What if

Okay, so you the new defense minister of a reasonably wealthy country that once had a very large and very well-equipped military.  Organized and trained by some of the worst of Hitler's ex-cronies your country's military leadership ran the country in a brutal but effective junta and started a major build-up post-WWII with the latest in military hardware.  In the 1960s, the junta launched a devastating war of aggression against its neighbors, aimed at securing more resources and expanding its borders.  Your country's leadership waited until the US was thoroughly distracted by Vietnam and the USSR was dealing with Czechoslovakia and your military lashed out, quickly gaining ground winning a string of military victories, all in the name of nationalism.  It wasn't long, however, before all arms imports were embargoed to your country and soon, even non-military supplies as well.  The offensive ground to a halt and your neighbors, spurred on by new arms purchases of their own, quickly pushed your army back.  In a matter of months, your country's army had inflicted grievous losses on the enemy but were pushed back to a last-stand at the capital where the last vestiges of a once-proud army were wiped out

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F9%2F9b%2FT-55A_Martial_law_Poland.jpg&hash=a6d75671b5ba6ce461fd304b0ddb169270af681b)

The victims of your countries aggression soon returned the favor.  The occupation became brutal to the point where the UN intervened to prevent further abuses.  A multi-national UN force was soon created to occupy your country and protect your countrymen from your vengeful neighbors.  As the aggressor, the terms visited upon your country following the war and signed off on by a puppet government were not kind.  No air force or navy of any kind was to be allowed for the next 40 years.  Only a coast guard and gendarmerie would be allowed until January 1, 2010 and they were allowed to have no aircraft, no tanks, and no missiles, rockets, or artillery with a range greater than 10km.  They were also not allowed any armed helicopters, submarines, or ships over 1000 tonnes (empty).  Finally, your nation's military would be forced to abide by certain other restrictions after 2010.  In what was called the 40/20 Rule, your air force would not be allowed to operate any aircraft TYPE that had its first flight after January 1, 1970 (the date the treaty went into action) or that was still in production on January 1, 1990.  In other words, no aircraft types that were first flown less than 40 years ago or were still being built 20 years ago.  These dates would only roll forward every 10 years, so--for example--the F-14 would not be an option until 2020.  Likewise. your army could operate no armored vehicle types produced within the past 20 years, and your navy could not operate any ship launched within the past 30 years.  Finally, no member of your armed forces prior to 1970 would be allowed to ever serve your nation's military forces again.

The UN, concerned with these terms and wary of the result of the treaty of Versailles exactly 50 years early, did its best to help encourage a democratic government, rebuild your shattered infrastructure, and setup a UN-organized defense force for your country until 2010.  In return, your country established positive relations with much of the world and your gendarmes became renowned around the world for their professionalism on UN missions around the world.  The UN imported security into your country and you exported peace.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Freslib%2F200810%2Fr308209_1350825.jpg&hash=2664d66f4b47c83c4d0a492692082e55de7e7284)

Unfortunately, the goodwill shown by much of world to your country in the four decades after the devastating war your nation started only poured salt into the wounds of your neighbors.  Unrestricted, they constantly built up their armed forces, waiting for the day the UN would leave your nation and they could exact their revenge.  Their rhetoric of revenge and retribution made them political pariahs, but their money and spending habits made them arms expo gold mines.  The world may have condemned their blood lust, but that didn't mean they wouldn't sell them all the latest and greatest arms money could buy.

___________________________________________


So, January 1, 2010 is right around the corner and on that date you can start rebuilding your armed forces.  With the rules below, what do your armed forces look like?

Rules from 1970 Treaty:

1. No aircraft or helicopter types that first flew after January 1st, 1970
2. No aircraft or helicopter types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 1990*
3. No combat aircraft with an empty weight greater than 50,000 kg
4. No armored vehicle types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 1990*
5. No ships launched after January 1st, 1980

Alternate timeline rules:

6. You can upgrade as much as you like
7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades
8. Number of aircraft/vehicles/ships limited to actual numbers built
9. Assume equipment has been stored since it was decommissioned or that it will be decommission and transferred to your country on January 1st, 2010

* - We'll be lenient here.  No aircraft or vehicles with major production after January 1st, 1990.  Limited production (S-64 Skycrane, for example) or aircraft assembled from existing parts after 1990 won't disqualify the type, but don't assume you'll get the ones built after that date--you won't.


(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airweaassn.org%2FLibrary%2FAircraft%2Fboneyard%2FIMG_6639.jpg&hash=a3a5c5223230a374a81e90cc099870c722eac563)

So, here's a few examples of things that won't work and why:

F-14 Tomcats (Rule #1)
C-130 Hercules (Rule #2)
Tu-95 (Rules #2 & #3)
M270 MLRS (Rule #4)
USS Stark (Rule #5)
Avro Vulcan w/ F119s (Rule #7)
Short Belfast (Rule #8)

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FxpCyhF8.jpg&hash=7e4a39609063d1498ffc3f5ddf1862855a7f97df)



I've seen a lot of the "make your own air force" but they always have the latest, greatest, top of the line stuff.  Here's something that should honor those designs that were really good, but often get overlooked.

So, what would you equip your military with?  Post as few or as many examples as you like.  Do a whole military, just an air force, or just a single type that you think would really shine.


Cheers,

Logan

Hello Logan,
When I read the heading of your thread, I got this strange but amusing idea in my head. "Geriatric air force....hmmm?
I got this vision of F-14's and some F-4's, converted for wheelchair access, their canopies made from highly magnifying glass, the radio's made that bit louder and have a say again button on the panel. The ejector seat/wheelchair would have a built in catheter and tablet dispenser.
The aircraft would be fitted with an airborne as well as ground version of parking sensors. The pilots would be of questionable  age, fitness, mental solvency, and have bad eating and social manners.
This wing of specialist pilots would be called.....
"THE JOLLY CODGERS"!!!
I will get my coat on my way out :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Chris.

Your mention of the UN piqued my interest more than the fictitious nation. I've had a UN aircraft planned for a couple of years now, and this looks like a good time to kick-start that project.

EDIT: It would also fit into the used aircraft theme too.

awesome!!!!!

To many idea head about to explode!!!!!!! :bow:

Would upgraded Skyhawks be permissable?  I'm thinking of a combination of the Kahu upgrade in systems combined with the re-engining that Singapore did.  I can see those as certainly part of a good airarm.  Beyond that, what could be done with, say, upgraded Hunters (at least in equipment fit, say the final F.58 equipment fit with the centerline rack that Singapore, ISTR, developed).  Beyond that, I'd have to give it further thought.

So many sub-questions to ask, like is this based on real world availability?  Would be hard to outfit a force with types no longer in service anywhere else, ie gone from the supply chain.   I guess I would try and kit my Airforce with Mig-21 Bizons and Mig-23 & 27s from Yemen and India as they are phased out from their respective countries, then upgrade them to the 9s, with Israeli and Russian avionics.  AA-12 Amraamski missles, and R73s, or Python 4s.    HAL HJT-16 Kirans for jet training and light strike, as India is also about to phase those.

Helicopters- woosh, is this even possible? Nearly all of the first turbine powered helicopters are still being built as evolutions, Ie  UH-1, Mi-8,  Mi-2
I guess try to snatch up all Westland Wessex / Turbine Choctaws out there.

Quote from: frinklemur on October 07, 2009, 10:13:52 PM
So many sub-questions to ask, like is this based on real world availability?

No.  As long as X number were built, feel free to use up to that amount.  As if the original user treated them kindly (but got good use out of them) then stored them away in hopes that you'd pick them up when you could.  So, in other words, you can't pick something like the F-111B and say "give me 500", but the Buccaneer is free game even though many have been lost or scrapped (as if the country that used them thought of you and kept them safe until you could consider them).

Quote from: frinklemur on October 07, 2009, 10:13:52 PMHelicopters- woosh, is this even possible? Nearly all of the first turbine powered helicopters are still being built as evolutions, Ie  UH-1, Mi-8,  Mi-2
I guess try to snatch up all Westland Wessex / Turbine Choctaws out there.

See, this is where it got fun for me.  The Wessex is the first one I thought of, but I think the Sea King should qualify since production closed just about on 1990 as far as I know.

A few other good ones are the Mi-6 and CH-54/S-64.  The best assault helicopter that I could think of that should qualify, however, would be the CH-46 Sea Knight.  A versatile and reliable trooper, its production line was shut down by 1990, too.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F6%2F6c%2FCh-46e.jpg&hash=3424e9a304ddad668b5fbacab5966d866d7dd1f8)

Again, it forced me to think outside of the box and remember the old stalwarts from the 60s and 70s that would still be useful today.

Cheers

woould love some Skyraiders , Phantoms , A 26 , etc

40 squadrons of Phantoms but would the World really like them ?

Mirage III or 5 should work.  I'm sure that France would be happy to supply them & there were plenty about, so a modest air force should be possible.  Kfir & Cheetah are out, because of the time lines.

The venerable old Dak comes to mind, still flying all over the world.  Is the Basler BT-67 possible, more of an engine swap than any significant upgrade?

Armour wise, Centurion or T-64 would be a good option.  Again, plenty about.

Well if the UN is flexible over production marks as well as types we could fly

VC10
Tristar
Nimrod MR2
Hercules C1 & 3
Puma HC1
Commando
Sea King
Gazelle

and by 2014 add in Tornado and Hawk.

Imagine having to fly and support that load of geriatrics, let alone fight any wars

:banghead:

Quote from: Mossie on October 08, 2009, 03:20:33 AM
Kfir & Cheetah are out, because of the time lines.

The venerable old Dak comes to mind, still flying all over the world.  Is the Basler BT-67 possible, more of an engine swap than any significant upgrade?

Armour wise, Centurion or T-64 would be a good option.  Again, plenty about.

Kfir and Cheetah are perfect.  What matters is the airframes.  If they were upgraded after 1990, that's fine, but all of them were produced before.  Those were two of the main ones I was thinking of when doing this.  The Basler is another one I was thinking of.  Why wouldn't it be ok?  It doesn't matter when the upgrade happened, as long as the type wasn't produced after 1990.

Centurion and T-64 are perfect for the vehicles.  Lots of great upgrades for both that would make them a tough nut for even Abrams and T-90s to crack.

Quote from: GeorgeC on October 08, 2009, 03:34:16 AM
Well if the UN is flexible over production marks as well as types we could fly

VC10
Tristar (Rule #1: first flew after 1/1/1970)
Nimrod MR2
Hercules C1 & 3 (Rule #2: the basic type/airframe was in production after 1990)
Puma HC1 (Rule #2)
Commando
Sea King
Gazelle (Rule #2)

and by 2014 add in Tornado and Hawk. (Actually, it's 2020 before they become available and Hawk not even then, since it's still in production.)

Imagine having to fly and support that load of geriatrics, let alone fight any wars

:banghead:

Yeah, again, this kind of what got me started thinking about it.  Thinking about all the old US & UK types still out there.

Cheers,

Logan

Does this set of rules mean that any indigenous industry is out of question?

Like reverse engineering those type that fit the "timeframe" rules and later apply some radical modifications (a bit like what the PRC did with their J-6 and J-7)?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 08, 2009, 07:39:11 AM
Does this set of rules mean that any indigenous industry is out of question?

Like reverse engineering those type that fit the "timeframe" rules and later apply some radical modifications (a bit like what the PRC did with their J-6 and J-7)?

Since the country is fictitious, yes, for all intensive purposes it rules out indigenous industry.  I'm fine with you saying that your fictitious nation will make spare widgets and handle the labor/assembly involved in any upgrade, but development work and initial construction would have to be done by real-world nations.  Be aware, however, that some types age better than others.  Some aircraft become real maintenance queens as they get older.

So, upgrades like new wings, new engines, etc. would need to have been at least proposed and you wouldn't get to use new-build examples.  The J-7 is definitely out because it was still in production after 1990 and I'm tempted to say the MiG-21 would be out because of it.  I'd say it's up to everyone else, but definitely no Chinese-built MiG-21 variants.  Likewise, I'm willing to say the MiG-19 and J-6 are okay, but definitely not on the Q-5 for the same production reasons.  I think the whole MiG-21, An-12, and Tu-16 lines should be taken out because they were still being upgraded and produced by China long after 1990.

I did the 1990 rule so everyone didn't just go out and pick boring C-130s, Super 7s, Jaguars, Hueys, Cobras, and Mi-17s.  We all know the greats that have been built for decades and decades, but what about the reliable oldies that lasted long after their parent companies had died out?


A-7
MiG-25
CH-46
Buccaneer
An-22
Sea King

There are some neat types out there that I think would still be very valuable today.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:42:09 AM
Kfir and Cheetah are perfect.  What matters is the airframes.  If they were upgraded after 1990, that's fine, but all of them were produced before.  Those were two of the main ones I was thinking of when doing this.  The Basler is another one I was thinking of.  Why wouldn't it be ok?  It doesn't matter when the upgrade happened, as long as the type wasn't produced after 1990.

Centurion and T-64 are perfect for the vehicles.  Lots of great upgrades for both that would make them a tough nut for even Abrams and T-90s to crack.

Get you.  I'd read the asterisk comment & not quite understood.  The Cheetah should count as an upgraded aircraft, but I'm not sure about the Kfirs.  I believe the Kfirs were all built in Israel & didn't enter service until the mid 70's?  Some might have been upgraded Neshers, but I can't confirm this after a quick web search.

Yeah, but the Kfir is still fine.  What matters is that the basic airframe (the Mirage III/5) first flew before 1970.  The initial Kfirs were even converted Mirages.  It doesn't matter if the production ran past 1970, as long as it wasn't still going after 1990.

Basically, the idea of the treaty would be an attempt to keep your opponent obsolete, weak, and vulnerable.  As the new defense minister, your job is to prevent just that, with violating the treaty.  The question is, can you?  Is it too much?

Cheers,

Logan

To nitpick, An-12 is on the same boat as the MiG-21 (in production with the PRC as the Y-8).

Quote from: dy031101 on October 08, 2009, 10:28:08 AM
To nitpick, An-12 is on the same boat as the MiG-21 (in production with the PRC as the Y-8).

Nitpick away.  That was a typo on my part.  I meant An-22.  Like I said above that list, An-12 should be disqualified for the very reason you mentioned.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 08:52:54 AM
I think the whole MiG-21, An-12, and Tu-16 lines should be taken out because they were still being upgraded and produced by China long after 1990.

