Improve your Country's Military

the AH-1 could mean , being purchased much earlier.

whats wrong with a dutch walrus class sub?
or a dutch frigate? ;)



to me it screams: bribed by lockheed ....again

Yeah, I have nothing against Lockheed, the C-130 is a remarkable plane but I think the JSF is trying to be a "jack of all trades" but in reality, like most of the time, "master of none." Agreed though, I would not be surprised if there is some greasing of palms here, Eisenhower did have a point on the military industrial complex.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The U.S. military presents an interesting challenge. It is, without question, the dominant military power on the Planet, yet it has some striking weaknesses. The Pentagon has an almost disgustingly high budget, yet, in this era, has to curtail useful, even vital, programs due to lack of funding. There are also the immense politics of the military procurement process and the problems that come with it. Perhaps most significantly there are the political missteps that led to horribly wasteful spending (Vietnam and Iraq II being the strongest examples).

To come up with a best case list requires that these things be either ignored or treated as clutter. So this becomes more of a wish list tan anything else…

  • Avoid the idiotic service rivalries that dominated the post war period and have periodically done so ever since.
  • Maintain separate missions for the USMC and U.S. Army. This will allow for a lighter, leaner Corps and allow for an option between airborne forces and heavy brigades. Make the USMC the primary “counter insurgency” aka low intensity force. The Army is the stand-up set piece force with the Corps operating where you don’t need massive number of heavy tanks.
  • Unify Special Warfare command in the late 1950’s. This will avoid costly duplication of capacity while still enabling each service to have the specialized units it requires for its mission.
  • Use the same aircraft across services when it makes sense, don’t when it makes no sense. Use a single airframe whenever possible. There is no need to keep F-106 squadrons in service when the F-14 comes into service. You do not need the F-105 when the F4 Phantom exists. How many types of attack aircraft do you really need? On the other side of the ledger, don’t try to force fit things that make no damned sense (naval version of the F-111 ringing bells?)
  • Keep political procurement to a minimum. If you do not need an alternate jet engine, don’t spend million on R&D for them.
  • There are really good engineers in other countries, occasionally they come up with a design that is better than anything that comes up internally. It is not a sin to use these designs
  • 18,000 nuclear warheads. Really?
  • Accept that if you want the biggest military and if you are going to keep using it that is going to be triple damned expensive. To pay for it is going to cost money. If the public won’t give up the money, make it clear as day that there are consequences to that decision and then don’t spend what doesn’t exist.
 

Riain

Banned
Have the RAAF get f-15's instead of F/a-18 . when the F-111 are due to be replaced get F-15E . The F-15 purchase woulad have given us a longer ranged easier upgrade fighter earlier .

Get the AH-1Z instead of the tiger

Buy Japanese subs instead of the Collins class.

Buy DDG-51 lite instead of the Spanish one .

so many mistakes in the Aussie procurement system .

For the army realize that anything not compatable with USA is not going to be sustainable in the future and get a full armoured division worth of vehicles in the 90's . I'm talking SPG / M1-A1 / Bradleys .

US Barbel class in the 60s and Japanese subs in the 80s to replace them, yes, yes, yes.

Dunno about the rest, the F15 wasn't much of an attack plane in 1983, the Spanish DDG is plenty good enough as is the Tiger and we have little to no need for an armoured division. I think we need to spread our military buys widely, we don't want the US to get too cosy.

Buy the Shorts Belfast instead of the C130E Hercules in 1966 and the C160 Transall instead of C 130H in 1976.
 
US Barbel class in the 60s and Japanese subs in the 80s to replace them, yes, yes, yes.

Dunno about the rest, the F15 wasn't much of an attack plane in 1983, the Spanish DDG is plenty good enough as is the Tiger and we have little to no need for an armoured division. I think we need to spread our military buys widely, we don't want the US to get too cosy.

Buy the Shorts Belfast instead of the C130E Hercules in 1966 and the C160 Transall instead of C 130H in 1976.

F15c was able to carry a significant weapon load . With minor changes harpoon could have been added . Also the f111 is thd bomber . At leastthe f15 with conformal tanks could stay with it .
As far as the spanish ddg its nice but not enough vls . And more expensive .
The tiger is still not operational and suffering in hot climates . Guess what were a hot climatr
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
According to this guy, your entire fleet of tanks, APCs and IFVs needs to improve dramatically.

