SDF equipment if you worked for Rosoboronexport

miketheterrible wrote:I'm just saying. It would be cool if they did do that but we know that the EU and US will strong arm Scottish government.

I mean, new Zealand and Australia are neither EU or NATO, but they exclusively buy US/EU weapons.

the price will be to high a independent Scotland would never host another country's nuclear deterrent especially since we are not just against nuclear weapons but nuclear energy as well

Yeah your right it would be messy hence I mentioned access to the tunnel will likely be stopped or hassle. And mentioned a large transport port in Edinburgh and possibly Glasgow. Transport aircraft yes but not huge amount.

I would suspect border controls would be strictly enforced by England with Scotland...

It really gets to me that if the western governments got involved with Somalia as much as they did in the middle east it would have been on its road to recovery long ago. But nothing gain hence the half hearted help.

They don't know how to help... remember blackhawk down... a peaceful mission to feed starving people and the yanks picked a side and a warlord and turned it into a proper war... a war they ran away from.

It is funny that all these decades and centuries the west has been "Helping" Africa and yet many of them still seem to need help... of course it would be easy to blame those african countries... but considering how long the west and europe has been helping you have to wonder if the civilised west even knows what it is doing...

Funny thing is then when they decide they need restorative justice and a transfer of land from the rich usually white minority to the poor largely black majority the west objects... it seems that stealing land and resources under any circumstances is legitimate and helping the poor by giving them land is bad.

Land reforms are terribly destabilising and disruptive... but eventually the economy recovers...

Maybe this could be somewhere Russia could get involved with once Syria is sorted and actually think 6-8 months and it would be done. They would gain respect from majority of the world gain rebuilding contracts and possibly a naval base from it. Great location for transport and also oil exploration. China is building next door in Djibouti and UAE is considering somaliland. With Ethiopia economy growing and no sea access it could be successful transport hub. Cheap labour and nation looking for stability and jobs. AU troops would do most of the fighting Russia just support like Syria. Respect amongst african nations would be great.

Would be interesting but you know the west would do its best to fuck it up... they don't care about the people stuck in the chaos and misery... but any chance to hurt or discredit Russia and they will take it.

The reason for Scotland needing an airforce compared to neighbours like Ireland is simple. Ireland doesn't have oil rigs loads of islands and a nasty ex partner now a neighbour who lost out massively ( financially ) in a divorce settlement lol. The aircraft isn't fancy yak -130 for patroling etc mig - 29M2 for inception of uk aircraft abusing Scottish air space. But I think that having the migs will make some people feel safe and that we still have a deterrence. Yak -130, mig -29M2 and mi-35 would be multi role ground / air / naval / recce but mostly geared for last 3 mentioned. And I am only talking small numbers.

I suppose it would have some value, but then Scotland will start to realise what Russia has been putting up with all these centuries... lots of provocation and England is never at fault... it will be the victim of course...

Russia could do joint projects or get Scotland to build Russian vessels that are for export this would allow Russia to speed up production and take more orders on. How many customers get put off at the prospect of waiting times for their vessels to be made I wonder? This would help Scotland as well keeping shipbuilding projects coming in.

I would trust scottish ship building over french ship building... there were lots of projects the Russian Navy used to throw the way of eastern european countries, the baltic states and finland... not difficult and not expensive or super secret, but honest work nonetheless... I am sure if you bought a few military products like MiGs and Yaks and perhaps some light armour and even small arms, they would be open to putting work your way for ships.

Obviously the Mistral saga burned them, but they are keen to trade with anyone who is honest and not tied to the strings leading from Washington or London like the Frogs clearly are.

Wouldn't it piss the English off if a Scottish company got together with Kalashnikov and developed their own family of small arms that was actually good... instead of that piece of rubbish SA80 that was eventually improved to OK by the Germans... who needs a gun that is not reliable... no matter how accurate.

Of course if uk spits their dummy out and won't do joint military exercises Scotland could do them with nordic, batiks, and Russia. Repairing friendly ties with Russia would be beneficial for trade and Russia would only be bomber buzzing uk not Scotland anymore lol.

And in 50 years time when what is left of the UK realises it is no longer the centre of the universe and a big player it could be Scotland that helps London learn to behave and trade with the Russians... or not.  

I hope it's February 2019 as I should be back to Scotland by then. Hopefully celebrating

Best of luck...

Usa France Spain Belgium and many others were against Scottish independence which is two faced because as soon as they were independent they would then welcome them with open arms.

Pretty ironic the US against Scottish independence from the UK... how long was their war of independence from the UK...

I mean, new Zealand and Australia are neither EU or NATO, but they exclusively buy US/EU weapons.

Both countries still look to the UK to be the mother country... but at the end of the day we tend to look more to the US these days... Australia seems to be joined at the ass hole to the US... it is a totally one way relationship... rectum to tongue... which can create some very amusing situations because being an open cast mine, Australia makes a lot of money in China and really don't want to upset the gravy train by standing firm with the US on anything to do with China.

But that is not really relevant to the topic... we use NATO calibre weapons but our previous small arms have been British (FN FAL rifles and FN MAG machine guns), but when we adopted the rabbit gun calibre we went to Australian produced (Austrian) Steyrs and (Belgian) FN Minimi LMGs... don't know who made the Minimis but the Steyrs we got were Aussie manufacturing rejects...