Cheers,

Logan

Let me try with Fighter/Bombers bttb:

Boeing Enhanced Phantom: taking airframes from USAF surplus: equiped with AMRAAMs
Mirage III NG
The Mirage F1 you include a pic (beautiful camo BTW)
Saab Draken powered by J-79

IMO they would make a acredible Air Force even for today's standards.

That's what I'm talking about.

I think a Super Phantom 2000 would be one of the best fighters you could get in this scenario, though I'm sure they'd cost a pretty penny (not that cost is a huge factor here)!

The Draken is fine, but why not the Viggen?  It fits.  Its production wrapped up in 1990.

The Mirage F-1 is fine plane by any standards and great for this.

That's what we're shooting for here.  Can you make a credible air force in this day and age even with the 40/20 handicap?  I think it takes some creativity, but you could do it.

Cheers,

Logan

The Helis.com Database is useful on the rotary wing front:
http://www.helis.com/database/manufacturer/

I think that leaves us the C-160 as the tactical airlifter.

Is there to be a dictinction between Bell 205 family and Bell 212/412 family for the purpose of this thread?

Canberras! B(I).8s and PR.9s for all your bombing and recce needs. :thumbsup:

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 10:55:24 AM
why not the Viggen?  It fits.  Its production wrapped up in 1990.

Well, I am a whif maniac. I do not know about any program to upgrade Viggen, in a some cool way. :banghead:

When did the production of Harbin H-5 last until?

I'm thinking...... that avionics and weapons testbed meant to benefit the JH-7 development......  :wacko:

Quote from: dy031101 on October 08, 2009, 11:48:00 AM
I think that leaves us the C-160 as the tactical airlifter.

I agree that that's one of the few really good ones.  There's also the DHC-5 Buffalo on the lighter end and the Argosy for the slightly heavier end.  The C-141, Belfast, An-22, and C-5 Galaxy.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 08, 2009, 11:48:00 AM
Is there to be a dictinction between Bell 205 family and Bell 212/412 family for the purpose of this thread?

Not in my opinion.  Certain variants of the two are more similar than not.

There've been some good ones mentioned so far.

Cheers,

Logan

For fighters I'd say the F-4 is as good as its going to get, however as mentioned earlier they may be a bit costly so perhaps a high low mix of F-4's and F-104S, or F-5's simillarly upgraded.
As for Strike A-4's for light attack and CAS, perhaps A-6's if a heavier punch in desired.

Craig

The A-4's a major one I was hoping someone would bring up.  The A-4SU would be a smashing light fighter.  Likewise, the A-6F and a similar variant of the EA-6B would be great.

The F-5S or F-5EM are both high on my list for aircraft I want, but do the Azarakhsh and Sa'eqeh disqualify the F-5E, you think?  I don't think I'd call the Azarakhsh and Sa'eqeh "in production" yet, because I think those are mostly assembled from existing parts and production is so low-rate at the moment to be in about the same category as the S-64, Grumman Goose, or DHC-5.  What do you guys think?  As long as we keep the new-builds out of the running, is the F-5E still game?

Cheers,

Logan

I should go too for the cheetahs with AMRAAM, ASRAAM, JDAM and paveway IV. I know they produced under 100 examples though... so when you mention production numbers are referred to french deltas generally or cheetahs in particular?. I would need at least 300 to be competitive

When I first read this, I thought that it was a pretty severe handicap.  Now I think about it more, it's quite possible to get a credible armed forces.  Quantity rather than quality might be the way to go if your neighbours have more modern equipment.  Getting large numbers of any given type might be the most difficult thing, but not impossible.  A hodge-podge of variants would probably be likley, but several nations have done or do that, IIRC Turkey took F-4's from all sorts of sources.

For a recce force, U-2's or the Canberra's pyro mentioned would fit in.  Logan, your suggestion of MiG-25's could add to this too.

If you wanted a command & control system, you could stick modern equipment in a whole host of 60's airliners. 707 & E-3 just about gets in, production of civil variations stopped in 1978.  Military production carried on until 1991 although most of these were conversions of civil aircraft.  727, Comet, BAC-111, Tu-134, could all be upgraded as either transports or spooks.

One that surprised me is that the Tu-22 Blinder sneaks in under the weight limit.

When I first read this, I thought that it was a pretty severe handicap.  Now I think about it more, it's quite possible to get a credible armed forces.  Quantity rather than quality might be the way to go if your neighbours have more modern equipment.  Getting large numbers of any given type might be the most difficult thing, but not impossible.  A hodge-podge of variants would probably be likley, but several nations have done or do that, IIRC Turkey took F-4's from all sorts of sources.

For a recce force, U-2's, RA-5's or the Canberra's pyro mentioned would fit in.  Logan, your suggestion of MiG-25's could add to this too.

If you wanted a command & control system, you could stick modern equipment in a whole host of 60's airliners. 707 & E-3 just about gets in, production of civil variations stopped in 1978.  Military production carried on until 1991 although most of these were conversions of civil aircraft.  727, Comet, BAC-111, Tu-134 & plenty of others could all be upgraded as either transports or spooks.

Fokker Freindship/Troopship would fit, Dash 7 too.  The Andover/HS 748 would work too, I thought the BAe ATP might render it inelligible but it was pretty much thought of as a new aircraft.

One that surprised me is that the Tu-22 Blinder sneaks in under the weight limit.  This thread definately gets you thinking Logan! :thumbsup:

The Viggen occured to me too: strike, fighter and recce types all on one airframe, and most of them retired on repalcement grounds rather than wear and tear. The Swedes upgraded a couple of squadrons to JAS-37 standard whilst waiting for Gripens: no reason that program couldn't have extended to another 100 airframes at least.

IAI were offering a Kfir C10 with an afterburning F404 for a while, but got no takers. That would be an excellent partner to an A4SUKahu with dry F404 and APG-66. With an Elta 2022 radar on the Kfir, you could carry Derby AAMs... :wacko:

Mossie: Pakistan took Mirages from all over the place in much the same way as Turkey took Phantoms.

Very, very cool idea, Logan! :bow: Some, no, a lot of my favourite aircraft are from that era.

Quote from: Mossie on October 08, 2009, 02:45:57 PM
When I first read this, I thought that it was a pretty severe handicap.  Now I think about it more, it's quite possible to get a credible armed forces.  Quantity rather than quality might be the way to go if your neighbours have more modern equipment.  Getting large numbers of any given type might be the most difficult thing, but not impossible.  A hodge-podge of variants would probably be likley, but several nations have done or do that, IIRC Turkey took F-4's from all sorts of sources.

Quantity might be one solution, but a better way to think about this would be like a modern equivalent of Finland in the Winter War.  Outdated equipment but good, reliable equipment put to good use, upgraded as necessary, and--most importantly--handled well.

Quote from: Mossie on October 08, 2009, 02:45:57 PM
For a recce force, U-2's, RA-5's or the Canberra's pyro mentioned would fit in.  Logan, your suggestion of MiG-25's could add to this too.

All very good, but you've forgotten the greatest spy plane of all time.  The SR-71 qualifies.

Quote from: Mossie on October 08, 2009, 02:45:57 PM
If you wanted a command & control system, you could stick modern equipment in a whole host of 60's airliners. 707 & E-3 just about gets in, production of civil variations stopped in 1978.  Military production carried on until 1991 although most of these were conversions of civil aircraft.  727, Comet, BAC-111, Tu-134 & plenty of others could all be upgraded as either transports or spooks.

That's one thing that I was trying to determine.  When was the last new-build 707-related airframe built?  I know a number of E-3s and others were delivered after 1990.  The last airframe?

You could convert DC-8s, too.  They'd work just as well, if not better.  They're in far more extensive civilian service currently, so they sure can last (and economically, too).

Quote from: Mossie on October 08, 2009, 02:45:57 PM
One that surprised me is that the Tu-22 Blinder sneaks in under the weight limit.  This thread definately gets you thinking Logan! :thumbsup:

That is a good one!  I hadn't thought of it.  Thanks, Mossie.  I thought people would like it if they could make it through the lengthy back-story and rules!  It's really simple once you grasp it and think of some examples.

Quote from: Weaver on October 08, 2009, 03:17:37 PM
IAI were offering a Kfir C10 with an afterburning F404 for a while, but got no takers. That would be an excellent partner to an A4SUKahu with dry F404 and APG-66. With an Elta 2022 radar on the Kfir, you could carry Derby AAMs... :wacko:

Don't forget, the A-6F would compliment those well, too.

Cheers,

Logan

I can see some F-8 Crusaders getting new engines and AMRAAM capability.  Or perhaps some F-104's modified into Lancers, CL1200.  Maybe reengined F-84's with Lantirn pods for N/AW attack.

Sounds like some fun possiblities.

Ed

If airframes, armor, etc has to fit the rules, wouldn't munitions, powerplants, etc also have to conform?

Quote from: philp on October 08, 2009, 06:10:25 PM
If airframes, armor, etc has to fit the rules, wouldn't munitions, powerplants, etc also have to conform?

No, the age restrictions were inspired by the naval regulations placed on Germany after WWI.  It's forcing them to stick with old hulls/chassis/airframes.  It would be to difficult to monitor components.

It's also far more difficult and less fun to play using those restrictions, as well.

Cheers,

Logan

OK, I'll play...

First of all I want to maximize the airframes with the best engines and electronics.  Since we're servicing older airframes, I'd want a limited number of different types of modern engines to simplify logistics and reduce engine maintenance.  I'll try to compensate for possibly excessive maintenance on the older airframes by using "low" maintenance modern engines.

Engines (for the bulk of the force) I'll settle on are the GE F414, PW1120 and GE F110.  When the next decade rolls over we will be ready for F-14D's & A-10's.

A-4's: buy up all A-4M's, A-4N's, OA-4M's and many TA-4J's as soon as the USMC, USN & Israelis retire them.  This should yield about 275 single seat, late production A-4's and 50 two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on F414 engines & APG-66s and other Kahu/A-4SU upgrades.  These upgraded A-4 Super Skyhawks would be the backbone of the Air Forces.  They will primarily tasked of light fighter/attack, precision strike and CAS missions. 

Mirage F.1: buy up 125 late production Mirage F.1's.  110 single seat and 15 two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on PW1120 engines & RDY400 and other Mirage F.1 & Mirage F.1CT upgrades proposed (and done) for French, Moroccan and Spanish aircraft.  They will primarily tasked of light multi-role fighter, and fighter interceptor missions.

A-7's: buy up 50 A-7D's and 10 TA-7K's.  Run them through an A-7F type upgrade program centered on F110 engines & other A-7F upgrades proposed.  They will primarily tasked of medium attack fighter, precision strike and interdiction missions.

F-4E's: buy up 60 late production F-4E's. Run them through a hybrid Kurnass 2000/Boeing Super Phantom upgrade program using PW1120 engines, updated radar and electronics.  They will primarily tasked of heavy multi-role fighter/bomber, precision strike and fighter interceptor missions.

These four will be the main force.  Other types in use are NA OV-10D+ w/ PT6 engines, DHC-5 transports, Martin SP-5 and Lockheed P-2 Neptune not sure how I'll update the last 3 but definitely new engines.

I'm not as familiar w/ armor but I think the Panhard AML-90 should work.  I've always thought it looked like a lotta whup-a$& in a small package.

:cheers: and Happy modeling, Bryan   
   

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:42:09 AM

Quote from: GeorgeC on October 08, 2009, 03:34:16 AM
Well if the UN is flexible over production marks as well as types we could fly

VC10
Tristar (Rule #1: first flew after 1/1/1970)
Nimrod MR2
Hercules C1 & 3 (Rule #2: the basic type/airframe was in production after 1990)
Puma HC1 (Rule #2)
Commando
Sea King
Gazelle (Rule #2)

and by 2014 add in Tornado and Hawk. (Actually, it's 2020 before they become available and Hawk not even then, since it's still in production.)

Imagine having to fly and support that load of geriatrics, let alone fight any wars

:banghead:

Yeah, again, this kind of what got me started thinking about it.  Thinking about all the old US & UK types still out there.

Cheers,

Logan

Do you work for HM Treasury....   ;D

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:53:55 PM
That's one thing that I was trying to determine.  When was the last new-build 707-related airframe built?  I know a number of E-3s and others were delivered after 1990.  The last airframe?

Late 80's, IIRC(1988 or 1989 come to mind, but I'm not sure on that). Last airframe was a RAF E-3D.

Bryan H., I like your proposal. I'm thinking what I'd do, I'll post it later(probably on saturday).

How about the Su-15? I haven't read the thread in detail, but I don't think it's been mentioned yet. It fits the criteria, but it depends on whether or not there's a need in a modern air force for an out-an-out interceptor. Another advantage is that there were a number of documented proposals to upgrade it.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:53:55 PM

All very good, but you've forgotten the greatest spy plane of all time.  The SR-71 qualifies.

I'd deliberately left it out as I thought it was a bit of a push.  It's a very specialised aircraft & very complex.  I thought the MiG-25 would be a better option if you wanted a very high performance recce platform from a logistics & political wrangling point of view.  If I was Genreal I'd be thinking twice about it if the US offered them.  Fits the rules nicely though.

Is M60 (the tank) eligible?

Thinking some more about this...

Since I've already bought F-4E's, I'll also go for some RF-4E's and F-4G's.  They will be put through the same engine upgrades as the F-4E's.  The electronics and avionics upgrades will be modified to fit the reconnaissance & Wild Weasel/SEAD missions.

Aermacchi MB.326G: Armed Jet Trainer, I'm not sure of what upgrades these should have.

Boeing 707 based support fleet:  KC-135R tankers, E-3 AWACS, EC-135 Elint/Sigint/EW platforms and plush civvie 707 VIP transport – again for simplicity all will have CFM56 turbofans

S-3 Viking: mostly S-3B variants, but also some ES-3B's.  Keep the TF34's, the planned A-10's for next year will have the same engine.

Fiat G.91R's: This project will be a challenge due to the small size of the airframe.  Upgraded w/F414 (slightly larger than the Orpheus) some "minor" redesign of the fuselage but I'm sure the international monitors won't notice.  ;D  Electronics will also be upgraded.

Of course, as mentioned earlier in the thread, due to the geriatric air force's equipment disadvantage, training will be of paramount importance.  Pilots and ground crews will need to be highly trained and skillful.  In addition to participation in UN operations, our air forces will participate in "Red Flag" and other international exercises as much as possible to maintain a "fighting edge."