This guy may be the most idiotic person I have encountered in the last six months. He actually finds the T-64 to be superior across the board to the M1A2. He has all these stats, but he forgets one critical element.

In combat the M1A2 kills the T-64 first shot 98% of the time and 1000 meters before the T-64 reaches max firing range (and can fire three more times if the first round misses before the T-64 can even reach max range to return fire). The T-64, however is incapable of penetrating the front armor of the Abrams at ANY range. Simply put the M1A2 can kill as many T-64s in combat as it has anti tank rounds available in its magazine and can then literally back away from the fight without being knocked out.

This is sort of important.
 
Belarus joins the Russian Federation promptly upon the dissolution of the Soviet Union, thus resulting in it having a significantly more substantial military force present within its territory.
 

Delta Force

Banned
How about creating the United States Space Force? The USSF would control the military space program and all relevant communications satellites, helping to consolidate all the roles, responsibilities, and programs currently managed by the USAF, USN, NRO, NASA, etc. Avoiding role duplication would lead to greater efficiencies and better intelligence distribution. Perhaps it could also consolidate cyberwarfare operations as well.
 
Some of my own:
I would order all 750-800 originally planned F-22 Raptors with all originally planned systems from the get-go (IRST, HMS etc.)This is a lot of money but you gotta buy them to get the unit price down and make spares and maintenance more affordable. This replaces all F-15s and some of the F-16s, and I would offer it to close allies like Canada, Australia, Japan etc.

Because of the above, the F-35 has to be simplified to reduce cost, meaning no F-35B and C. These variants force you to further complicate the airframe and increase weight and cost. The F-35A is now lighter, but I would add the larger wings of the F-35C and increase the sweep angle to improve range and flight performance. Also I would license build the Mauser BK-27 to replace the existing guns on both fighters

Scrap the GCV program completely and just license the Puma, put American systems in it, done. We don't need a 50+ ton IFV and designing a whole new vehicle is just reinventing the wheel.

Buy a modern frigate to replace the Perry's. Again with the reinventing the wheel, you don't need to design a whole new warship to do something only marginally better than an existing design. Buy a MEKO variant, the Type 26 or even a damn FREMM, put American systems in it, done. Oh and cancel the LCS program while we're at it.

Cancel the DDG-1000, take the systems that have been designed and put it on a conventional hull.

Start development of the F-22N to replace existing fighters. The F-14 gets multirole upgrades and the A-6F replaces current attack planes, with the A-12 coming on line in the 2020s after the F-22N has become operational. The S-3 gets upgraded, not retired and is later replaced with an SV-22 ASW Osprey.

Convert existing M16s to HK416s for improved reliability, and develop a 6.8mm version of the XM8 to eventually replace the M4/M16 family, M249, and the M110. Upgrade the M24 and chamber it for the 300 Winchester Magnum. Replace the M9 with the HK45 or similar 45 ACP pistol and buy the Vektor SMG in 45 ACP for vehicle crews and helo pilots.

More to come.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Reduce the number of tanks, fighter aircraft, and decommission a couple carriers, and reinvest the money in police officer style soft skills training and boots on the ground. We'd still be powerful enough to defeat anybody in a conventional war, but we'd be a much better counterinsurgency force.
 
I'm an Amurrican.

So.


Cut the freaking thing by roughly two thirds.


It should mostly consist of special forces "high impact" folks who can knock over anything or anyone on something like ten hours notice, give or take, maybe.

Air force = drones, drones, and the A10 Warthog.

Navy = no more aircraft carriers! Just high-speed drone-dispensers.


If we're in the kind of trouble that merits occupying a freaking country, then, it's time for the draft and national mobilization.
 
Cancel half the JAS-39 Gripen so that the SwAF can afford pilots for them.
Instead of destroying most of the surplus in the 90´s sell it.
Don´t cancel Strv-2000 and stay the f**k out of Afghanistan.
 