Next gun I would suspect will be prettied up M4 clones... I have one myself... fragile bitch... don't dry fire it or it will break... don't cock the weapon and let the bolt close with no ammo in it or the bolt face will crack... yeah fucking great stuff... and all the talk about uppers and lowers... a thousand guns in one... year right... except because the mag well is part of the lower, you can change the calibre by replacing the upper but don't think about any calibres that might be useful because the mags wont fit... and for the price of them you could have bought 5 different AKs in the different calibres that will keep shooting even if you dry fire them or cycle the action with no ammo present... and you wont need NASA approved space age lubricants and  solvents to keep the damn thing working...

More accurate than an AK, but the last animal I shot didn't notice I hit it with an inaccurate Mosin 3 line Model 1944 carbine... a 203 grain bullet would make a mess of a rabbit, but the suppressor worked well... I didn't even need airplugs and the guys that were less than 1km away didn't even hear the shot last time I was checking the zero... Sadly I didn't see any deer to test it on that day.

the price will be to high a independent Scotland would never host another country's nuclear deterrent especially since we are not just against nuclear weapons but nuclear energy as well

You have been in the gang for a long time... being on the outside might come as a shock... the countries you think of as allies and neighbours and even friends could easily be turned against you because the big bullies of the group want to punish you for rejecting the kool aide...

Ask Saddam or Gaddafi... they thought they were OK with the west and then the west turned on them... that feral creature is just under the surface... pretty soon someone will use chem weapons in Syria and we know it wont be the terrorists that get the blame no matter what the evidence...

Reading your signature... perhaps you need to start an expedition to find the ark of truth... might be the only thing that will save you from re assimilation and full violent forced conversion...

GarryB wrote:Reading your signature... perhaps you need to start an expedition to find the ark of truth... might be the only thing that will save you from re assimilation and full violent forced conversion...

as you have noticed i'm a big Stargate SG1 fan ... i love Sci Fi in general

GarryB wrote:You have been in the gang for a long time... being on the outside might come as a shock... the countries you think of as allies and neighbours and even friends could easily be turned against you because the big bullies of the group want to punish you for rejecting the kool aide...

Scots don't like bullies ... when we leave the UK we will find out those countries we cannot trust

GarryB wrote:Ask Saddam or Gaddafi... they thought they were OK with the west and then the west turned on them... that feral creature is just under the surface... pretty soon someone will use chem weapons in Syria and we know it wont be the terrorists that get the blame no matter what the evidence...

and this is why i feel we will need to spend more than the £3.5 billion we contribute to UK's defence spending .... Scotland is not Libya any invading army won't just be facing hostile locals, they will be facing also hostile terrain and conditions .... many have tried and failed to keep hold of Scotland the price was always to high, we fought of all invaders from the first century AD until the start of the 18th century 1700 years of fighting the Romans, the Angles and Saxons, the Northumbrians, the Vikings, The Normans/English .... they all had 1 thing in common ... the act of union was basically a ultimatum join the UK and be invaded .... during the union of crowns many Scottish units fought for the joint Scottish/English kings our armies owed allegiance to the crown which was now based in London and our ports were blockaded


but i must add Scotland wants cordial relations with England ... but i can't see that happening due to Trident .... as for America fuck them ... we have a large Scottish diaspora in America 20 - 25 million ethnic Scots and a further 20 -25 million Ulster Scots

I wish you guys the best... you have certainly earned it... but the problem with bully big brothers is they thought you needed to be taught lessons and all that shit... and don't understand why you aren't best buddies...

The biggest fear however for me and for you... you future is always in the hands of politicians... whether they are in London or in Scotland somewhere... they are a fickle lot... sometimes you get Yeltsens and Gorbachevs and some times you get Putins... I wish you a string of Putins... you will know which you have by the savagery of the western press... the more savage the better I say... but only in your interests of course.


BTW I am currently watching Andromeda second series... I have the full boxed set of stargate, but I enjoy all sorts.. Dr Who, Blakes Seven, Dark Matter, Star Trek, Star Wars, Red Dwarf, Firefly, Warehouse 13, Killjoy, Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, Eureka etc etc etc

Godric wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:I imagine if Scotland did separate from England and started developing its own forces, it will be entirely based of American and European equipment.  Reason is that Scotland wants to be part of the EU.  Even down to their combat rifles, they will opt for German, Canadian or American made.  I doubt they would buy anything from Russia aside some Mi-8's or Mi-16 helicopters.  Even then they may purchase American or Italian helicopters at that point.

we  might be part of the EU ... but the USA controls Nato and many of the weapons systems contain American components like US forced France to cancel Scalp-EG sale to Egypt last month because it has US components ... can't see us buying the G-36 after the problems with them and Germany about to ditch them