Also thinking some more,  I think the country really needs a national airline (ie. TAME, Aeroflot or Air Canada), strictly to serve civilian & commercial interests...  ;D  Travelers generally like modern current production aircraft – safety considerations you know.  I don't think the FAA or equivalent agencies world-wide would approve of ricketty, ragged-out old planes flying into their airports.  Main types in use will be Boeing 737, CASA CN235 and Pilatus PC-6

:cheers: and happy modeling, Bryan

The Grumman EA-6B was in production until mid-1991and A-6 production ended in 1990.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 08, 2009, 10:35:12 PM
Engines (for the bulk of the force) I'll settle on are the GE F414, PW1120 and GE F110.  When the next decade rolls over we will be ready for F-14D's & A-10's.

A-4's: buy up all A-4M's, A-4N's, OA-4M's and many TA-4J's as soon as the USMC, USN & Israelis retire them.  This should yield about 275 single seat, late production A-4's and 50 two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on F414 engines & APG-66s and other Kahu/A-4SU upgrades.  These upgraded A-4 Super Skyhawks would be the backbone of the Air Forces.  They will primarily tasked of light fighter/attack, precision strike and CAS missions. 

Mirage F.1: buy up 125 late production Mirage F.1's.  110 single seat and 15 two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on PW1120 engines & RDY400 and other Mirage F.1 & Mirage F.1CT upgrades proposed (and done) for French, Moroccan and Spanish aircraft.  They will primarily tasked of light multi-role fighter, and fighter interceptor missions.

A-7's: buy up 50 A-7D's and 10 TA-7K's.  Run them through an A-7F type upgrade program centered on F110 engines & other A-7F upgrades proposed.  They will primarily tasked of medium attack fighter, precision strike and interdiction missions.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 09, 2009, 06:55:45 AM
Fiat G.91R's: This project will be a challenge due to the small size of the airframe.  Upgraded w/F414 (slightly larger than the Orpheus) some "minor" redesign of the fuselage but I'm sure the international monitors won't notice.  ;D  Electronics will also be upgraded.

Maybe I'm just not aware of these proposed upgrades, but I'd more likely guess that you're forgetting rule #7.

7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades

You can fit F404s to all of your A-4s (I'd recommend it), but I'm not aware of any F414 development work.  I'm also not aware of any proposal to refit the engine on the Mirage F.1 with the PW1120.  I'm certain there was no proposal to put F414s in G.91s.  Just go with the G.91Y if you want more power.  Were there any other re-engining proposals for the G.91?

I know the A-7F had a proposal for the F110 instead of the F100, so that's a go.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 08, 2009, 10:35:12 PM
...Lockheed P-2 Neptune not sure how I'll update the last 3 but definitely new engines.

How about a variant of the P2V-Kai with T64s?

Quote from: GeorgeC on October 09, 2009, 03:23:51 AM
Do you work for HM Treasury....   ;D

Yeah, sorry to be a spoil-sport.  If I worked for the Treasury, maybe you wouldn't get those!

Quote from: gral_rj on October 09, 2009, 03:31:38 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:53:55 PM
That's one thing that I was trying to determine.  When was the last new-build 707-related airframe built?  I know a number of E-3s and others were delivered after 1990.  The last airframe?

Late 80's, IIRC(1988 or 1989 come to mind, but I'm not sure on that). Last airframe was a RAF E-3D.

Bryan H., I like your proposal. I'm thinking what I'd do, I'll post it later(probably on saturday).

Thanks.  Welcome, Gral.  I look forward to your proposal.

Quote from: Merv_P on October 09, 2009, 03:38:59 AM
How about the Su-15? I haven't read the thread in detail, but I don't think it's been mentioned yet. It fits the criteria, but it depends on whether or not there's a need in a modern air force for an out-an-out interceptor. Another advantage is that there were a number of documented proposals to upgrade it.

Sure, that would fit.  I'm surprised no-ones gone for F-106s or Lightnings yet, to be honest.

Quote from: Mossie on October 09, 2009, 04:47:24 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 08, 2009, 05:53:55 PM
All very good, but you've forgotten the greatest spy plane of all time.  The SR-71 qualifies.

I'd deliberately left it out as I thought it was a bit of a push.  It's a very specialised aircraft & very complex.  I thought the MiG-25 would be a better option if you wanted a very high performance recce platform from a logistics & political wrangling point of view.  If I was Genreal I'd be thinking twice about it if the US offered them.  Fits the rules nicely though.

I can fully understand that.  I'd give it second and third thoughts, as well.  I just thought it was an option.

Quote from: ysi_maniac on October 09, 2009, 05:44:38 AM
Is M60 (the tank) eligible?

Can't think of why it wouldn't be.


I just thought of another good tactical transport that would qualify.  The C-123T Turbo Provider with T56 engines.  I think that and the Transall C-160 are probably the two best tactical transports available in this scenario.  They quickly get a lot bigger (Argosy - not bad, C-141, Belfast, and An-22 - all good, but very big).

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on October 09, 2009, 08:06:42 AM
The Grumman EA-6B was in production until mid-1991and A-6 production ended in 1990.

Really?  I read that the last EA-6Bs were delivered in 1991-92 but that the production line shut down in 1989 (having manufactured the last airframe then).  If it's 1990-92 then it would be disqualified, but I'd love to nail this one down.

Cheers,

Logan

The F414 is an evolution of the F404.  According to wikipedia, "GE successfully pitched the F414 as a low risk derivative of the F404, rather than a riskier new engine. In fact, the F414 engine was originally envisioned as not using any new materials or processes (versus the F404), and was designed to fit in the same footprint as the F404." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414)  The F404 is a great improvement over the J52 and the F414 would squeeze more performance out the F404 engine concept without a great deal of redesign.

Well I can't avoid it, so I'll add the SNECMA M53 engine to the list of powerplants.  BTW, the M53 has higher thrust than the PW1120 so I'm not sure Geriatria's adversaries gained anything.  The Mirage F.1's will get M53-P3's + the other upgrade goodies.

I'm not sure I want to add the G.91.  It has some very good qualities but it's extremely compact size can be a liability.  Without, rule #7 I'd do a major upgrade as a way of establishing an indigenous aerospace industry.

I noticed there are no rules for non-military launch vehicles or spacecraft.  "Rocket science" would be a good way of maintaining a local aerospace industry without violating the treaty.

:cheers: & happy modeling, Bryan

Republic of Geriatria Air Force – order of battle

Type:   Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks   275/25
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs   275/25
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's    45/5
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's   75/25
MB.326   50   
Cessna M172   50
S-3B/ES-3B Viking   20/5
SP-2x Super Neptune   25
DHC-5 Buffalo   25
OV-10x Super Bronco   25
CH-46   25
Sikorsky S.61   50
Alouette II   50

On order for next year...
A-10   50
F/A-14D Super Tomcat 21   75
:cheers: and happy modeling, Bryan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 09, 2009, 09:06:29 AM
The F414 is an evolution of the F404.  According to wikipedia, "GE successfully pitched the F414 as a low risk derivative of the F404, rather than a riskier new engine. In fact, the F414 engine was originally envisioned as not using any new materials or processes (versus the F404), and was designed to fit in the same footprint as the F404." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_F414)  The F404 is a great improvement over the J52 and the F414 would squeeze more performance out the F404 engine concept without a great deal of redesign.

You're being selective.  That's what it was to be, originally, but it evolved into pretty much a different engine, just as the PW1120 is no F100 anymore.

In the same Wikipedia article you quoted it later says:

QuoteThe F414 uses the core of the F412 and its full-authority digital engine control (FADEC), alongside the low-pressure system from the YF120 engine developed for the Advanced Tactical Fighter competition. One of the major differences between the F404 and the F414 is the fan section. The fan of the F414 is larger than that of the F404, but smaller than the fan for the F412.

The inlet diameter of the F414 is significantly larger and the internal components are not interchangeable.  It was certainly based on the F404, but it is also a new engine.  The Gripen required a good deal of expensive redesign to switch from the modified F404 (RM27) that it had to the F414 in the NG.

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66123 (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=66123)

Quote from: Key Publishing Forum

Quote from: OPIT;1059440Inlet diameter :
F404 : 27.7"
RM12 : 27.9"
F414 : 32"

Quote from: Bager1968;1063912I have used the inlet diameter numbers you gave me for the F404, RM12, & F414 on another board and have been asked for the source of those numbers, as the gent there has different ones.

I would like to have something better than "some bloke on another board" to give as my reference, could you tell me where you got them from?

He gives the inlet diameter for the F404 as 31".

Quote from: OPIT;1063944I don't buy the 31" figure. To begin with, I took the F404 inlet diameter here (http://www.voodoo.cz/hornet/info.html). Although it's yet another F/A-18 fan site, the great amount of details gave me some confidence. Then, the official data from Volvo (F404-RM12 specs ; Notice the typo (http://www.volvo.com/volvoaero/global/en-gb/products/aircraft+engines/RM12/technical+data.htm)) tends to confirm the 27.7" figure because the slightly larger inlet (27.9" vs 27.7") would easily explain why the RM12 produces more thrust. Said otherwise, a F404 derivative such as the RM12 couldn't produce more thrust while having a significantly smaller (by 10% or so) inlet diameter.
Frontal thrust also gives another clue. A 31" F404 would be significantly below average, even in the late 70's.

I don't think you can swap those in and out lightly like different versions of the same engine.  It would take extensive redesign of the airframe, even if the engine is the same diameter.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 09, 2009, 09:56:47 AM
Republic of Geriatria Air Force – order of battle

Type:   Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks   275/25
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs   275/25
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's    45/5
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's   75/25
MB.326   50   
Cessna M172   50
S-3B/ES-3B Viking   20/5
SP-2x Super Neptune   25
DHC-5 Buffalo   25
OV-10x Super Bronco   25
CH-46   25
Sikorsky S.61   50
Alouette II   50

On order for next year...
A-10   50
F/A-14D Super Tomcat 21   75
:cheers: and happy modeling, Bryan

Next decade, you mean.  As said in the original post:

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 07, 2009, 03:16:06 PMThese dates would only roll forward every 10 years, so--for example--the F-14 would not be an option until 2020.

The only other issues that I have are with the Cessna 172s.  They are still in production.  I don't think HAL has actually built any new Alouette II airframes since the 1980s (as the Cheetah or Cheetal), even though they've rebuilt many, so I think that's an excellent choice.

Cheers,

Logan

OK, F-14's I thought production ended in the late 80's but upon quick google they're a no go.  Since, I'm looking at them mostly as a strike fighter, I'll pick up F-111F's and I don't even have to wait for next year.  The Australians have done studies on some fairly extensive F-111 upgrades including GE F110 engines.  Australian proposals appear to show a good bit of growth in capability left in the F-111.  http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_2.htm (http://www.f-111.net/CarloKopp/F-111_Upgrade_Options_Pt_2.htm) However, I'll drop the procurement down to 50 F-111F's vs. 75 Tomcats.

Exchange Cessna M152 for the M172.

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: ysi_maniac on October 09, 2009, 05:44:38 AM
Is M60 (the tank) eligible?

Not sure, but I think so. Leopard 1 is available; last produced batch(Leopard 1A4, 1A5s were converted from earlier models) was in the 70's.

Really interesting concept, been mulling it over for 24 h.
Been mainly looking at the air side so far.
Like others I got (so far):
Viggen
A-4's - Up grade as a Kahu/Super Skyhawk hybrid.
A-7's  - Upgrade to A-7F (re-engine, lengthen).
F-4's - Up grade as a Turkish Terminator 2020/Super Phantom hybrid.
Transall C-160 Transport.
OV-10 - For FAC/CAS, but not sure of the last biuld date for the OV-10D?

Thought about the Kawasaki C-1 Transport in 2011, but the C-160 seems a lot better in many ways (load, range).

Would the Harrier I/AV-8A be ok or is it too close to the next generation Harrier II/AV-8B?  

Could you clarify "3. No combat aircraft with an empty weight greater than 50,000 kg", do transport and tankers count as combat? I can't seem to find a Tanker Conversion/ Passenger/ VIP transport that fits the rules. The is 707 over weight and don't think any one has done a tanker convert on the DC-9.


Have not looked that deeply at armour yet:
Leopard 1 - up graded to 1A5 or 1A6 or the Swedish Strv 103 (s-tank).  
I assume that the M113 APC is out, was thinking about the Swedish pbv 302 APC.

Edit: Tankers - The KC-135 is just under the 50,000 kg. So would a production KC-135 be inside the rules and 707 converts not?
     

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 09, 2009, 10:46:49 AM
OK, F-14's I thought production ended in the late 80's but upon quick google they're a no go.

It won't matter.  The age rules go by decade.  If it doesn't qualify in 2010, it won't qualify in 2019.  You have to wait until 2020 for the rollover with new equipment.  That's part of the challenge, by the end of the decade, your force will basically be a 50/30 rule.  Can you still make it work?

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Thought about the Kawasaki C-1 Transport in 2011, but the C-160 seems a lot better in many ways (load, range).

Again, nothing new is available in 2011.  The "new" stuff doesn't become an option until 2020.

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Would the Harrier I/AV-8A be ok or is it too close to the next generation Harrier II/AV-8B?   

I don't know.  I'd put it up to the mob.  I'd be fine with it as long as you don't try to do the upgrades to bring it up to that level (new radar, etc).

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Could you clarify "3. No combat aircraft with an empty weight greater than 50,000 kg", do transport and tankers count as combat?

I can't seem to find a Tanker Conversion/   Passenger/VIP transport that fits the rules. The is 707 over weight and do not think any one has done a tanker convert on the DC-9.

No, they don't qualify unless you try to pull a Harvest Hawk.  The 707 is fine.

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Have not looked that deeply at armour yet:
Leopard 1 - up graded to 1A5 or 1A6 or the Swedish Strv 103 (s-tank). 
I assume that the M113 APC is out, was thinking about the Swedish pbv 302 APC.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about the Strv 103.  Good one.  Yes, the M113 is out.  They're still building the thing in Pakistan and Turkey, I know.

Cheers,

Logan

Thanks for the answers.  
Seeing they are transports can I squeeze in a couple of Short Belfast's? (think I might be pushing it)

My list + updates.

Think a Navy would be a good idea, need a flagship and an aircraft carrier would be useful.
Seeing it is just coming out of an upgrade, Clemenceau class aircraft carrier Sao Paulo (ex Foch) would do nicely.

Naval Air (most land based):
A-4's -  Kahu/Super Skyhawk Upgrade.

