production was stopped. Now however, production is scheduled to rebooted - this time in Russia.
- An-70; for the long range and/or heavy transport roles that involve redeploying tanks/APCs/IFVs and large amounts of troops & equipment. Powered by 4 propfans, passed every evaluation, test & foreign tender with flying colours, excellent technical characteristics, a truly promising aircraft. It was developed in order to replace the An-12 but is effectively in a different class; having over twice the payload capacity, 50% greater range, 4 engines as opposed to 2 and being considerably larger in size & cargo space. On the plus side however - this increased payload and range means that it will be able to redeploy even the heaviest Russian-origin tank all the way in one flight from Aberdeen to Benghazi. Compared to the Il-76 series (the closest other Russian aircraft in its class) it has a wider hull which enables tanks to be loaded & transported much easier. The An-70 is however on the expensive side compared to the Il-76, but Scotland would not need many of them and nonthless it's still less than half the price of the A-400M while being more capable at the same time.

It was developed in order to replace the An-12 but is effectively in a different class; having over twice the payload capacity, 50% greater range, 4 engines as opposed to 2 and being considerably larger in size & cargo space.

Hehehe... Mr Armchair General... did you have a sip of Vodka when you put on that hat? An-12 has 2 engines? Perhaps two engines per wing my friend...

I agree with most of your suggestions but would add that in the highlands that mortars will be king... for convoy support I would go with a ZSU-23-4 chassis mounted on a large wheeled vehicle... perhaps BTR-90. In addition I would develop a family of vehicles based on the BTR-90 that included one with an 82mm automatic mortar based on the Vasilek automatic mortar... a very powerful anti ambush weapon together with the ZSU-23-4.

Of course I have read that the latest upgrade for the Shilka involves the replacement of the four single barrel 23mm cannon with a single twin barrel 2A38M 30mm cannon. With a new radar and two four pack Igla-S launchers on the rear turret it would be a very potent system. The space saved by having just one twin barrel gun should allow 3-4,000 rounds to be carried in the very large turret with the improved automation reducing the turret crew to zero... gunner, commander and driver in the hull.

Buying previous gen systems is OK, but buying systems that allow upgrade potential is even better because it simplifies future upgrade paths.

Also i think you right in what you say about the SU-34, Scotland has pretty harsh weather and having an aircraft which can cope with such weather without too much maintenance, a realiable, rugged, and robust SU-25 would be ideal. A budget for a defence force would struggle to maintain more expensive aircraft.

The Su-34 is designed for really bad weather... it would be most effective in such conditions as its primary mission is deep strike. The Su-25 on the other hand would have trouble operating in bad weather as finding its targets would be difficult as it has no radar or night and all weather optics.

Very simply the Su-34 is an attack weapon, while Su-25 is primarily a troop support aircraft... The Su-34 is an Il-4, while the Su-25 is an Il-2M.

i agree with the BTR 90 have the Vasilek mortar system, that would devastating fire support, the upgrade you mention on the ZSU-23-4 sounds great and would be ideal in ground support as well as anti air for convoys on the move, and it would be a lot cheaper than Panstir.

The point you make about the SU-34 and the SU-25, i wasn't comparing them in the same role as like you said they have different roles. The SU-25 would be ideal to support ground troops in targeting invading enemy ground troops on the narrow hilly routes in scotland, especially the highlands. Where i think using the SU-34 in the same role would be a waste of money. But in saying that if SU-34 were purchased they would be able to carry out more roles than the SU-25, so maybe the SU-34 would be the better buy. And in my earlier post i said i would have MI-35's so these would be effective at dealing with ground troops travelling in narrow convoys.

Gary have you given any thought to the similar threads on ground forces and the naval forces?
(Hopefully) It would be good to see in the future of these threads, people give a full list of what they would have including costs and maintenance costs.

I agree with most of your suggestions but would add that in the highlands that mortars will be king... for convoy support I would go with a ZSU-23-4 chassis mounted on a large wheeled vehicle... perhaps BTR-90. In addition I would develop a family of vehicles based on the BTR-90 that included one with an 82mm automatic mortar based on the Vasilek automatic mortar... a very powerful anti ambush weapon together with the ZSU-23-4.