@ d_taddei2 it doesn't work that way Scottish taxpayers have contributed greatly towards UK military hardware and receiving just old equipment would not wash ... best option is starting armed forces from Scratch with a £8 -9 billion in cash .... that won't happen either as the rUK will have to pay brexit bill... Scotland contributes around £3.5 billion per year towards UK defense spending or just over $5 billion that is a decent budget their is nothing to stop us spending more as our economy grows and we know our real GDP and not one made up by the UK .... i would rather go for Su30MKs and SU-32s, and Kamov 52 attack helos and Mil Mi17 transport helos, transport aircraft either the Chinese Y-20 or the Russian Ilyushin Il-76-MD-90A

light mechanised ground forces will not cut it, we will need tanks at the challenger 2 is to heavy and obsolete to be used in rural Scotland ... i would like to see a combination of T-90MS and BMPT-72 (terminator 2s)

Ireland spends 800 million Euros on defence and they have more maritime assets than the UK ... Ireland had to help the UK hunt for a non existent sub in the firth of clyde a couple of years ago because the UK had no such assets

I never said they would accept the old stuff and must remember the debates around defence Westminster was stating getting old stuff as Scotland didn't need new high tech. Hence I said a money settlement would be better so we can buy what we want. And of course it doesn't work like that but let me ask you when has Westminster done anything correctly nevermind correctly towards Scotland.

As for tanks they wouldn't give challenger and we don't want it. T-72 or T-90 and yes maybe some terminator. Su-32 and 30 would be great but not sure if we could stomach the cost on start up maybe the Yak -130 & mig - 29M2 first then over time when everything is settled get better equipment. As defence will be just one area of importance economy and setting various areas of government is also paramount.

d_taddei2 wrote:I never said they would accept the old stuff and must remember the debates around defence Westminster was stating getting old stuff as Scotland didn't need new high tech. Hence I said a money settlement would be better so we can buy what we want. And of course it doesn't work like that but let me ask you when has Westminster done anything correctly nevermind correctly towards Scotland.

on that we can both agree ....... Westminster is totally dishonourable and corrupt .... unless they are not paying severance money to EU they couldn't afford to pay up £9 billion for the assets we have paid for

d_taddei2 wrote:As for tanks they wouldn't give challenger and we don't want it. T-72 or T-90 and yes maybe some terminator. Su-32 and 30 would be great but not sure if we could stomach the cost on start up maybe the Yak -130 & mig - 29M2 first then over time when everything is settled get better equipment. As defence will be just one area of importance economy and setting various areas of government is also paramount.

start up fees would be staggered over 20 - 25 years you can't build a airforce overnight ... first you buy 3 or 4 trainers and then 6 combat aircraft to build up our airforce over 10 - 20 years to have around 30 combat aircraft .... at most Scotland would need about 10 jet trainers max, the same amount in piston engine trainers and 4 flight simulators that can be used 24/7

mig29s would be outclassed by typhoons that won't be the case with the SU30MK plus the greater range helps with the area our airforce would have to cover land and maritime mig29s wouldn't do

d_taddei2 wrote:Buk M3 for eventual replacement for the penchora and penchora to be mounted on

Expensive. Any of the Buks, nevermind the latest one. The Pechora-2M is basically the same class of SAM system albeit considerably cheaper. But if you want Buk-M3s then maybe get just a battery or two (or the S-350) for Edinburgh and Glasgow and use Pechora-2Ms for the rest.

MT-LB and a wheeled chassis like Belarusian stilet thus adding another missile to the system.

Actually I thought about the Belarussian Stilet as a wheeled army air-defence system to go along with Scotland's BTR-80 based formations; but then I thought that it would just add another chassis with completely different parts to the logistics train.
It's better to get a wheeled SAM based on the BTR-80 chassis, or something on a light-vehicle such as a Land Rover. But Russia doesn't offer anything like that.. other than maybe the Djigit system that can be fitted onto a pickup truck, but it's basically just a dual-MANPAD launcher with nothing more to it, a little too basic. So maybe look at some of the former Warsaw Pact/ex-Soviet countries for a solution instead.

Small number of pantsir for protection of naval base, air base, and head of state etc.

I don't think it's a cheap system, and being a SHORAD, it's only useful for point-defence of targets. Question is - what's so valuable in Scotland that you would want to defend? It doesn't any strategic naval bases for nuclear subs (well it does now but won't if Britain leaves), anything of the sort. Better to just have a air-defence network centered around Edinburgh.

A small number of mig-29M2 about 8 this would bolster air defence. The cheaper running yak -130 would do patroling etc and if and foreign aircraft was approaching the migs could be deployed could be used as a QRF

Could well be an idea. Question is always going to be about money and priorities though.

UAV and UCAV

Don't think Scotland needs UCAVs - it's not going to be fighting the Taliban after all, and if it still is going to be then the question arises why bother leaving Britain in the first place?
UAVs - certainly. Don't know which ones though, they're so many of them and new ones come out every year.

IL -38N  (second hand ) could be used as cheaper alternative

The Il-38N will certainly be a cheaper alternative; if Scotland manages to buy a few of the ones that Russia will be retiring.

However how long has the Il-38 class been in service? Going on 45 years.

But the point isn't even that - they could all be well maintained and could serve out an additional 15 years or so.

The point is more that aircraft for these sorts of uses are bought for the long-haul; they're expected to last decades in the role. So why buy something 2nd-hand, only to replace it a little later on? Better buy new and modern and be assured that they'll continue to serve and have upgrade potential for a long time.