A-7's  - A-7F  Upgrade.

S-2 Tracker - Upgrade, Garrett TPE331 turboprop conversion. Some Airborne early warning and control conversion (Brazil), a couple as tanker conversion (Brazil), and a number with upgraded ASW (Taiwan).

C-1 Trader Transport. Seeing the commonality between the S-2 and the C-1, could the turboprop conversion be feasible?

P-3 Orion (Rule 2)

(P-3 alternative) Ilyushin Il-38 "May" - upgraded to Indian Il-38 SD level

Army Air:
Harrier GR.3

OV-10 - upgraded to OV-10D level

General Air:
707 - Tanker Conversion, Passenger/ VIP Transport. Is AWACS conversion allowed or is it starting to push the limit?

C-160 Transport

Viggen - Air defence, Interception, Recc.

F-4's - (Terminator 2020/Super Phantom upgrade) Strike, Interception, General multi-roll.

Armour:
Tanks: Swedish Strv 103 + Leopard 1 - (1A5 or 1A6)  

APC: Swedish pbv 302

Self-propelled artillery: 25 Swedish bkan 1 - upgraded to 1 C standard

Self-propelled anti-aircraft gun: Flakpanzer Gepard - Anti aircraft system on a Leopard 1 hull, German radar installation.

Think that is all for the time being, bound to be more later.  

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 01:55:36 PM
Thanks for the answers. 
Seeing they are transports can I squeeze in a couple of Short Belfast's? (think I might be pushing it)

...

C-1 Trader Transport. Seeing the commonality between the S-2 and the C-1, could the turboprop conversion be feasible?

P-3 Orion

No problem, I'm glad to see so many people interested.  I think the turboprop configuration is fine for the Trader.  The Trader, Tracker, and Tracer are all the same airframe.

When was the last Pakistani P-3 airframe actually constructed (from the first, originally embargoed batch)?

Cheers,

Logan

Can not answer the question about the Pakistani P-3's. But while looking around I found reference to the South Koreans ordering P-3's in late 1990 and not receiving them until 1995, also it seems Kawasaki was building versions for JMSDF until 1996 (perhaps 1997).

So it seems the P-3 is out of the picture. I will edit my post above, and now have to hunt for a replacement.     

Preliminary thoughts. Will get back later with more.

Fighter aircraft: The Mirage F-1 is a good option, but I feel there's a better one: MiG-23MLDs(Russian ones, with the aerodynamic improvements the export MiG-23MLDs did not have). Get those improved to the MiG-23-98-1 standard(http://milparade.udm.ru/27/104.htm). I thought about doing the proposed AL-31F re-engine, but surprisingly, the R-35 that equips the MiG-23MLD beats the AL-31 in thrust, at not much increased fuel consumption, so it stays for now. For light fighters, MiG-21s upgraded to the MiG-21-97 standard(MiG-21-93 with replacement of the R-25 engine with a Klimov RD-33).

Attack aircraft: A-7, brought to the A-7F standard. This will give me a logistical problem, because I'm not sure integrating the AA-11 Archer with the A-7 would be allowed, forcing me to use the AIM-9. I may scrap this and move to MiG-23BNs, upgraded to MiG-23B-98 standard, but I don't want to - the A-7F is much better, IMO.

Transport aircraft: Like many, I choose the C-160. Tanker/large VIP aircraft is the DC-10(last one built in 1989). Will think more on this.

Patrol aircraft: Is the Breguet Atlantic allowed? The Atlantic 1 was last built in the 70's, but the Atlantic 2 was built from 1989 on. If allowed, I buy Atlantic 1s and bring them to Atlantic 2 standard.

Navy: I'll have to know more about the geography to answer this.

Armoured vehicles: Leopard 1s for tanks(1A6 standard), Marder 1s for IFVs(1A3 standard). Haven't thought of anything else yet. May buy more German vehicles, and I still have to think of what I'll have for artillery(BTW, I'm limited to older armoured vehicles - what about towed artillery? Can I buy them new?).   

Quote from: gral_rj on October 09, 2009, 07:48:09 PM
Transport aircraft: Like many, I choose the C-160. Tanker/large VIP aircraft is the DC-10(last one built in 1989). Will think more on this.

Patrol aircraft: Is the Breguet Atlantic allowed? The Atlantic 1 was last built in the 70's, but the Atlantic 2 was built from 1989 on. If allowed, I buy Atlantic 1s and bring them to Atlantic 2 standard.

The DC-10 was still produced later as the MD-11.  Regardless, the aircraft first flew in 1970, so it's disqualified.

The Atlantic is not allowed, as the Atlantic 1 and 2 are the same basic airframe.

I honestly think that blue520 has the best MPA option.  I think the Nimrod is good, but I think the Il-38 May is the best option.  I also agree that the Il-38SD is a great one, too, even with the option of BrahMos.  Dangerous to EVERYTHING.  I've REALLY been waiting the ENTIRE time for someone to think of it.  It's the best MPA option, I think.

For geography, think of Turkey.  Something like that.

I think the MiG-23 is a good option.  It has some GREAT upgrades, too.  It's the swing-wing maintenance issues that worry me, but that's it.  Also, the Indian Air Force crashes with single-engined MiGs worries me a little bit too, but not that much.

Good thoughts, though.

Cheers,

Logan

Well, this is what I would do.


If there was to be an Eastern Bloc-tilt, well, MiG-21s and -23s are very plentiful, a lot of upgrade programs exist and large fleets can be bought up for next to nothing. For a nation like this they should be adequate for nearly all tactical needs. Be-12s would be bought as a maritime patrol aircraft as Wikipedia seems to indicate Russia still has useful stocks of these. Mi-4s/Z-5s would probably be the default utility helicopter.

If it were to buy mostly Western equipment, this is what I would do:

- A-7 - Greece and Thailand still use A-7s in limited numbers and will soon be retired. Greece's A-7s are the most developed, so I would upgrade frames from both countries to this common standard. Includes trainer aircraft too.

- A-4S - Wikipedia seems to indicate that as many as 150 frames may be available and just recently retired from Singapore. These have F404 engines to boot. 48 A-4s are in storage in Malaysia, and of course there's the Boneyard.

- Mirage - this presents a lot of options. The Cheetah Cs, the most advanced version, seem to be in storage and available for sale. Brazil and Switzerland also has some fairly advanced Mirages that were recently retired and put in storage. Pakistan has the currently largest fleet of Mirage 3/5 fighters and many are probably to be retired with the introduction of the JH-17. Egypt, anther potential JH-17 customer, apparently has a sizable Mirage fleet too.

- F-5 - Switzerland's are reaching the end of their fatigue lives, if I'm not mistaken, but a lot of South American and some Asian countries still operate them

- Transports - I guess the Transall is it. Also, I assume civilian airlines would be exempt from treaty restrictions so you can have a CRAF fleet.

- Helicopters - Hmmm. Would UH-1s count? Otherwise, uh, I guess SeaKings or Choctaws.

Also, I notice that there's some what of a loophole here, so I'd like to suppliment my forces with...well, I hear Russia's having a firesale on some of these things

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Ff%2Ff5%2FS-300PMU2_complex.jpg%2F800px-S-300PMU2_complex.jpg&hash=20230022b5881a6b56e744522b3a73aa549cd6d0)

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 08:11:28 PM
The DC-10 was still produced later as the MD-11.  Regardless, the aircraft first flew in 1970, so it's disqualified.

The Atlantic is not allowed, as the Atlantic 1 and 2 are the same basic airframe.

I honestly think that blue520 has the best MPA option.  I think the Nimrod is good, but I think the Il-38 May is the best option.  I also agree that the Il-38SD is a great one, too, even with the option of BrahMos.  Dangerous to EVERYTHING.  I've REALLY been waiting the ENTIRE time for someone to think of it.  It's the best MPA option, I think.

For geography, think of Turkey.  Something like that.

Il-38s were plan B. Guess they're it then. If DC-10s aren't available, we go for the DC-8(the enlarged ones, with CFM-56s - DC-8-63, IIRC). For helicopters... don't know what to use instead of the UH-1, still looking for that. I do intend to use the S-61(the SH-3 as a naval helicopter, the CH-3/HH-3 as a transport one), and SA 342 Gazelles for scouting.

Something like Turkey... this means I can have units bigger than corvettes. First thing that comes to mind are Leanders and Counties, the latter being converted to lose the Sea Slug and get a big helicopter deck and hangar, like the Chileans did. If I have money to spend, one or two early Sprucans might be a good option, they're rather expensive to keep though.

Still thinking what to do with the army. May get CAESAR or similar for artillery(after all, they aren't armoured), but I'd rather have a real SPH.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 11:37:29 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Would the Harrier I/AV-8A be ok or is it too close to the next generation Harrier II/AV-8B?   

I don't know.  I'd put it up to the mob.  I'd be fine with it as long as you don't try to do the upgrades to bring it up to that level (new radar, etc).

There were new build Sea Harriers in the 90's which I guess pretty much kills Harrier I?

I thought that strategic assets would be mostly out due to the 50,000lb limit, but there's a few that get in.  I know some have been mentioned, Tu-22, Vulcan, etc, but there others such as the Victor & Valiant, FB-111.  Mirage IV is a definate...

Quote from: Mossie on October 10, 2009, 04:47:25 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 11:37:29 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Would the Harrier I/AV-8A be ok or is it too close to the next generation Harrier II/AV-8B?  

I don't know.  I'd put it up to the mob.  I'd be fine with it as long as you don't try to do the upgrades to bring it up to that level (new radar, etc).

There were new build Sea Harriers in the 90's which I guess pretty much kills Harrier I?

What I was trying to gauge was is there a far enough gap in design from the Harrier I/AV-8A to the others. But the Sea Harrier may put a spanner in the works. Far as I can gather excluding the changes for navalisation the major airframe changes from the Harrier I to the early Sea Harrier are from the back of the cockpit tub forward, so about 10% (give or take a bit). So it would not be a easy thing to go from a Harrier I to the latest Sea Harrier standard but it possibly could be do able. I am open to correction. Do we have any Harrier gurus out there.

Another way to put what I was asking is, are there three aircraft inside the Harrier family or is it one aircraft with three different types/ development stages.  

For the time being I am going to leave the Harrier in my list until I get a couple more thumbs down on it or a clearer picture. But only Harrier I capped at max Harrier GR.3/AV-8A development (example, no radar).        

Speaking of self-propelled howitzers, Turkey did some modernisations on their M44 (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3723.html) and M52 (http://www.military-today.com/artillery/m52t.htm) (amazing, considering it was up-gunned from 105mm to 155mm) self-propelled howitzers, too, if the Geriatric Army had some of either or both in possession (in storage or whatnot).

When did production for the Mi-24 stop?  Did recent customers (like Venezuela) get newly-built airframes or ones assembled from parts already produced prior to 1990?

I was thinking that French AMX-10P can be included in the list of possible APC choices as well until I found out that its production seemed to have lasted into 1994.  Dang......  :banghead:

blue520's carrier comment made me wonder: would Rule #7 rule out my crazy idea of fitting ex-USN Tarawa class LHA with a minimal angled deck (like some earlier RN CVL retained for service after WWI) and a catapult or two for Skyhawk/Tracker/Trader/Tracer operations?  ;D

Would improvisations be subject to the 40/20 rules as well?  For example, say, take a commercially-available truck for army utility roles at first and then weapons carriers later as well as even guntrucks with bolted-on armour plates and whatnot?

Quote from: Mossie on October 10, 2009, 04:47:25 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 11:37:29 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 09, 2009, 10:53:52 AM
Would the Harrier I/AV-8A be ok or is it too close to the next generation Harrier II/AV-8B?   

I don't know.  I'd put it up to the mob.  I'd be fine with it as long as you don't try to do the upgrades to bring it up to that level (new radar, etc).

There were new build Sea Harriers in the 90's which I guess pretty much kills Harrier I?

I thought that strategic assets would be mostly out due to the 50,000lb limit, but there's a few that get in.  I know some have been mentioned, Tu-22, Vulcan, etc, but there others such as the Victor & Valiant, FB-111.  Mirage IV is a definate...

Ah, but the new builds were Sea Harrier FA.2s which had evan less in common with the Harrier GR.1/3 than the Sea Harrier FRS.1 (as I remember, there's an extra bay inserted into the fuselage aft of the wing).  I think an arguement could be made that the original first-generation Harriers would qualify.  A "rules lawyer" could even argue that a radar fit like that of the original minimum-change "Maritime Harrier" would be allowable.

Looking at this challenge more, I'd like to know more about Geriatria.  You said it is about the size of Turkey.  What is the population?  Where is it located - Europe or elsewhere?  What is the climate like; temperate or tropical, mild or harsh?  Is it subject to seasonal extremes or severe storms?  What kind of resources does it have?  Rich agriculture, metals/minerals, oil/gas/coal, forests, diamonds, cultural resources/archeological sites/tourism etc...?  What is the terrain like - mountainous, flat plains, hills, deserts, forests...?  How educated are the people - I'd presume they are as educated & literate as any European or N. American country - is that correct?  How many land borders does it have?  How much coastline?  You said it's relatively wealthy - it sounds like a free market economy in combination with a constitutional republic, democratic political systems and the rule of law - is that an accurate guess?  What are the major exports?  Who are it's trading partners?  

Although military defenses won't be neglected, I'm thinking that these and other factors will might figure heavily in defense planning.  Military equipment might not be the best defense, Geriatria's most effective defenses might be in economic and diplomatic factors - in combination with it's military.

I'll figure these things into Geriatria 2.0

:cheers: Bryan

Speaking of Turkish armour modernisations, I can see why ysi_maniac was asking if M60 tank was ok a couple of pages back.
Have a look at the Turkish Army M60 modernisation program M60T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_%28tank%29). New 120mm smoothbore gun + explosive reactive armour + fire control system + 1000 hp engine & transmision + lots of other changes. Very interesting package.

Also General Dynamics offered an upgrade for the M60, the M60-2000 or 120S wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank) globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm). New M1A1 120mm turret + 1200 hp engine coupled to M1 transmission system.

Still on armour but on a different track. Any one know when the last German Marder IFV was constructed new (not modified)?

Quote from: blue520 on October 11, 2009, 06:35:49 AMStill on armour but on a different track. Any one know when the last German Marder IFV was constructed new (not modified)?