Of course I have read that the latest upgrade for the Shilka involves the replacement of the four single barrel 23mm cannon with a single twin barrel 2A38M 30mm cannon. With a new radar and two four pack Igla-S launchers on the rear turret it would be a very potent system. The space saved by having just one twin barrel gun should allow 3-4,000 rounds to be carried in the very large turret with the improved automation reducing the turret crew to zero... gunner, commander and driver in the hull.

Buying previous gen systems is OK, but buying systems that allow upgrade potential is even better because it simplifies future upgrade paths.

Also i think you right in what you say about the SU-34, Scotland has pretty harsh weather and having an aircraft which can cope with such weather without too much maintenance, a realiable, rugged, and robust SU-25 would be ideal. A budget for a defence force would struggle to maintain more expensive aircraft.

The Su-34 is designed for really bad weather... it would be most effective in such conditions as its primary mission is deep strike. The Su-25 on the other hand would have trouble operating in bad weather as finding its targets would be difficult as it has no radar or night and all weather optics.

Very simply the Su-34 is an attack weapon, while Su-25 is primarily a troop support aircraft... The Su-34 is an Il-4, while the Su-25 is an Il-2M.[/quote]

hi all, wonder if anyone can tell the price/cost of the following i seem to find hughes differences on the net. Any info would be great.

Mi-35 Hind
Mi-17
Mi-28
Ka-52

Yak-130
MIG-29SMT

BMP 3
BMD 3 (or 4)
BTR 82A
T-72B2
T-90

GAZ Tigr-M
MT-LB

2S19 msta-s
122mm D30 howitzer

BM-21
9A52-4 Tornado
Iskander-E

Pantsir-S1
S300
SA-24 igla

The only source for realistic prices would be ROSOBORONEXPORT... and there would be enormous variation in price based on how much was ordered and whether follow on orders were likely and of course who was ordering.

Good friends get loans and offsets etc.

GarryB wrote:The only source for realistic prices would be ROSOBORONEXPORT... and there would be enormous variation in price based on how much was ordered and whether follow on orders were likely and of course who was ordering.

Good friends get loans and offsets etc.

Hi garry, yeah i understand that quantity and who is ordering etc makes the price change.

Lets say in this instance, that its a new customer, ordering a small quantity (due to size of army), but would likely place orders for other types of equipment and will be likely to be a loyal customer who in the future is most likely to continue to purchase from Rosoboronexport.

I havent been able to find an upto date prices for equipment.

I will start and I hope others will join in and correct me:

Mi-35 Hind

Mi-17 - 17 million $ (price vary depending on the equipment)

Mi-28 - probably about 30 million $

Ka-52 - probably about 30 million $

Yak-130 - probably about 30 million $

MIG-29SMT - probably about 30 million $

BMP 3 - 2.5 million $

BMD 3 (or 4)

BTR 82A - 500 000 - 1 million $

T-72B2 - 1-2 million $

T-90 - 4 million $

GAZ Tigr-M - 70 000 $

MT-LB

2S19 msta-s

122mm D30 howitzer

BM-21

9A52-4 Tornado

Iskander-E

Pantsir-S1 - 16 million per truck (on the level of whole battery with support, communication etc 20 mil $ per shooting truck)

S300 - 200-250 million for S-300PMU2 (S-300VM 900-950 million $ (three batteries but can only be bought together)

SA-24 igla

I suspect you could also do a deal... a lot of the stuff on your list are in service Russian Army stuff about to be replaced in service, so buying army surplus could save you a lot of cash, but you want to make sure of going through official channels.

A few countries bought Russian/Soviet kit really cheap in the 1990s from surplus stocks... but came to grief because when selling off surplus stuff you will rarely sell your spares and support pool, and being a user of the equipment rather than manufacturer of the equipment after the first cheap purchase you could not support the equipment as you had your own equipment to support.

This led to those countries who thought they got a bargain having to go to the original makers for spare parts, but because they generally lost out to the original sales for the equipment they tended to charge heavily for spare parts to make some money.

Hense buying BMP-3s from the Russian military at bargain basement prices because they are being replaced, you need to make sure you form a relationship with the company that made the BMP-3s to secure spare parts and equipment too.

Sometimes it is better to spend a little more to buy from the maker rather than a former user.