An-140 (Russian built) and/or An-32 if it's still available to buy (ukrainian built)

An-140 could be a decent idea actually but when it comes to Ukrainian products their future is a little vaporous for the moment. Even if they build you the stuff on time - what about parts, what about future upgrades?

Two  il-76 (refurbished)

Good idea. Buy some old ones refurbished. No need for the Il-476.

Two mi-26 would be ideal due to the sheer number of islands majority without runway.

Scotland has a lot of islands. But what would you need to get to them with a Mi-26 that a Mi-17 wouldn't be able to deliver?

Ansat and ansat 2RC this would fulfil light transport and allow 2RC as recce/light attack and possibly one or two could be situated on a frigate.

Ka-27M and PS  (S&R) /transport for frigate and naval operations. (Refurbished)

I don't think Scotland even needs frigates, I'll get onto its naval force in a bit - but the helicopters it will have on its corvettes would be better reserved for something like ASW or AWACS, or light transport. Modular Ka-226s would do all these jobs.
And Ka-226s can also be used in the light-transport role on land too. IMO this is very much an underrated modular little helicopter.

I'm not sure what the opinions on the Ansat are. Last I heard of them the RuAF was still having issues with its Ansat-Us.

The Ansat-2RC can actually be better suited for Scotland in the CAS role than something heavy like the Mi-35. But they existed only as prototypes and 10 years ago at that. And since Scotland will get Mi-17s anyway, Mi-35s have a lot of commonality of parts and mechanics with them.

Bdrm-2 with Azerbaijan upgrade to Zdkm and possibly anti tank version with metis or konkurs
(Second hand upgraded )

Sure, especially an ATGM-version of the BRDM would be very mobile and quick and can be used in both wheeled and tracked formations without an extra logistical footprint; because you'll have BRDMs in both anyway as recon vehicles.
Probably a better idea than having seperate tracked and wheeled ATGM vehicle versions.

Two battalions with tigr some armed with metis (am sure it wouldnt be hard to maje a version) and gibka-s or zu-23m1. Bpm-97 and bulat could also be used if they wanted cheaper.

If Scotland wants Tigrs then we can ditch the idea of a BTR-80 based formation and just use Tigr and Tigr-related chassis for things like APCs, Medevac, ATGM (Kornet-D), EW, recon vehicles, UAV launchers and air defence (Gibka-S).

And you know that's certainly an idea.. but I think it will all cost rather a bit more.
BTR-80s can be had for cheap, BRDM-2s can be had for cheap, and for the lightest vehicles - something like Range Rovers or Land Rovers would already be well known by Scottish mechanics and have plenty of spare parts for even among civilian garages. Even if the British Army doesn't so much as leave Scotland a spare wheel when it vacates the country; it would still make more sense to often use British and European equipment in non-sensitive areas, even if Scotland switches to becoming a hardcore Russian ideological ally, and even if it has to buy that equipment anew.

Rpg-7v added

It's better to just equip your (highly-trained) troops with something modern; it won't cost much more. The RPG-7V has got modern rounds but they're inevitably limited in range due to the limited diameter of the tube.

And second hand upgraded BM -21 (about 6/

Sure, why not.

The last time independencewas mentioned the Scottish Government produced a paper on the subject which to be honest wasn't very detailed and wasn't great. But the budget was £1.5-2bn
Or $2.08- 2.77bn Which isn't bad

Keep in mind that if the British go for a 'hard divorce' and don't actually leave Scotland a single thing; then Scotland will have to create and equip a military literally right from zero, and in that case it would be quite justified in having a much higher GDP expenditure on military needs than normal for the first 2-3 years or so; like at 8% or so.

flamming_python wrote:Expensive. Any of the Buks, nevermind the latest one. The Pechora-2M is basically the same class of SAM system albeit considerably cheaper. But if you want Buk-M3s then maybe get just a battery or two (or the S-350) for Edinburgh and Glasgow and use Pechora-2Ms for the rest.

here is a map of Scotland and it's maritime waters ... look at the area it covers Pechora's/Nevas would be no use except near the border with England and aimed at N Ireland

flamming_python wrote:I don't think it's a cheap system, and being a SHORAD, it's only useful for point-defence of targets. Question is - what's so valuable in Scotland that you would want to defend? It doesn't any strategic naval bases for nuclear subs (well it does now but won't if Britain leaves), anything of the sort. Better to just have a air-defence network centred around Edinburgh.

look at the above image and see the large chunk of the Atlantic and North sea that is no longer under control of Nato and US transport planes currently use Prestwick Airport as a stop over ... they lose that then the nearest airport big enough to handle the transports is Manchester and thats to busy to handle military traffic as well ... the other thing is Prestwick is the only all weather airport in Western Europe .. and our entire maritime boundaries has vast reserves of oil and gas ... the firth of Clyde alone has more oil and gas reserves than the Scottish sector of North sea at it's peak

flamming_python wrote:Keep in mind that if the British go for a 'hard divorce' and don't actually leave Scotland a single thing; then Scotland will have to create and equip a military literally right from zero, and in that case it would be quite justified in having a much higher GDP expenditure on military needs than normal for the first 2-3 years or so; like at 8% or so.

they would have to therefore supply us with cash to replace hardware we paid for or as you say it becomes a hard split with no assets we have built up together .... then their is no share of the liabilities then Scotland would be starting with no debt ... a clean slate so to say thus our defence budget for the first 10 years could be 5 - 8% of GDP

It's better to get a wheeled SAM based on the BTR-80 chassis, or something on a light-vehicle such as a Land Rover. But Russia doesn't offer anything like that.. other than maybe the Djigit system that can be fitted onto a pickup truck,

Very much not true... they have had all sorts of things shown at public displays... that IR turret thing on the Vodnik with MANPAD launchers on it springs to mind... what was it called.. Phoenix, or Falcon or something.