1975

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 08:09:42 AM
Really?  I read that the last EA-6Bs were delivered in 1991-92 but that the production line shut down in 1989 (having manufactured the last airframe then).  If it's 1990-92 then it would be disqualified, but I'd love to nail this one down.

According to Intruder: The Operational History, the last production A-6 (of any type) rolled out of the factory on January 31, 1992.

Now that I remember, didn't South Africa offer a properly armoured and equipped version of turret taken from their TTD (with either a 105mm or a 120mm gun) as an upgrade for the Centurion tanks?

Quote from: blue520 on October 11, 2009, 06:35:49 AM
Have a look at the Turkish Army M60 modernisation program M60T (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabra_%28tank%29). New 120mm smoothbore gun + explosive reactive armour + fire control system + 1000 hp engine & transmision + lots of other changes. Very interesting package.

Also General Dynamics offered an upgrade for the M60, the M60-2000 or 120S wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60-2000_Main_Battle_Tank) globalsecurity.org (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m60-2000.htm). New M1A1 120mm turret + 1200 hp engine coupled to M1 transmission system.

The Ukrainian KMDB also proposed an upgrade for the M60 MBT (http://www.morozov.com.ua/eng/body/m-60.php), leveraging off technologies of their T-84.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 11, 2009, 07:26:25 PM
Now that I remember, didn't South Africa offer a properly armoured and equipped version of turret taken from their TTD (with either a 105mm or a 120mm gun) as an upgrade for the Centurion tanks?

The turret of the TTD was a Olifant 1B turret equipped with a 105mm (a 120mm was an alternative installation) and a number of TTD components went into the Olifant 1B to Olifant 2 upgrade. One source I came across had that the 105mm and 120mm gun were fitted with the 120mm being more common. Another stated that the 105mm was fitted and there were plans to fit the 120mm that were later abandoned. I would be very surprised if an upgrade for the Centurion was not offered. The Olifant is a modification of the Centurion and the turret should be a non-problematic fit to the Centurion hull.

The Olifant may cause a problem for the Centurion, Olifant 1 (and the 1 A upgrade) were a rebuild of existing Centurions, Olifant 1 B were newly constructed from 1991.     

Does anyone know when the PRC's production of Type 69 (which is a derivative of their T-54 copy) MBT lasted into?

Wikipedia claims that production of a 125mm-gun-armed variant for Iraq lasted into 1991, but I'm not sure if those are newly-built or upgraded......

Well just in case anyone is interested in T-54/55......

On the aviation front...... since Bryan H. mentioned the G.91R (which I've liked a lot)...... is there another Orpheus-powered aircraft (transport and such) that can go with it?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 11, 2009, 09:56:34 PM

On the aviation front...... since Bryan H. mentioned the G.91R (which I've liked a lot)...... is there another Orpheus-powered aircraft (transport and such) that can go with it?

Might be a bit small, the first two prototype Lockheed JetStar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_JetStar) used the Orpheus but plans for US production of this engine fell through.

There is the C-119 Flying Boxcar  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-119_Flying_Boxcar). The Indians used the Orpheus in a jet packet mounted on top of the fuselage, see this page for some photos (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Vintage/Transports/Packet/). This also opens up AC-119 gunship conversions.

Some other aircraft the Orpheus went in to Folland Gnat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folland_Gnat), Fuji T-1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuji_T-1) & Hindustan Aeronautics HF-24 Marut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_HF-24_Marut)    

If you can pull your self away from the G.91R, there is the G.91Y (67 built) with twin General Electric J85 jets. The C-123 Provider transport used the J85 as two underwing booster engines (C-123K).  Also the F-5 Freedom Fighter & F-5 Tiger II both used the J85, but may be ruled out due to the Iranian Azarakhsh & Saeqeh.                     

Quote from: blue520 on October 12, 2009, 04:38:43 AM
There is the C-119 Flying Boxcar  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-119_Flying_Boxcar). The Indians used the Orpheus in a jet packet mounted on top of the fuselage, see this page for some photos (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Images/Vintage/Transports/Packet/). This also opens up AC-119 gunship conversions.

Had there been any re-engining proposal for the C-119?

Just in case there simply isn't enough life left for the engines (as the ROCAF, who had affectionately called the type "the Old Hen", experienced after depending on the aircraft for decades).

Yes...... I knew the G.91Y would perhaps be a better choice, but I have a soft spot (however unreasonable as it might be  ;D) for modern jets that flew with .50 cal. MGs......

Quote from: dy031101 on October 10, 2009, 04:20:21 PM

I was thinking that French AMX-10P can be included in the list of possible APC choices as well until I found out that its production seemed to have lasted into 1994.  Dang......  :banghead:

The preceding AMX VCI wasn't a bad bit of kit and had loads of upgraded weapons options for export like most French armour. It's engine and running gear were common to the AMX-13 light tank.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 08:11:28 PM
I think the MiG-23 is a good option.  It has some GREAT upgrades, too.  It's the swing-wing maintenance issues that worry me, but that's it.  Also, the Indian Air Force crashes with single-engined MiGs worries me a little bit too, but not that much.

IIRC, the Indian Air Force's high accident rate is more a matter of training than hardware. It took them AGES to decide on a proper advanced trainer, which meant that student pilots were going straight from the Iskra to MiG-21Us, which is just too much of a leap.

Tank-wise, when was the last Swiss Pz.68 built? I remember seeing that RUAG were trying to sell off a load of them a few years back, with very low mileage since a major upgrade.....

Also, is a Chieftain different enough from a Challenger to count as a different vehicle? If so, then there are some tasty upgrade options available: Jordan took a batch of "Khalids" in the late 1970s which are basically a Chieftain with a Chally 1 powerpack and a decent fire control system.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 12, 2009, 07:41:06 AM

Had there been any re-engining proposal for the C-119?

Just in case there simply isn't enough life left for the engines (as the ROCAF, who had affectionately called the type "the Old Hen", experienced after depending on the aircraft for decades).

Have a look at http://www.ruudleeuw.com/c119-info.htm (http://www.ruudleeuw.com/c119-info.htm) in the Variants section. There were a number of re-enginings mainly all around the Wright R-3350 to replace the Pratt & Whitney R-4360, doesn't look that promising. The best of the pick looks to be the YC-119K/C-119K. 

Quote from: Weaver on October 12, 2009, 08:14:56 AM
Tank-wise, when was the last Swiss Pz.68 built? I remember seeing that RUAG were trying to sell off a load of them a few years back, with very low mileage since a major upgrade.....

According to the Wikipedia, 1983.

There are proposed AA tank, bridgelayer, as well as self-propelled howitzer derivatives, and other than bringing them up to the 68/88 standard, there's also a compact 120mm gun originally designed for re-arming the tank......

Speaking of derivatives, how do the rules concern derivatives?  If, say, I take a Sabra or a 120S, would I be free to make an AA tank out of the upgraded hull to go with the tank?  Would I be limited in what to take as a core system for that specific derivative, or must I find another vehicle type serving alongside the tank that is known to have an existing or proposed desired derivative (for this example, a hull that is known to have been used to contruct at least a prototype SPAAG)?

I'm going to go on the notion that Geriatria is broadly analogous to Turkey in geography, climate, resources, economy, population, education, etc...  Although, just to be a little different it'll be a constutional monarchy, Christian and a few minor things.

For armor:
Does anyone know when regular "serial" production of the Panhard M3, VCR and Buffalo armored cars/APC's ended.  I'm pretty sure the Panhard AML-90 & AML-60 are safe; although they have had some sporatic production.  Also what about the BTR-60 - is it within the time guidelines?  Have there been any upgrade proposals for the BTR-60; Westernized engines and armament...?

I think the M60 upgrades sound good.  

For ships:
I think some of the early build Spruance class destroyers were laid down & launched by 1980.  Maybe Knox or Garcia class frigates?  Maybe early Type 22 frigates?

Can anyone think of some more naval ship classes that would be useful, particularly Western types - destroyers, frigates, cruisers, fast attack, support types...?

I like the Clemenseau with upgraded A-4's.

:cheers: Bryan

There seem to be some really good ideas in here.  It sounds like the A-6 is out.  The Mirage IV is a great idea.  From my understanding, it was a very capable and reliable plane.  It could easily serve as both a bomber/strike aircraft and the recon aircraft, maybe supplemented by a U-2 or Canberra.

I'm glad to see this is getting as much interest as it is.  The armor ideas are really starting to take hold.  Once upgraded, the Pz. 68 is a good idea, and the AMX-13-based family is also great.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 12, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
Also what about the BTR-60 - is it within the time guidelines?

BTR-60 evolved into BTR-70 and then BTR-80, so yeah, it might be vulnerable to the 40/20 rule as well......

Although things most likely wouldn't ever have come to this, but in the very-worst case scenario, maybe the numbers of transports and weapon carriers can be filled by donated M3/M5/M9 halftracks upgraded like those that served in Argentina......

Quote from: dy031101 on October 13, 2009, 05:52:20 PM

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 12, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
Also what about the BTR-60 - is it within the time guidelines?

BTR-60 evolved into BTR-70 and then BTR-80, so yeah, it might be vulnerable to the 40/20 rule as well......

Although things most likely wouldn't ever have come to this, but in the very-worst case scenario, maybe the numbers of transports and weapon carriers can be filled by donated M3/M5/M9 halftracks upgraded like those that served in Argentina......

I think I'll vigorously argue this one.

BTR-60 production from 1960-1976 about 25,000 produced.  Primary differences between BTR-60, BTR-70 and BTR-80 (as originally produced). 
BTR-60: 3 crew + 14 passengers,  BTR-70 & BTR-80: 3 crew but only 7 passengers
BTR-60: about 1 ton lighter than BTR-70 and 2 tons lighter than BTR-80
BTR-60: 2 90 hp V6 gasoline (petrol) engines, BTR-70: 2 120 hp V8 gasoline engines, BTR-80: 1 diesel engine
Side crew doors above wheels on BTR-60, even with the wheels on BTR-70 and on the BTR-80 split above and even with the wheels. 

Although, the three BTR's look similar on the outside there are major internal differences - so much so that 7 fewer fully-equipped infantry could ride in the BTR-70 & 80 vs. the BTR-60.

The BTR-60 evolved into the BTR-70 and then the BTR-80. However, one could also say the MiG-15 evolved into the MiG-17, the MOWAG Piranha evolved into the Stryker or that the F3H Demon evolved into the F-4 Phantom.  The Soviets considered them different and gave them different model numbers.

All that said, their are some interesting variants of the BTR-60.  Israel has a good looking upgrade program for the BTR-60 and it appears that at least one has been fitted with a spare AML-90 Lynx turret!  The BTR-60 appears to have lots of potential.

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 12, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
For armor:
Does anyone know when regular "serial" production of the Panhard M3, VCR and Buffalo armored cars/APC's ended.  I'm pretty sure the Panhard AML-90 & AML-60 are safe; although they have had some sporatic production.  

Panhard M3/Buffalo and AMLs are out because they were produced well into the '90s. VCR was first built in the 1970s so that's out too.

British FV432 APC should be in: prototype: 1961, production end: 1972, 3000 built. New engine and applique armour (Bulldog) now available.

Swedish Pbv 302 is in too: prototype: 1962, production end: 1971. Applique armour kit available.

British Saracen APC is in: prototype: 1952, production end: 1972, 1838 built. Diesel engine available.

British Saladin armoured car is in: prototype: mid '50s, production end: 1972. Diesel engine available.

Vickers MBT is out: Nigerian order in 1991.

M41 Walker Bulldog light tank is in: prototype: pre '51, production end: late '50s, 5,500 built. Engine, armour, electronics and gun (90mm) upgrades available.

Russian PT-76 light tank is in: prototype pre '50, production end: late '60s. Engine and gun upgrades currently offered, including French 90mm and Russian 57mm (adapted high velocity AA gun).

Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA APC is in: prototype mid '50s, production end: 1968, 450 built. Question: does the later 4K 7FA (prototype: 1976) count as the same type or not? Anyone know when production of the latter ended - Greece licence produced them IIRC?

Quote
For ships:
I think some of the early build Spruance class destroyers were laid down & launched by 1980.  Maybe Knox or Garcia class frigates?  Maybe early Type 22 frigates?

Can anyone think of some more naval ship classes that would be useful, particularly Western types - destroyers, frigates, cruisers, fast attack, support types...?

I like the Clemenseau with upgraded A-4's.

:cheers: Bryan

Leanders are in, and earlier Vosper frigates (Mk.5, possibly Mk.7?) should be in too.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 13, 2009, 06:40:20 PM
BTR-60: 3 crew + 14 passengers,  BTR-70 & BTR-80: 3 crew but only 7 passengers

That 14 passenger figure was only true for the early open-topped version with no turret. The vast majority of BTR-60s had a roof, a turret and similar capacity to the BTR-70.

I'd argue that the BTR-60 and BTR-70 are the same type (the latter is really just a re-engined and lightly modded -60), but that the BTR-80 is a new type, since it has a fundamentally different engine configuration and hull, with changed wheel spacing and full height side doors.

Quote from: Weaver on October 13, 2009, 07:14:06 PM

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 13, 2009, 06:40:20 PM
BTR-60: 3 crew + 14 passengers,  BTR-70 & BTR-80: 3 crew but only 7 passengers

That 14 passenger figure was only true for the early open-topped version with no turret. The vast majority of BTR-60s had a roof, a turret and similar capacity to the BTR-70.

I'd argue that the BTR-60 and BTR-70 are the same type (the latter is really just a re-engined and lightly modded -60), but that the BTR-80 is a new type, since it has a fundamentally different engine configuration and hull, with changed wheel spacing and full height side doors.