For Canada:

- Build the Avro Arrow
This one is so obvious it drives one nuts. Expensive? Yes. The most capable interceptor in the world at the time and fully capable of decades of RCAF service? Most definitely. Does it massively build Canada's aerospace industry instead of forcing all of them to go to the US? Again, yes sir.
- CF-104 Phantom instead of CF-104 Starfighter
So obvious it's idiotic. If possible, have Spey Phantoms and have them made in Canada by Canadair or Avro Canada. Have a competent attack aircraft force until the 1960s.
- Barbel Class in the 1960s instead of the Oberon class
The Barbel has a longer-range and better sensors. In terms of noise level its a tossup between them. These should arrive in the mid-1960s, preferably built in Canadian dockyards, and last until the SSNs replace them in the 1990s.
- Shorts Belfast instead of the Lockheed Hercules
Aside from my own intense dislike for Lockheed in every way possible, the Belfast is the better plane for the job, with a greater payload and range. Again, could be possible to make these in Canada.
- TSR-2 or F-111 in the mid to late 1960s
Both aircraft would be mighty useful for the RCAF in the 1960s as long-ranged strike aircraft, useful for the anti-Warsaw Pact roles they will undoubtedly have in the 1960s. Establish a base in Britain for these if possible. Considering Canadair's closeness with General Dynamics and McDonnell Douglas, you can get F-111s made in Canada.
- Build the CL-84 as an attack helicopter
The Americans are just coming up with the AH-1 at this point in time, take the systems of the Dynavert and integrate it into the CL-84. You have just made one of the most dangerous attack aircraft in the world. Twice the speed and 50% more range than the AH-1, and all of its capabilities as a weapon hauler.
- Replace the Bonaventure in the 1970s (Invincibles or something like them, ideally)
I think its a little much to expect Canada to stay with full-size carriers by this point, but Invincibles would be on the cards and would be a great addition to the fleet. Ideally, take the Invincible design and stretch it from 209 m to 250 m, thus giving additional room for aircraft - the shipyards can handle it, steel is cheap and you get better ships as a result. Make sure Harrier IIs come with it.
- Argus II. Make it happen.
The Canadair Argus fleet was running out of life by the end of the 1970s and needed to be replaced. The Orion wouldn't be made in Canada, the Nimrod wasn't the best plane out there. Realistically, this is where a replacement needs to be made. I'm thinking a BAe 146 airframe with British, American and Canadian electronics in it.
- Hide the Canadian Caper until we've bought Iran's Tomcats
You get great planes at a fraction of their retail price, help the Middle East a bit and still get to show off our ability to do the right thing, not to mention give a rousing "f**k you" to the mullahs. If possible, buy up the Kidd-class destroyers at the same time. Use the Tomcats to retire the Arrow, but make sure Avro Canada gets a new job to do in the meantime.
- Nuclear subs in the 1980s
Trafalgar class subs, remind the Americans that they really want our help in NATO and that it would be good for us to have these things, so don't whine so much about it. If it'll get 'em to shut up, equip them with Mark 48 torpedoes and sub-launched Harpoons and Tomahawks.
- Better tanks in the 1980s (Leopard 2, Challenger 2 or M1 Abrams)
The Leopard C1 was obsolete by 1990. Better to get a good tank design and build it in our own plants, so that we can make more if needed.
- The Polar 8 Icebreakers
The biggest and baddest icebreakers in the world are the sort of thing that Canada should have. We need to be able to guard the Northwest Passage, and while the SSNs are good for defending it, the Polar 8s would make it quite obvious who owns it. If the SSNs are on deck at the same time, have the Polar 8s run on nuclear reactors as originally planned, and make sure they have the helicopters and hovercraft for them to work properly.
- Buy the AW101s in the 1990s
The AW101 cancellation was dumb IMO, and the helicopter has been able to be modified into multiple roles with different purposes, which is always a benefit for the fleet. 75 AW101s for Navy ASW, 20 for Search and Rescue and 15 for Arctic operations.
- Replace the Iroquois class destroyers in the late 1990s
By the 1990s they are obsolete, and Canada needed new ships by this point. The Kidds would probably work for a while for air-defense. By the late 1990s, though, we'd need something better - and at this point, AEGIS ships are in the cards. I'm thinking something similar to the Japanese Atago class, but with the hull lengthened in the tail for a larger helicopter hangar and helicopter deck.
- V-22 Osprey. Buy it.
All development problems aside, the Osprey is the best damn thing Canada could have for its Search and Rescue abilities. Having Canada involved in its development (hell, how about having more of NATO know about it) might allow us to help with development costs and perhaps some of the problems. This assumes, of course, that nobody developed the Dynavert design into a troop hauler in the meantime....
 