And then of course they are introducing modular vehicle families of weapons... which will of course include SAM and air defence systems... the systems they fit to Typhoon would be ideal for Scotland to fit to a light truck...

No point in pissing around with MANPADS... they would be better off with Sosna or Pantsir... the latter a much more expensive system but both have cheap simple missiles that can be used in large quantities... and outreach most helicopters weapons...

The point is more that aircraft for these sorts of uses are bought for the long-haul; they're expected to last decades in the role. So why buy something 2nd-hand, only to replace it a little later on? Better buy new and modern and be assured that they'll continue to serve and have upgrade potential for a long time.

ASW is expensive so even if they can get them for a reasonable price they will be doing rather well... the main two questions are... what sort of equipment will the Russians leave on it... and what sort of performance will that mean, and do you need that capacity in the first place... your former allies will be sniffing around you like dogs sniffing a dog on heat... yes many will try to mount you as well... the point is, do you want to know it is happening... sometimes ignorance is bliss.

If you decide you do need to monitor under your water as well as above, then you can later decide on more expensive options that are longer term...

An-140 could be a decent idea actually but when it comes to Ukrainian products their future is a little vaporous for the moment. Even if they build you the stuff on time - what about parts, what about future upgrades?

Should not be any problems with Russian built An-140s, but to be honest I would prefer a Russian design to a now dead ukrainian one... deal with the Ukrainians with one hand on your pistol grip and make sure everything they send you is what it is supposed to be... and even then I still would not trust them.

Good idea. Buy some old ones refurbished. No need for the Il-476.

The biggest issue is certification... older models might not pass for civilian transport... I believe military aircraft are exempt but not with civilian cargoes... so saving a bit of money getting an old one might have extra hidden costs.

Having said that you could probably get some old models quicker and easier and much much cheaper than a new build model, though performance will be effected.

Perhaps a first purchase of old refurbished models with a few upgrades, with a later option for new models and further upgrades or swaps of the old for new.

Or perhaps even buy the older ones and upgrade them and lease a few new ones and decide which suits you best.. old or new.

It's better to just equip your (highly-trained) troops with something modern; it won't cost much more. The RPG-7V has got modern rounds but they're inevitably limited in range due to the limited diameter of the tube.

Personally I would go for the RPG-7 but only up to the 105mm warheads, and use the bit RPG-28 125mm disposable rocket launchers for the real hard targets like enemy MBTs.

Most of the RPG use will be against non armoured targets anyway... so the smaller calibre rounds... 93mm etc rounds would be fine in both HEAT and HE Frag and thermobaric.

I would also add Metis-M1 as basically a super cheap super small easily portable Milan like missile.

The UK basically states our GDP at over 250 billion euros that is their figures it's what they don't include in Scottish figures like £16.8 billion from our oil and gas and labels it coming from a unknown region they say 61% of our exports go to the rest of the UK that includes our exports which mainly is exported through English ports and airports .. another thing the UK says our whisky industry is worth £5 billion to the UK economy that's with 80% of the global market share yet Ireland says it's 4% of the whisky market share is worth 2.5 billion Euros to the Irish economy ... do the maths

say the actual figure is north of 300 billion euros if we spent 2% of our budget on defence that would be 6 billion euros per year and if we leave the UK via a no assets no liabilities deal then if we spent 4% of our budget on defence that would give us a budget of 12 billion euros ... that's a hefty budget for a nation of under 5.5 million people

another thing is looking at Scottish geography .... large sections of the English Scottish border is unsuitable for MBTs , lots of rivers, forests, farmland and narrow roads with stone bridges unsuitable for Challengers 2s, on the east of Scotland their mechanised forces could only come through one road the A1 so it would be easy to bottle them up using Kornets and Methis atms ... the middle section of the border no mechanised forces are suitable as the two main roads are overlooked by high terrain and woodlands and on the west coast MBTs would be needed we have the main highway between Scotland and England the M6 on the English side and the M74 on the Scottish side ... if the UK forces turned west it would be mired in guerrilla warfare (southern uplands and narrow winding roads and stone bridges unsuitable for Heavy MBTs .... the main thrust from a hostile UK force would come via the M6/74 route .... hence if Scotland was to have tanks then Challenger 2 class tanks are out of the question

All good stuff being said.

@flamming_python

The mi-26 topic I mentioned was for only a small number (2) of course the mi-17 would do most of the jobs but the main reason for mi-26 would be to fulfil what it can't transporting large heavy items and can be used for any emergency situations needed it's best to be prepared than not.

Sonsa is a good candidate for air defence and of course there's also Sa-8/ 9K33 osa upgraded still reasonable if there was a way to mount a zu-23-2 linked upto the radar you could have yourself a cheap pantsir or Tunguska could also be mounted on MT-LB.