Per wikipedia...
Early (open-topped), BTR-60P carried 16 passengers + 3 crew.  Later production (with the added roof) BTR-60PA & BTR-60PB carried 14 passengers + 3 crew.  The added roof dropped the total passenger load down 2.  There seems to be some extra stuff in the BTR-70 that keeps 7 passengers from riding and adds 1 ton in weight.  I've not been inside either vehicle but halving your cargo (ie. passenger load) seems like a significant internal redesign.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60)  

On the AML & M3, what does rule #4 mean?  "No armored vehicle types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 1990*"
And the corrollary, "* - We'll be lenient here.  No aircraft or vehicles with major production after January 1st, 1990.  Limited production (S-64 Skycrane, for example) or aircraft assembled from existing parts after 1990 won't disqualify the type, but don't assume you'll get the ones built after that date--you won't."  Wikipedia has production starting in 1960 but no end date.  Wikipedia says that "manufacture continues for the export market" but the Panhard company website does not list the AML or M3 in their product line. Wikipedia AMLhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML)  Panhard website http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/gamme.php (http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/gamme.php)  

"Serial" sounds like regular mass production, reliable big contracts, large numbers (hundreds to thousands), year after year; not a dozen or even a score for a small, Third World military one year and then none the next or a handful of special order attrition replacements ordered on an irregular basis.  The AML and M3 do not appear to be in "serial" production since the 1980's perhaps even the 1970's.  If the corrollary is meaningless, I couldn't have an "Oscar", Me 262 or Grumman F3F biplane - new examples of these types have been manufactured in the 1990's & 2000's despite the obvious age of the designs.  http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/articles/oscar/index.html (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/articles/oscar/index.html) http://longislandearlyfliers.org/news_archive/04november_f2f-2.html (http://longislandearlyfliers.org/news_archive/04november_f2f-2.html) http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html (http://www.stormbirds.com/project/index.html)

:cheers: Bryan

Armor:
The main problem with Panhard vehicles as has been stated is there in some cases seems to be no serial production (that is a low first run and lot of low number production as necessary) and additionally a lot of the models seem to merge into each other with parts and hull commonality. Which is not a bad thing for the manufacture or the end user, just make it difficult for us.

This is where the lawyers start to make the money. The wrong interpretation could be taken as braking the terms, forcing penalties against you country or worse justification for invasion (which may or may not be on the cards already). The spirit of the rule seems to be armoured vehicles with major production before January 1st, 1990 and very limited production after are allowed. But how does this translate into production ratios of produced before and after? 2:1, 10:1, 50:1, 100:1, 1000:1 & so on, of course there would be a grey range on the border between permissible or not. But when would it be clear that the line has been crossed?
If it was a case with a real nation it mainly would come down to politics, international goodwill and how much is your nation willing to stir the neighbours. As we don't have this Logan Hartke may want to set a approximate cut off or put it to the mob to decide the grey areas/ selections, or work some other decider.  

It seems there was a limited production of the BTR-60 (100 according to wikipedia) during the BTR-80 production run. This should fit in limited production clause of rule 7. That is if it is seen there is a enough of a gap between the BTR-60 & BTR-80 (serial production of the BTR-70 seems to stop with the production by the BTR-80 in '86).

There are bound to be a number of modernisations for the BTR-60. One is listed in the Israeli section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60#Israel) of the BTR-60 page on wikipedia.

Is the T-54/T-55 tank in or out?

Ships:
All the Spruance class destroyers excluding the last one USS Hayler (DD-997) were launched before 1980 (30 ships).
Of the Type 22 frigate only the type one ships HMS Broadsword, HMS Battleaxe & HMS Brilliant were launched before 1980 (3 Ships).
All the Garcia class & Knox class frigates are fine (10 and 46 ships).

There is the Royal Netherlands Navy Kortenaer class frigate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kortenaer_class_frigate), 7 were were launched before 1980. A number were sold on to the Hellenic Navy as part of the Elli class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elli_class_frigate) which gives a modernisation path.

One that interests me is the Oliver Hazard Perry class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Hazard_Perry_class_frigate) frigate, 14 were launched before 1980. The interest is mainly in the upgrades made to the Royal Australian Navy Adelaide class frigate  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelaide_class_frigate#Upgrades) (Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates  modified for Australian requirements), lengthening short hull ships to accommodate Seahawk sized helicopters + the FFG Upgrade Project.    

What year were the French D'Estienne d'Orves class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Estienne_d%27Orves_class) launched?

I am looking for suggestions on offshore patrol vessels, was looking at the Australian Fremantle class patrol boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremantle_class_patrol_boat) but it misses the cut off date. Any thing out there, hopefully with a modernisation pathway.

Also for inshore patrol/ fast attack vessels I was thinking the German Albatros class (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albatros_class_fast_attack_craft), thoughts or alternate suggestions?



   

Quote from: Weaver on October 13, 2009, 07:06:33 PMLeanders are in, and earlier Vosper frigates (Mk.5, possibly Mk.7?) should be in too.

All Vosper frigates would qualify, I think. Last type 21 was comissioned in 1978, while the last Vosper Mk.10 for the Brazilian Navy was comissioned in 1980.

Quote from: gral_rj on October 14, 2009, 03:41:05 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 13, 2009, 07:06:33 PMLeanders are in, and earlier Vosper frigates (Mk.5, possibly Mk.7?) should be in too.

All Vosper frigates would qualify, I think. Last type 21 was comissioned in 1978, while the last Vosper Mk.10 for the Brazilian Navy was comissioned in 1980.

Yep  - my bad: didn't read the rules properly. I thought ships had the same 1970 cut-off as the rest. :banghead:

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 13, 2009, 08:51:57 PM
Per wikipedia...
Early (open-topped), BTR-60P carried 16 passengers + 3 crew.  Later production (with the added roof) BTR-60PA & BTR-60PB carried 14 passengers + 3 crew.  The added roof dropped the total passenger load down 2.  There seems to be some extra stuff in the BTR-70 that keeps 7 passengers from riding and adds 1 ton in weight.  I've not been inside either vehicle but halving your cargo (ie. passenger load) seems like a significant internal redesign.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-60)  

I suspect that the author of that Wiki article has got a bit confused. In one paragraph near the start, he says:

QuoteBTR-60P had an open roofed crew and troop compartments which was deemed to be a serious disadvantage because of that a new version, designated BTR-60PA, entered production in 1963. It had an armoured roof, though the capacity was reduced from 16 troopers to 14 troopers.

Note that the -PA type only has an armoured roof, NOT a turret. The turreted version is the -PB, initially called -PAI.

Then a bit further down, he states:

QuoteIn BTR-60P it can transport up to sixteen fully equipped soldiers. This number changed to fourteen in BTR-60PB.

I think this is a typo: I think he meant it went down to 14 in the -PA.

Looking at internet references, several of them come up with different figures, some of which arn't mentioned anywhere in the Wiki. This site lists it as 8 for the -PB, for instance: http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product1119.html

Thinking about it logically, if the -PA held 14, then adding a turret (and it's ammo) MUST reduce the troop capacity significantly. The -P seems to have had four rows of seats with four seats in each row. The -PA's roof hatch with pintle gun would probably occupy most of one row, resulting in a reduction of two troops in order to give one of the others room to stand up and operate the gun. The -PB's turret seems to occupy the space formerly used for the front two rows of seats, so that would imply a reduction to 8. Note also that crew figures are quoted as variously 2 or 3 depending on whether the gunner is rated as one of the crew or one of the passengers.

On the ships, it appears that rule #5 allows ships on a hull-by-hull basis, not a class basis.  For example, the USS Nimitz (if decommissioned by the USN) would be valid even though the Nimitz class is still in production.  

Quote from: blue520 on October 13, 2009, 10:17:25 PMThis is where the lawyers start to make the money.  

You're right about the lawyers.  :banghead: Upon reading the scenario initially presented, I wondered how such a draconian treaty, signed by a "puppet" government, under conditions of occupation and ethnic cleansing no less, could be legal, moral or ethical.  A treaty signed under such extreme duress seems like it's just waiting to be declared invalid by any reasonable or fair international court.  But those are the Logan Hartke's rules, I'm trying to use it as an exercise to see how much militarily effective use can be got out of older types.  I'm sure the current freely elected government is already in the Hague arguing their case!  :blink:

I'll be sticking with the AML & M3 and the BTR-60.

:cheers: Bryan

Kingdom of Geriatria
Capitol: Auldfahrt
Population: (2000) 51,257,828
Religion: 91% Catholic, 6% Orthodox
Resources: (top 10) Agriculture, Forests, Coal, Copper, Chromium, Oil, Gas, Gold, Titanium, Phosphates
Industry: Auto manufacturing, Banking & Financial, Steel, Shipbuilding, Textiles, Electronics, Aerospace, Food production, Fishing, Bio-medical research
Climate: Temperate with moderate wet winters and drier summers, snow & extreme cold in mountainous areas
Current issues: Economic development, environmental preservation, reintegration with the international community, external political disputes  
Organizations: UN, Interpol, International Court, NATO/Partnership for Peace; bilateral economic and defense agreements with US, UK, France and Italy

Current issues: Monarchy reestablished by popular vote in 1990; King Michael VI returned after 52 years in exile due an attempted regicide, an attack that killed his brother Prince Joseph, by the former military junta.  The Catholic Church and other religions are regaining their previous position in society after being oppressed by the junta.  The Junta imprisoned over 7000 clergy of all denominations as opposition.  Rebuilding civil society and the national economy after 30 years of the fascist despotism and failed economic policies of the military junta is the primary goal of HM government and the people.  Maintaining political and diplomatic stability are priorities.  

Rebuilding the military with democratic principles within the constraints of the "peace treaty" is also a priority.  With the agreement of the people, as indicated by a freely held, 73% majority vote in 1993; universal military training and conscription are a part of military policy along the lines of the Swiss or Israeli militaries.  Every adult male, upon reaching 18½, serve in active duty for 3 years.  This active duty service is followed by 9 years of National Guard Reserve service and then 9 years of local National Militia service.  As with the Swiss, marksmanship is a source of pride for every citizen and is encouraged by government policy.  As they are not prohibited by treaty, Geriatria produces most of its own small arms, towed artillery and ammunition.  Geriatria produces as much of its armament as is economically practical and is allowed by treaty.  Geriatria is currently in negotiation with the US to allow the US to build a combined Naval base, military airfield and training and logistics base.  Geriatria has been sending some of its officers to various academies and schools, including West Point, Sandhurst and Annapolis, in the US, UK and France for advanced training and education.  Geriatria hopes to gain full NATO and EC membership by 2020.

:cheers: Bryan    

This is a work in progress...

Royal Geriatria Air Force – order of battle

Type:                                          Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks            275/25
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs                  275/25
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's           45/5
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's     75/25
F-111x/EF-111x                             45/5
MB.326                                         50
Cessna M150                                 50
S-3B/ES-3B Viking                          20/5
SP-2x Super Neptune                      25
DHC-5 Buffalo                                25
OV-10x Super Bronco                      25
CH-46                                          25
Sikorsky S.61 SeaKing                     50
Alouette II                                    50

Royal Geriatria Army

Number:      Type:                                                                       
2500           BTR-60 APC (w/Israeli Saymar upgrades) & variants     
750             M60 MBT (w/ a combination of M60-2000 & M60T upgrades)
75               AML-90 Recon Car (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
25               AML-60/20 Recon Car(w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
100             M3 APC (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
500             Marder 1A5 (w/ a combination of E4 Kuka turret & proposed Canadian upgrades)
I'll continue to work on treaty safe SP Arty & other armored vehicles

Next the Royal Geriatia Navy...

:cheers: & happy modeling, Bryan

Quote from: dy031101 on October 11, 2009, 09:56:34 PM
Does anyone know when the PRC's production of Type 69 (which is a derivative of their T-54 copy) MBT lasted into?

Wikipedia claims that production of a 125mm-gun-armed variant for Iraq lasted into 1991, but I'm not sure if those are newly-built or upgraded......

Well just in case anyone is interested in T-54/55......

I know this is from a couple of pages back but have been looking into the T-54/T-55 family and came across this web page http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/chimbtt69ii.htm (http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/chimbtt69ii.htm) which states the Type 69-II production was from 1974 to 1988. Also the Type 69 wikipedia page list the Iraqi variants as upgrades. 

The main reason I was looking was the Israelis conversion of T-54/T-55 tanks into heavy armored personnel carriers (Achzarit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF_Achzarit)).     

Did production of the Leopard 1 (and variants) end in the 70's or 80's?  I think the Leopard 2 started in the mid 80's - did production of the Leopard 1 end at that time?  If so, the Leopard 1 would definitely be on my list.

:cheers: Bryan

The last new Leopard 1's seem to be Leopard 1A4's for Greece delivered from '81 to '84.

Also with the Leopard 1A5 (conversions from the 1A1A1) the new turret had an option (that was not taken up) to fit the 120 mm gun of the Leopard 2. Also there was a prototype 1A6 (converted from an 1A1A1) that had an up-armoured turret and the 120 mm.

If you are looking for self propelled anti aircraft guns there is the Gepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer_Gepard) and the Marksman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marksman_anti-aircraft_system) anti aircraft system was offered as a conversion possibility.
 

Great!  It appears that the GCT AUF2 155mm SP Arty was also proposed or tested on the Leopard 1.  So the Leopard 1 is definitely on the list.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm)  One question, do Western/NATO 155mm artillery fire a common round; or do French 155mm artillery fire different shells from American or British or German, etc... 

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 15, 2009, 06:14:32 AM
Great!  It appears that the GCT AUF2 155mm SP Arty was also proposed or tested on the Leopard 1.  So the Leopard 1 is definitely on the list.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCT_155mm)  One question, do Western/NATO 155mm artillery fire a common round; or do French 155mm artillery fire different shells from American or British or German, etc... 

:cheers: Bryan

Don't hold me to this, but I think the French ammo is different to NATO.

The French have their own ammo but a lot of the weapons seem to be able to fire NATO standard ammo as well.

"The AU-F1 fires all NATO-standard 155mm artillery rounds" Pulled from here (http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:Q8D0O6hhPl8J:www.forecastinternational.com/Archive/or/vo0020.doc+GCT+155mm+NATO&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au). That should extend to the GCT AUF2 also.

Just out of interest, while looking around I noted the GCT can fire the US Copperhead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M712_Copperhead) guided projectile. 

I just remembered that there was a Franco-Slovak project centred around a derivative of Leclerc tank turret for upgrading M60 and Leopard 1 (http://www.tanksim.com/topic9.htm).

Although I don't know how to look at the paragraph stating the armour protection was reduced compared to stock Leclerc turret to save weight.

I have some organizational questions.  

I'm envisioning that the defense forces will rely greatly upon the skill of the citizens as marksmen (think Switzerland citizen-soldiers/militiamen).  The bulk of the Army will be light infantry (both regulars & reserves) just because, equipment-wise, it is easier to form these units.  Under the current circumstances and treaty constraints "light horse" infantry units might also be in order.  

However, in planning and equipping the armored (heavy) component are their any ratios that are typically followed.  For example, how many APC/IFV's to tanks?  How many wheeled armor to tracked armor?  How many SP Artillery to APC's & Tanks?  How many bridgelayers, recovery vehicles & combat engineer vehicles?  How many SP AA Guns to SP AA Missiles?  How many reconnaisance vehicles or assault guns/mobile gun systems?