  • Avoid the idiotic service rivalries that dominated the post war period and have periodically done so ever since.
  • Use the same aircraft across services when it makes sense, don’t when it makes no sense. Use a single airframe whenever possible. There is no need to keep F-106 squadrons in service when the F-14 comes into service. You do not need the F-105 when the F4 Phantom exists. How many types of attack aircraft do you really need? On the other side of the ledger, don’t try to force fit things that make no damned sense (naval version of the F-111 ringing bells?).

On those two notes I would like to add my two cents worth. The US Army gets the majority of the A-10's with a few squadrons going to the Marine air wings. I know it is not carrier capable, but not every Marine air mission needs to fly off of a carrier and it is an excellent ground support aircraft, and if there is one thing that Marine Air Wings do good it is ground support.
 
My thread on alternate military procurements gave me the idea for this thread. Starting after the end of WWII, you can do anything you think would improve the military of your birth country or the country you are living in currently.

Its not something I WANT, but as a challenge its pretty easy. Canada was a major military power at the end of the war but we disarmed so much that it became extremely difficult to field anything. Just play it like the US, keep a noticeable portion of the GDP into defense, maintain the very nice fleet and the carrier we had then; for heavens sake fund the hell of the Arrow and turn Bombardier into a major aeronautics pillar of our very own military-industrial complex, and export that kickass jet. Do not sign the NPT and argue (easily) with the US and GB that Canada's military standing and position as a now-major NATO contributor makes it only reasonable for the country to be a full member of the nuclear club, if necessary by playing up the Soviet threat. Get involved more in all the wars with these toys to keep these forces experienced and battle-ready.

This is anathema to my personal RL views, but if I was playing Canada in a strategy game in this period (like I will in Paradox' East Vs West, for instance), that'd be the plan. In 1945, Canada has a pretty strong hand militarily given the size of its population. If you wanna be a mini US, these are the things to do with the country.
 
Its not something I WANT, but as a challenge its pretty easy. Canada was a major military power at the end of the war but we disarmed so much that it became extremely difficult to field anything. Just play it like the US, keep a noticeable portion of the GDP into defense, maintain the very nice fleet and the carrier we had then; for heavens sake fund the hell of the Arrow and turn Bombardier into a major aeronautics pillar of our very own military-industrial complex, and export that kickass jet. Do not sign the NPT and argue (easily) with the US and GB that Canada's military standing and position as a now-major NATO contributor makes it only reasonable for the country to be a full member of the nuclear club, if necessary by playing up the Soviet threat. Get involved more in all the wars with these toys to keep these forces experienced and battle-ready.

This is anathema to my personal RL views, but if I was playing Canada in a strategy game in this period (like I will in Paradox' East Vs West, for instance), that'd be the plan. In 1945, Canada has a pretty strong hand militarily given the size of its population. If you wanna be a mini US, these are the things to do with the country.

Other than the nuclear weapons, I'm guessing you agree with what I said above, then? :)
 
Other than the nuclear weapons, I'm guessing you agree with what I said above, then? :)

If by agree, you mean I hate it all but it would all make sense if we were trying to play USA-lite, sure. I agree. :p

Honestly I responded directly to the OP without reading the whole thread so I had missed your post, but yeah. Fits pretty well.

I do consider nuclear weapons to be a smart investment if you're going to be a military power. It's an easy way to underscore your independence. Given our geostrategic position, the only plausible future threats from state actors come from nuclear powers (Russia, and even though its not the case now, potentially the US) - so if you wanna invest in a bad-boy military, you need nuclear weapons to be able to stare them down. Surely we're not going to waste 5% of our GDP JUST to help the US in THEIR wars without thinking about our actual defense.
 
Top