As for having nothing truly important to protect well when I said navy base/ air force/ and head state these are important things. The navy and airforce need protecting as these are the key elements of self defense of Scotland and it's likely there will only be one large navel base and either 1 or 2 air bases so all there assets are in one or two places easy to take out if they aren't defended properly. These assets are also responsible for protectingthe oil and gas rigs another vital area. And protection of head of state/government and military HQ are pretty obvious. There maybe other very small air bases or naval ports but these will likely insignificant although you might find some small civilian airports/sea ports might house military assets.

@Godric
I come from borders of Scotland and no the area very well and yes MBTs not suitable but there is still main roads that could take them but easy prey due to lack of routes. But many rivers can be low easy for a tank. But with a lot of open fields as well a ATGW crew would have a great day destroying them. Scotland forces will be smaller than rUK and speed is key. A highly mobile and versatile force is needed. Btr82 are ideal cross any river in Borders doesn't matter how deep can cruise through fields etc with speed. As for forests well only forest roads and fire breaks exist and all vehicles can use them although some fire breaks would need tracked vehicles. The problem is this makes easy prey from the air and troops in forests. The forests are very dense especially those planted by forestry commission and I mean dense like during the day they are very dark it's even difficult for troops. I was in the army and when we can across such forests we would only penetrate 5-10 metres in but normally just skirt round them on the edge to make it easy and if needed could just dart into it. Scots pine tree branches are rough as hell and sit fairly low to the base of the tree making some of these forests unable to walk through.

Mine laying vehicles would also be great to choke routes or at least slow them down.

If artillery was to get more attention than just 120mm mortars etc then upgraded 2s1 would be cheap option and if mt-lb were already being used then chassis would be ideal. Of course other good options would be the serbian models sora or soko 122mm and for something heavier the Nora B -52 or MGS-25 Alexander 152mm and possibly half a dozen smerch.

d_taddei2 wrote:All good stuff being said.



@Godric
I come from borders of Scotland and no the area very well and yes MBTs not suitable but there is still main roads that could take them but easy prey due to lack of routes. But many rivers can be low easy for a tank. But with a lot of open fields as well a ATGW crew would have a great day destroying them. Scotland forces will be smaller than rUK and speed is key. A highly mobile and versatile force is needed. Btr82 are ideal cross any river in Borders doesn't matter how deep can cruise through fields etc with speed.  As for forests well only forest roads and fire breaks exist and all vehicles can use them although some fire breaks would need tracked vehicles. The problem is this makes easy prey from the air and troops in forests. The forests are very dense especially those planted by forestry commission and I mean dense like during the day they are very dark it's even difficult for troops. I was in the army and when we can across such forests we would only penetrate 5-10 metres in but normally just skirt round them on the edge to make it easy and if needed could just dart into it. Scots pine tree branches are rough as hell and sit fairly low to the base of the tree making some of these forests unable to walk through.

Mine laying vehicles would also be great to choke routes or at least slow them down.

If artillery was to get more attention than just 120mm mortars etc then upgraded 2s1 would be cheap option and if mt-lb were already being used then chassis would be ideal. Of course other good options would be the serbian models sora or soko 122mm and for something heavier the Nora B -52 or MGS-25 Alexander 152mm and possibly half a dozen smerch.

the MT-LBs would be ideally suited for towing D-30s through farmland Msta Bs would sink in the farmland .. many of the fields are not big and lined with small hedgerows and brick walls ideal positions to fire ATMs like Methis and Kornets and BTR-82As wouldn't work unless fitted with ATMs like kornet the best Apc would be the Patria armed with Kornets and a 30mm gun preferably the 2A42 auto cannon .... their is only 1 main road link between England and Scotland their is several minor roads ... the woods would still give cover to attack invading forces ... the UK army stands at roughly 80K scotland leaves that number goes down to 70K and they have around 32K reservists around 3K are from Scotland ...i doubt if the UK could afford to recruit the Scottish troops into their forces their military budget shrinks £3.5 billion over night and then their is the costs of Brexit .

The white paper talked of having 20K strong army within 20 years and a reserve force of just under 5K .... mig 29s are not suitable for Scotland their short range compared to the SU-30MK ... makes the SU-30MK the ideal choice ... the RUK has not got a decent Air defense system .... Scotland buys either the S-350 or the S-400 would make the RAF very jittery in attacking Scotland

other artillery systems i would go for is 90 Grads, 45 Uragans and 15 Smerch

the Ideal heavy artillery for Scotland would be the G6 Rhino or the Nora B-52 extended range .... i would chose the Nora B-52 for what is going on in SA they seem to be going back into apartheid this time against the whites

i know some are saying why are you having England as the main threat .... the threats over the past two millennia to Scotland has emanated from those borderland areas, the Romans, The Saxons/Northumbrians, the Normans/English, The English.