Thanks & :cheers: Bryan

One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox) (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

Quote from: blue520 on October 16, 2009, 05:12:29 AM
One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox) (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

Quote from: Weaver on October 14, 2009, 04:03:48 AM

Quote from: gral_rj on October 14, 2009, 03:41:05 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 13, 2009, 07:06:33 PMLeanders are in, and earlier Vosper frigates (Mk.5, possibly Mk.7?) should be in too.

All Vosper frigates would qualify, I think. Last type 21 was comissioned in 1978, while the last Vosper Mk.10 for the Brazilian Navy was comissioned in 1980.

Yep  - my bad: didn't read the rules properly. I thought ships had the same 1970 cut-off as the rest. :banghead:

The rules say ships must be launched before Jan. 1st 1980. Now the two Mk.9s for Nigeria were launched well before that , but only commissioned in mid 1980, after the deadline. The difference between "launch" (i.e. "first splash") date and "commissioned" (i.e. "finished") can be highly variable. Some ships are launched as little more than floating shells and then spend years alongside being fitted out. Others are built in extensively pre-equipped sections and don't hit the water until they're within months of being complete. 

Quote from: Weaver on October 16, 2009, 06:12:26 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 16, 2009, 05:12:29 AM
One air craft that I had forgotten about that may be useful in a ground-attack/close-air-support and jet trainer role would be the Skyfox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Skyfox) (modification of a T-33 trainer). It would be nice to be able to fit a fixed GAU-13 cannon and ammo drum to create a mini A-10, but that would be out side the rules. How ever it would still be a effective and cost efficient aircraft.

An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

In the case of the Skyfox (taking information from the wikipedia page) about 70% of the air frame was retained, if it was less than lets say approximately 40 to 50% I would not have suggested it.  What do people think is a good cut off?

Quote from: blue520 on October 16, 2009, 07:00:43 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 16, 2009, 06:12:26 AM
An aircraft that raises another awkward question: at what point does a "conversion" morph into a "new-build using a few 2nd hand components"?

In the case of the Skyfox (taking information from the wikipedia page) about 70% of the air frame was retained, if it was less than lets say approximately 40 to 50% I would not have suggested it.  What do people think is a good cut off?

As long as you use the original airframe, I'm fine with it.  If pressed, I'd say at least 30% of the airframe has to be original.  For example, I'd be fine with the UH-1N/AH-1W --> UH-1Y/AH-1Z upgrade if it fit the timeline (which it doesn't).  Any more than that and customers usually go with new production anyway (as the USMC has), which would disqualify it regardless.

The Skyfox is fine with me, but not with an internal GAU-8 unless it really was proposed.  A gun that big on an airframe that small and I'd call that a major airframe modification.  Still, with gun pods and modern missiles, I think that's a good, cheap ground-attack solution.

For the launch date, I agree, some ships take forever to be commissioned, but by the time a ship is launched, the design is usually pretty well locked down, which is the main thing for me.  Also, once launched, a ship begins to be subjected to the effects of the sea and time, even if not commissioned.  Besides, commissioned can be just as "squishy" a date, so launch date was a concrete way of doing things.


There have been some good ideas, so far.  Anyone considered the Mi-6 yet for a helicopter?

For vehicles, the OF-40 and related Palmaria on OF-40 hull would be good options, I think.  I know the Palmaria turret was put on the TAM hull, but I don't think that counts, as it's a different vehicle.

What do you guys think?

Cheers,

Logan

Skyfox would probably go best with two or four 20mm or 30mm revolver cannon.  Remember, we're still dealing with a not overly large airframe here.  Remember, it's still a stretched and much modified F-80.

The GSh-30-2 or BK-27 would probably be pretty good, too.  They're fairly small, but with quite the punch.

Cheers,

Logan

The GAU-8 on the Skyfox was a bit of dreaming, in reality the combination would be difficult to the point of unworkable. 

With the OF-40 and the Palmaria on OF-40 hull, the last sale of the Palmaria was to Nigeria in 1988 with deliveries up until 1990. So it may be out or just slips in, the production dates would have to be checked (that is may have been manufactured '89 with a long delivery time). But the ability to check that is beyond me.   

Quote from: Weaver on October 13, 2009, 07:06:33 PM
Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA APC is in: prototype mid '50s, production end: 1968, 450 built. Question: does the later 4K 7FA (prototype: 1976) count as the same type or not? Anyone know when production of the latter ended - Greece licence produced them IIRC?

Came across the some information on the 4K 7FA. The changes between the the 4FA and 7FA seem mainly to be improved armour, and the same diesel engine and transmission to the SK 105. Greece produced them under as the Leonidas 1 & 2, the last Greek production was in 1997.

If any have info on the light reconnaissance vehicle Cadillac Gage Scout (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product973.html)? On one hand I found references to its production up to 2000. But other information points to that only two countries to have taken it up Egypt (112) & Indonesia (26 or 28). With the last deliveries being '87 and '85 respectively. Can I assume 2000 was when major marketing of the vehicle was stopped?   

Problem with using 707s is that the production line was open, building new airframe E-3s, until May, 1991.
Only two E-3s were rebuilds.

Also, the last Vertol 107/CH-46 was built by Kawasaki in 1990.

You ruled out the Bell 205, but how-about the short-fuselage 204 models?, they really are quite different.

Logan, you may want to reconsider 1990 as your cutoff date. ;)

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on October 16, 2009, 11:12:28 AM
Problem with using 707s is that the production line was open, building new airframe E-3s, until May, 1991.
Only two E-3s were rebuilds.

Also, the last Vertol 107/CH-46 was built by Kawasaki in 1990.

You ruled out the Bell 205, but how-about the short-fuselage 204 models?, they really are quite different.

Logan, you may want to reconsider 1990 as your cutoff date. ;)

Depends on the sources.  I know some sources start that the production line itself shut down at the end of 1988.  Forecast International is one such source.  I would guess that the last aircraft was delivered in 1990/1991, but the line was likely wrapped up in 1988.  I know helis.com only shows 4 airframes from 1988-1990.  They've built just as many Ki-43s and more Me 262s since 1990.  I'll leave it up to others to decide, but it sounds to me like the line shut down late in 1988 from what I've read and they just assembled and delivered a couple aircraft in 1990 that had already been produced at least a year or two earlier.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 16, 2009, 09:05:02 AM
For vehicles, the OF-40 and related Palmaria on OF-40 hull would be good options, I think.  I know the Palmaria turret was put on the TAM hull, but I don't think that counts, as it's a different vehicle.

But wouldn't OF-40 itself be vulnerable to the 40/20 rules because of the time when its production began (according to Wikipedia, design work was started by OTO Melara in 1977, with the first prototypes ready by 1980- both occuring after 1970)?

Again, how do the rules concern derivatives?  Is the core system (turret and such) factored in or do we concentrate on only the system carrier (like the hull) itself?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 16, 2009, 02:04:24 PM
But wouldn't OF-40 itself be vulnerable to the 40/20 rules because of the time when its production began (according to Wikipedia, design work was started by OTO Melara in 1977, with the first prototypes ready by 1980- both occuring after 1970)?

No "40" rule for vehicles.  They just couldn't have been produced after 1990.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 16, 2009, 02:04:24 PM
Again, how do the rules concern derivatives?  Is the core system (turret and such) factored in or do we concentrate on only the system carrier (like the hull) itself?

No, turrets don't factor, just the system carrier (airframe, ship hull, vehicle chassis/hull).

Cheers,

Logan

One question about the rules, with the "or ships over 1000 tonnes (empty)" and 5 No ships launched after January 1st 1980.
Are armed ships less than 1000 tonnes launched after the cut off permissible?  

Quote from: joncarrfarrelly on October 16, 2009, 11:12:28 AM
Also, the last Vertol 107/CH-46 was built by Kawasaki in 1990.

Do you have a source or a link for the 1990 date? forecastinternational.com (http://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/ma/ma0137.htm) have them down as "Kawasaki produced 160 through the end of 1988, delivering the final four units to the Japanese Defense Agency that year".

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 16, 2009, 06:44:25 PM

Quote from: dy031101 on October 16, 2009, 02:04:24 PM
But wouldn't OF-40 itself be vulnerable to the 40/20 rules because of the time when its production began (according to Wikipedia, design work was started by OTO Melara in 1977, with the first prototypes ready by 1980- both occuring after 1970)?

No "40" rule for vehicles.  They just couldn't have been produced after 1990.

That means Marders are in. No chassis were produced after 1983: all subsequent versions are upgrades of old vehicles. :wub:

Quote from: Weaver on October 17, 2009, 10:39:47 AM
That means Marders are in. No chassis were produced after 1983: all subsequent versions are upgrades of old vehicles. :wub:

Can we consider TAM and VCTP of a limited production (according to Wikipedia, production re-started in 1994, but that was primarily to fulfil the original order that was halted in 1983) or of a different vehicle family altogether?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 17, 2009, 11:22:04 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 17, 2009, 10:39:47 AM
That means Marders are in. No chassis were produced after 1983: all subsequent versions are upgrades of old vehicles. :wub:

Can we consider TAM and VCTP of a limited production (according to Wikipedia, production re-started in 1994, but that was primarily to fulfil the original order that was halted in 1983) or of a different vehicle family altogether?

As far as I can gather the brief '90s production was finishing of units in storage from when the original production was halted. Think it would fit no longer in serial production.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 16, 2009, 06:44:25 PM

Quote from: dy031101 on October 16, 2009, 02:04:24 PM
Again, how do the rules concern derivatives?  Is the core system (turret and such) factored in or do we concentrate on only the system carrier (like the hull) itself?

No, turrets don't factor, just the system carrier (airframe, ship hull, vehicle chassis/hull).

Cheers,

Logan

In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

:cheers: Bryan

On the subject of naval refits, another question:

Many naval refits of system A for system B are generic, i.e. not linked to a particular ship type. Do these fall foul of the rule that says any upgrade must have been proposed in the real world or not? What got me thinking was the "standard" upgrade of 1 x Exocet MM38 to 2 x Exocet MM40s. Aerospatiale will, in principle, supply this to ANY Exocet user, but AFAIK, it was never specifically suggested for say, an Exocet Leander or a County.

I am kinda trying to think up a combination as well...... it is and will be a slow process, but here is my Mk.1 list so far:

Air Force

Mirage F.1/F.1B

Cheetah C/Mirage 50 fighterbomber (upgraded with Kfir C.7 nose and avionics, in the same manner as the IAI Finger)/Mirage 50 recce/Mirage 50 conversion trainer

F-4/RF-4 Super Phantom or Phantom II+ (if treaty-safe, with lateral conformal water tanks from the RF-4X design adopted for fuel stowage rather than the centreline conformal fuel tank, which prevents to use of centreline hardpoint)

G.91R/G.91T

Gnat (advanced trainer, upgraded to Gnat II a.k.a. Ajeet standard)

Some turboprop kitplane for basic training

C-119/AC-119 with Orpheus Booster Turbojet

Transall C-160

SP-2H AEW with turboprops and flight avionics of P-2J as well as Searchwater 2000 AEW radar (hope this is enough to support my APG-73-equipped Phantoms)

=========================================

This is the result of an effort to keep the number of jet engines I need to set up infrastructures for to a minimum (PW1120RM8/JT8D, Orpheus, Atar 9K-50, and J34 with the navy's upgraded SP-2H).  That being said, if I start equipping the navy with jet fighters......

The Cheetah and the Mirages are in the list in case my air force is unable to secure enough Mirage F.1 airframes (although I haven't even begun to work out the number yet)...... I kinda made the list with South-African/Israeli/Russian munitions in mind, and the delta-wingeded types are interchangeable with appropriate versions of Mirage IIIEX if, say, I'm going for RD-400 radar as well as RF and IR versions of MICA AAM......

I'm also looking into fitting a couple of RF-4s and Mirage 50s with an extreme-range oblique photographic camera to get as close to a strategic reconnaissance capability as possible...... the Phantom's no problem, but can I consider the Israeli modification of the recce Kfir as suitable for the Mirage III/5/50 under the Rule #7 as well?

Maybe tactical recce RF-4s and Mirages can be replaced with their tactical fighter counterparts equipped with appropriate pods.

Finally, I'm wondering if I can have the Gnats rebuilt to Gnat II a.k.a. Ajeet standard (but of course keeping the two-seater scheme)...... the Indians modified two Gnats as testbeds for the Ajeet- what's the extent of the modifications?

Comments, answers to above questions, and suggestions (well I think that covers every category of replies) are welcomed.

Would it be permissible inside the rules to modify any aircraft with an engine that has never been proposed for that aircraft, that is smaller in length and diameter than the original engines and a proposed modification engine, also the engine it was developed from was proposed as an modification and the amount of changes would be similar. In this case the aircraft in question is the F-4 and I am wondering about fitting F414s to it. The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.    

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.    

I'm interested in the existence of a F404-powered F-4 upgrade proposal......

Quote from: dy031101 on October 19, 2009, 06:35:37 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.    

I'm interested in the existence of a F404-powered F-4 upgrade proposal......

Went looking & I can't seem to find the web site (think it has gone or I am having a bad web search day) that had it when I was looking for info on mods for the F-4 in the later years about 6 to 12 months ago. It contained only a note or two about the F404. It was bits & pieces about a whole pile of paper modernisation proposals & other proposals (not just F-4), the F404 one stuck in my head due to it being an interesting proposal, as I assume the F404 at the time would have just a bit less power with/with-out afterburner than the fitted J79.

The only scrap of information on the web I can find at the moment is just a mention in a post on Secret Projects Forum (Advanced Phantom Projects in Postwar Aircraft Projects) (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1881.msg62992/highlight,f404.html#msg62992), I am going to continue looking.

I rather suspect that thoughts of re-engining the F-4 with F404s were somewhat squashed by concerns over what effect such efforts would have on F-18 procurement.  Notice, I didn't say whose concerns.

Was the SH-2G Super Seasprite newly-built or re-manufactured from decommissioned SH-2F?  If the T58 turboshaft (used by the SH-2F) is used by so many other helicopter types, would I be better off trying to have the SH-2F's engines tuned to GE-16 standard (than, say, introducing the T700 for the SH-2G) for the sake of performance?