Corvettes are useless for the extreme weather of the North Atlantic we would need a combination of 4 frigates one LPDH a Destroyer or another 2 frigates for escort duty as well as some offshore patrol boats

Godric wrote:
here is a map of Scotland and it's maritime waters ... look at the area it covers Pechora's/Nevas would be no use except near the border with England and aimed at N Ireland

If the islanders declare referendum and stay in the UK, those waters (territorial and EEZ) will be reduced to insignificance. Rockall stays in the UK regardless. Shetland is not Scotland per se, also. In addition, the British Army will stay in what can be described as post-USSR scenario of Russian Forces in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and so on. That scenario includes Crimea, Abkhazia, S. Ossetia and Transdnistria. It's not going to be war, but islands, bases and possibly land will remain in the UK and Scotland be a pariah.

Nicola Sturgeon (mini Merkel) is leading Scotland straight to Brussel's colonial status with a dash of Maidanut Ukraine (EU membership = Euro + EU Army, i.e. NATO).

@Godric
If you're going to have mt-lb towing D-30 you would be better to have upgraded 2s1 better for shoot and scoot tactics.

90 grad and 45 urgan is a bit excessive for such a small force. S-400 could be a bit expensive on start up but I agree the rUK would shit itself.

Rockall could be kept by rUK it's not really significant and can't really be used for anything apart from territorial reasons and rUK might not even want it. But it will be messy at the start but I think their nasty side will backfire on them anyway

I suspect that the start up forces will either be:

Based on equipment from our share of uk forces with a mix of old and new.

Or

A money settlement(the better option) where we can buy what we want from who we want. But I believe this will be a basic needs first then over the next 10-15yrs we will build on that. And that may mean getting equipment that isn't the most modern/second hand. I think it would be ideal to put naval and airforce first obviously naval vessels will take a fairly long time to build and costly so this will be slow process. Like is said defence is only one area of many that needs attention. But if we are to build our forces up I'd rather than buy new less modern equipment that they buy second hand less modern as a cost saving method yes they might get some stick from the media but they can argue the case. But some equipment such as naval aviation patroling etc would be new modern from the start as uk has nothing that fulfills the role effectively and we wouldn't get anything from them anyway. Any equipment that we get that is made in rUK or its allies we would be better not to accept or sell asap as you know for sure they will make if difficult and expensive for Scotland.

The good thing about Russia is they stock everything that we need and have vast stocks of older equipment that can be upgraded and can be bought fairly cheaply. And various ex soviet countries like Belarus offer upgrades and equipment allowing Scotland to form other ties to countries uk has chastised. Being independent Scotland can repair/form ties with many countries where uk isn't on friendly terms this can be key to a successful Scotland and increasing economic success.

Upgraded Penchora as mentioned which I would mount on MT-LB and/or wheeled chassis, upgraded osa and strela-10 mixed with some Buk m2/stilet and maybe S-300, sonsa could be a start. Then build from there. I would imagine osa and strela 10 could be had for cheap. Some may argue that it's pointless buying older equipment and that Scotland should just buy everything new and modern from the start but that would be fantastic if we started with zero debt we could then afford to take on debt. But this older equipment still has a use once finally replaced with newer equipment when we are financially able to do so the equipment can then be used to form reserve forces or equipment them better.

I think we need to be realistic in terms of if they did choose Russian equipment and what they would likely buy on based on their likely budget. We could all wish for Scotland to have improved kilo class subs, Tu -22m, Tu-95 Ms, tor pantsir S-400, buk-m3, Iskander, mig-31bm, etc etc but it ain't going to happen. Can you imagine rUK faces if we did? Looool

KiloGolf wrote:

Godric wrote:
here is a map of Scotland and it's maritime waters ... look at the area it covers Pechora's/Nevas would be no use except near the border with England and aimed at N Ireland

If the islanders declare referendum and stay in the UK, those waters (territorial and EEZ) will be reduced to insignificance. Rockall stays in the UK regardless. Shetland is not Scotland per se, also. In addition, the British Army will stay in what can be described as post-USSR scenario of Russian Forces in Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and so on. That scenario includes Crimea, Abkhazia, S. Ossetia and Transdnistria. It's not going to be war, but islands, bases and possibly land will remain in the UK and Scotland be a pariah.

Nicola Sturgeon (mini Merkel) is leading Scotland straight to Brussel's colonial status with a dash of Maidanut Ukraine (EU membership = Euro + EU Army, i.e. NATO).

utter nonsense Shetlands has been part of Scotland since 1433 nearly 275 years before the UK was formed ... according to UNCLOS because shetlands is a archipelago off Scotland they would have a 12 mile zone around the island and the rest would be part of Scotland's territorial and EEZ ... as for Rockall the nearest landfall is either Scotland's St Kilda or Iceland ... it is nowhere near the rUK .... get used ito it greek boy the UK will soon be finished ... ... the Shetlanders care less for England also because it is even further away ... if the Shetland's were to leave Scotland it won't be for the UK ... it would be for Norway .... but never mind Scotland is surrounded by oil and gas

Godric wrote:utter nonsense Shetlands has been part of Scotland since 1433 nearly 275 years before the UK was formed ... according to UNCLOS because shetlands is a archipelago off Scotland they would have a 12 mile zone around the island and the rest would be part of Scotland's territorial and EEZ   ... as for Rockall the nearest landfall is either Scotland's St Kilda or Iceland ... it is nowhere near the rUK .... get used ito it greek boy the UK will soon be finished ... ... the Shetlanders care less for England also because it is even further away ... if the Shetland's were to leave Scotland it won't be for the UK ... it would be for Norway .... but never mind Scotland is surrounded by oil and gas  

Scotland has been part of the UK, longer than any of their claimed lands were ever part of admin border of British Scotland.
The good stuff will vote out, the UK will keep pretty much the entire, useful EEZ and oil/gas fields.

Scotland can enjoy worthless inland towns and cities (Glasgow, Dundee and so on). And the euro too The islanders are not ethic Scots, Shetland and islands have little to do with historical lands of Scotland. Shetlanders care little about the subsaharan Africa-level political sh1tsow in Holyrood. They are more British nowadays than anything else. They don't care about greater Scotland dreams of mini Merkel.

PS. Rockall is British, nearest landfall means nothing (see Falklands).

KiloGolf wrote:

Godric wrote:utter nonsense Shetlands has been part of Scotland since 1433 nearly 275 years before the UK was formed ... according to UNCLOS because shetlands is a archipelago off Scotland they would have a 12 mile zone around the island and the rest would be part of Scotland's territorial and EEZ   ... as for Rockall the nearest landfall is either Scotland's St Kilda or Iceland ... it is nowhere near the rUK .... get used ito it greek boy the UK will soon be finished ... ... the Shetlanders care less for England also because it is even further away ... if the Shetland's were to leave Scotland it won't be for the UK ... it would be for Norway .... but never mind Scotland is surrounded by oil and gas  

Scotland has been part of the UK, longer than any of their claimed lands were ever part of admin border of British Scotland.
The good stuff will vote out, the UK will keep pretty much the entire, useful EEZ and oil/gas fields.

Scotland can enjoy worthless inland towns and cities (Glasgow, Dundee and so on). And the euro too The islanders are not ethic Scots, Shetland and islands have little to do with historical lands of Scotland. Shetlanders care little about the subsaharan Africa-level political sh1tsow in Holyrood. They are more British nowadays than anything else. They don't care about greater Scotland dreams of mini Merkel.

PS. Rockall is British, nearest landfall means nothing (see Falklands).

you haven't a clue ... you are just bitter the UK will soon be finished ... you see Scotland decides as a nation ... their has been umpteen news reports from both the shetland's and orkneys everytime the people say they associate themselves more with Scotland than England and this so called secessionist movement you aye go on about with 150 members all but 5 of them live outwith Scotland ... the UK does not decide what are maritime borders are it's UNCLOS and the EU will back us 100%

Godric wrote:
you haven't a clue ... you are just bitter the UK will soon be finished ... you see Scotland decides as a nation ... their has been umpteen news reports from both the shetland's and orkneys everytime the people say they associate themselves more with Scotland than England and this so called secessionist movement you aye go on about with 150 members all but 5 of them live outwith Scotland ... the UK does not decide what are maritime borders are it's UNCLOS and the EU will back us 100%  

The EU wouldn't back Ireland or UK over NI affairs, never backed either Spain or UK on Gibraltar. They let Turkey occupy Cyprus and cause all sorts of problems in the Aegean against Greece. EU is a badly managed bank and a collection of useless, overpaid pencil pushers. Geo-politically speaking it's as strong as Denmark. Nobody cares about it other than tiny puppet states.

The UK leaving the EU, makes EU's input in British island affairs minimal to non-existent.

Scotland's association to the non-Scot isles is purely administrative under UK framework.
Once that framework is gone, it's open season on them islands, islets and rocks.

KiloGolf wrote:

Godric wrote:
you haven't a clue ... you are just bitter the UK will soon be finished ... you see Scotland decides as a nation ... their has been umpteen news reports from both the shetland's and orkneys everytime the people say they associate themselves more with Scotland than England and this so called secessionist movement you aye go on about with 150 members all but 5 of them live outwith Scotland ... the UK does not decide what are maritime borders are it's UNCLOS and the EU will back us 100%  

The EU wouldn't back Ireland or UK over NI affairs, never backed either Spain or UK on Gibraltar. They let Turkey occupy Cyprus and cause all sorts of problems in the Aegean against Greece. EU is a badly managed bank and a collection of useless, overpaid pencil pushers. Geo-politically speaking it's as strong as Denmark. Nobody cares about it other than tiny puppet states.

The UK leaving the EU, makes EU's input in British island affairs minimal to non-existent.

Scotland's association to the non-Scot isles is purely administrative under UK framework.
Once that framework is gone, it's open season on them islands, islets and rocks.

away back to school ya silly little boy

Godric wrote:away back to school ya silly little boy

Slava Ukrayini! Slava wee Jimmy Krankie!

On the last independence debate the UK never really argued Scottish territorial waters only think that came up was when Tony Blair changed the boundaries off the east coast so back then it wasn't problem and it still won't be only territorial disputes will be the boundary I mentioned was changed as it's clearly belongs to Scotland and then there's Berwick upon tweed dispute an unofficial vote was held in the town on if it should go back to Scotland and the majority voted to go back to Scotland.

Call me distrustful, but the west... read EU/NATO/US etc and the western world Japan, Aus, NZ etc etc accepted Krushchevs annexation of Crimea to the Ukraine without question... because that suited their interests... who is to say what the English might proclaim before a separation...

Be very careful....