Quote from: blue520 on October 17, 2009, 07:34:12 AM
One question about the rules, with the "or ships over 1000 tonnes (empty)" and 5 No ships launched after January 1st 1980.
Are armed ships less than 1000 tonnes launched after the cut off permissible? 

The 1000 tonnes is a Coast Guard limitation until 2010.  Only the 30 year old ship rule applies after 1980, but it applies to all armed ships.  So, no worries about about tonnage, but still for the age.

Quote from: blue520 on October 17, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
As far as I can gather the brief '90s production was finishing of units in storage from when the original production was halted. Think it would fit no longer in serial production.

That would be fine with me, then.  Have a source for that?

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 17, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

Quote from: Weaver on October 17, 2009, 08:09:32 PM
On the subject of naval refits, another question:

Many naval refits of system A for system B are generic, i.e. not linked to a particular ship type. Do these fall foul of the rule that says any upgrade must have been proposed in the real world or not? What got me thinking was the "standard" upgrade of 1 x Exocet MM38 to 2 x Exocet MM40s. Aerospatiale will, in principle, supply this to ANY Exocet user, but AFAIK, it was never specifically suggested for say, an Exocet Leander or a County.

Again, as long as it's not a major hull modification like trying to drop Aster 30s into the hull of a Fletcher, I'm fine with it.  You start digging in the innards of a ship with shipyard cranes and you'll need to present some evidence of a real world proposal.

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
Would it be permissible inside the rules to modify any aircraft with an engine that has never been proposed for that aircraft, that is smaller in length and diameter than the original engines and a proposed modification engine, also the engine it was developed from was proposed as an modification and the amount of changes would be similar. In this case the aircraft in question is the F-4 and I am wondering about fitting F414s to it. The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.   

No, it's not permissible.  We've been over this already.  The F414 =/= F404.  We went over this when Brian H tried to turn the A-4 Skyhawk into a Gripen NG. (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26195.msg383535.html#msg383535)

Quote from: dy031101 on October 19, 2009, 09:01:21 AM
Was the SH-2G Super Seasprite newly-built or re-manufactured from decommissioned SH-2F?  If the T58 turboshaft (used by the SH-2F) is used by so many other helicopter types, would it be worthwhile to introduce another engine type (namely T700 turboshaft used by the SH-2G) for the sake of performance?  Or would I be better off trying to have the SH-2F's engines tuned to GE-16 standard?

(Of course I still have to see if SH-2G doesn't disqualify the Seasprite helicopter line altogether......)

Both.  I know the New Zealand birds (five total) were new-build and the Aussie ones were remanufactured.  I also know that at least six US SH-2Gs were also new-build.  I know that the Polish aircraft were delivered from old US stocks and at least some of the Egyptian aircraft were also from US stocks (including some of the original new build US SH-2Gs).  I don't know about the rest of the Egyptian SH-2Gs, does anyone else?  I say if only the eleven aircraft were new-builds, we allow the older Seasprites in.  I think that if we hit one dozen or more new-builds, it may need disqualified.  What does everyone else think?

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 19, 2009, 09:09:30 AM

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 17, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

I've seen any number of references to the fact that the Kidd class was designed to take the Mk.71: it's the reason why the forward Mk.26 launcher has a smaller magazine than the aft one. Not sure about the basic Spruance. I very much doubt that the turret ring is the same size, but swapping the deck panel for a different one would be a tiny part of re-fitting the entire magazine, etc...

Quote

Quote from: Weaver on October 17, 2009, 08:09:32 PM
On the subject of naval refits, another question:

Many naval refits of system A for system B are generic, i.e. not linked to a particular ship type. Do these fall foul of the rule that says any upgrade must have been proposed in the real world or not? What got me thinking was the "standard" upgrade of 1 x Exocet MM38 to 2 x Exocet MM40s. Aerospatiale will, in principle, supply this to ANY Exocet user, but AFAIK, it was never specifically suggested for say, an Exocet Leander or a County.

Again, as long as it's not a major hull modification like trying to drop Aster 30s into the hull of a Fletcher, I'm fine with it.  You start digging in the innards of a ship with shipyard cranes and you'll need to present some evidence of a real world proposal.

Actually, dropping Aster boxes into/onto a Fletcher would be the easiest part: what would kill you is finding the volume, power supply and cooling for all the computers and radars you'd need to control them. It is doable though: Taiwanese Gearings (?) had ASROC and containerized Standard ARM fitted to them.

Quote from: elmayerle on October 19, 2009, 08:43:24 AM
I rather suspect that thoughts of re-engining the F-4 with F404s were somewhat squashed by concerns over what effect such efforts would have on F-18 procurement.  Notice, I didn't say whose concerns.

If re-engining with the F404 was indeed proposed...... I won't go for the F414, but if it's F404-GE-IN20......

If not then the PW1120 I'll stick with.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 19, 2009, 09:09:30 AM
I know that the Polish aircraft were delivered from old US stocks and at least some of the Egyptian aircraft were also from US stocks (including some of the original new build US SH-2Gs).  I don't know about the rest of the Egyptian SH-2Gs, does anyone else?  I say if only the eleven aircraft were new-builds, we allow the older Seasprites in.  I think that if we hit one dozen or more new-builds, it may need disqualified.  What does everyone else think?

Cheers,

Logan

I don't know how credible the Federation of American Scientist and Global Security websites are, but both claim the first ten Egyptian machines to be ex-USN examples.

And I found this (http://www.behrden.com/pages/hc-7/articles/Kaman%20SH-2%20(Super)%20Seasprite.pdf) saying these are remanufacutred from SH-2Fs.

I also remember seeing a claim that Egypt later acquired (IIRC) five additional ex-USN airframes, with three of them being used as a source for spare parts.  Unfortunately I made the mistake of not marking down that claim and now have not been able to locate it again......

I think I'll operate under the impression that T58-powered Seasprite is fine for now.

Has anyone seen any problem with the rest of my list (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26195.msg385458.html#msg385458)?

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 19, 2009, 09:09:30 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 17, 2009, 11:43:18 AM
As far as I can gather the brief '90s production was finishing of units in storage from when the original production was halted. Think it would fit no longer in serial production.

That would be fine with me, then.  Have a source for that?

TAM - Found one on line "In 1994 the Army needed replace their obsolete upgraded Sherman and the goverment authorised the finishing of 46 TAM VC and 40 VCTP in storage in TAMSE" from www.army-guide.com (http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product976.html).

SH-2 - I think the older Seasprites are fine, but any one could show it went to 13 or 14 then it should be out.

dy031101 at this point in time your list looks fine, about your Gnat/Ajeet questions have a look at http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3) it lists the significant changes and also that ten Gnats were upgraded to Ajeet standards.

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 08:32:38 AM
The only scrap of information on the web I can find at the moment is just a mention in a post on Secret Projects Forum (Advanced Phantom Projects in Postwar Aircraft Projects) (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1881.msg62992/highlight,f404.html#msg62992), I am going to continue looking.

I asked Mark Nankivil, who posted the various conformal fuel tank proposals there, for further info, which he kindly provided.  You can return to that thread for the attached report.

Looks like only PW1120 and improved J79 were seriously studied in depth...... which might jeopardize the chance of F404-powered Phantom II+ conforming the Rules (I don't think they thought about the necessary fuselage modifications beyond how to mount the engines)...... dang. :banghead:

Quote from: Weaver on October 19, 2009, 09:28:59 AM
Actually, dropping Aster boxes into/onto a Fletcher would be the easiest part: what would kill you is finding the volume, power supply and cooling for all the computers and radars you'd need to control them. It is doable though: Taiwanese Gearings (?) had ASROC and containerized Standard ARM fitted to them.

The Gearing class vessels didn't have enough volume for even the smaller Mk.22 launcher, so the ROCN used box launchers on them- those are surface-to-air missiles, not the anti-ship-oriented ARMs.  All those computers and rapid-firing guns did displace the ASROC reloads though.

Come to think of it, smaller VLS (like the Mk.48) might be dropped onto or even into that space...... but whatever the case, I think ESSM is as good as it'll get......

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 09:52:38 AM
dy031101 at this point in time your list looks fine, about your Gnat/Ajeet questions have a look at http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3 (http://www.vectorsite.net/avgnat.html#m3) it lists the significant changes and also that ten Gnats were upgraded to Ajeet standards.

Didn't notice that second part...... thanks.  The Mk.1 list is adjusted accordingly.

=========================================

Random thoughts:

How much can I up-gun the AC-119?  I'm thinking along the line of the proposed AC-27 Spartan......

Also, would the 40/20 rule apply to private contractors servicing my military- for example, commercial tanker services like Omega?

DC-8 can serve as a basis for a variety of combat-support platforms: AEW&C, tanker, ECM, and etc.

I can't resist thinking of a refurbished Boeing 727 (adding a refuelling probe wouldn't count as a major modification, would it?) as a transport for the head of state and other VIPs after Bryan H. presented his country as a constitutional monarchy (I may or may not follow suit)......

Now onto army tanks...... the M60A1/A3 has a seperate sight for the commander...... does it allow the commander to acquire target and then pass it to the gunner, allowing the tank to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without needing to acquire each one sequentially?

Finally, how do you look at the twin 20mm cannons of the T-72M1 Moderna tank?  I thought that these would be pretty handy in dealing with gunmen hiding in higher floors of a building during MOUT scenarioes...... but am I correct in thinking so?

I was thinking...... having been experienced in peacekeeping operations, maybe the gendarmes would have contributed some thoughts on having some features suitable for MOUT incorporated into their fighting vehicles......

=========================================

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Air Force

Mirage IV (bomber; maybe a few converted for strategic reconnaissance instead of Mirage 50?)

An-22 (strategic airlifter, if Allied and chartered assets cannot fulfil the need of shipping mechanized peacekeepers overseas)

Army

AH-2F Sprite (gunship conversion of refurbished SH-2F with engines souped up to T58-GE-16 standard, minigun turret of the HH-2C (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HH-2C_HC-7.jpg), updated avionics of the Super Seasprite, ordnance racks adapted for rocket and ATGM carriage, and up-to-date self-protection systems; maybe some armour protections and/or an extra pair of crew-served .50 cal. MGs like the Australian Bushranger gunships)

Comments, answers to above questions, and suggestions are welcomed.

Quote from: Weaver on October 19, 2009, 09:28:59 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 19, 2009, 09:09:30 AM

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 17, 2009, 04:36:56 PM
In a similar vein, what about the Mk71 8" naval gun?  Although, a prototype was tested, it never went into production.  Any Mk71 guns would have to be new production.  Would new Mk71 8" guns be OK?  To the best of my knowledge, the fore deck of the Spruance class was designed to carry the weight of the Mk71.  If the turret is OK under the treaty, I might see if I can buy a few.

I would say that, as long as it's the same turret ring diameter and the ship you intend to use it on is at least as large or larger than the Forrest Sherman-class, I'm fine with it.  Otherwise, I'd say that is an extensive hull modification to brace for that and you'll need to show me that it was really proposed.

That sound fair to you?

I've seen any number of references to the fact that the Kidd class was designed to take the Mk.71: it's the reason why the forward Mk.26 launcher has a smaller magazine than the aft one. Not sure about the basic Spruance. I very much doubt that the turret ring is the same size, but swapping the deck panel for a different one would be a tiny part of re-fitting the entire magazine, etc...

From page 377 of US Destroyers by Norman Friedman,
" As built, the new destroyer (the Spruance, DD963) presents an impressive, if appearently, underarmed, profile, with a pair of 5-in./54LW guns, ASROC (with the unusually large magazine capacity of 16 reload missiles), PDMS (not installed at first), two LAMPS helicopters, and the usual pair of triple Mk 32 tubes.  Provision has been made for CIWS and for chaff launchers, both antimissile defense countermeasures, and Harpoon (in canisters) has been added.

The basic design provides for both modernization and an AAW conversion (i.e. to DDG).  In the former version, the forward 5-in./54 was to be replaced by a lightweight 8-in./55, and 8 Harpoons in canisters were to be added, as well as CIWS.  A Mk 26 Mod 0 launcher would replace the ASROC pepperbox, with no loss of rounds (24 in. magazine vs. 8-inch box plus 16 stowed).  However, their would clearly be a capability to use the Mk 26 for AAW weapons.  Conversion would entail, in addition, a Mk 26 Mod 1 in place of the PDMS aft; a new gun fire control system; a continuous wave illumination; and an SPS-48 radar in place of the less capable SPS-40B of the basic ship."

It appears that the Spruance class was intended to be somewhat modular in nature; hence, the different outfit of the Kidd class. The 8"/55 gun capability was built in; although, not followed through with by the USN.  The Mk71 8" gun looks like a go and quite a few other upgrades might also be possible.

Here's a link with a few more details.  The idea of an AEGIS Long Beach modernization with the Mk71 8" gun sounds pretty good.  I'll have to check references on that one.  Maybe, I can reserve the ship after the USN retires her.  ;D http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_8-55_mk71.htm)

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: dy031101 on October 19, 2009, 01:57:59 PM

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 08:32:38 AM
Army

AH-2F Sprite (gunship conversion of refurbished SH-2F with engines souped up to T58-GE-16 standard, minigun turret of the HH-2C (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HH-2C_HC-7.jpg), updated avionics of the Super Seasprite, ordnance racks adapted for rocket and ATGM carriage, and up-to-date self-protection systems; maybe some armour protections and/or an extra pair of crew-served .50 cal. MGs like the Australian Bushranger gunships)

Comments, answers to above questions, and suggestions are welcomed.

I thought of the SeaSprite but was concerned there might not be enough airframes for all the possible applications.  How much production was there?  When was the second production run?  Other than those two question marks - the H-2 would be a great Helicopter Gunship conversion + maybe a few for the typical navy missions.

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 19, 2009, 09:23:28 PM
I thought of the SeaSprite but was concerned there might not be enough airframes for all the possible applications.  How much production was there?  When was the second production run?

I don't know for sure, but there seems to be quite a lot of airframes of earlier models produced (190 UH-2As/Bs before conversions and attritions)...... I guess we can always spend some more money to get them ready.

Right now my requirement for the Seasprites is primarily for army/marines gunships and ASW platforms (in case I end up writing ships that can't take the Sea Kings into my list in the future)......

I found most dedicated gunships to be either still in production or related to utility designs that are still in production...... another candidate I am interested in is the Alouette III (I might end up writing different versions of the list...... and I like the Airfox and Alpha XH-1......), but HAL is said to be still delivering Chetaks as late as 2002...... are they brand-new or re-built?

Was there ever a decision made on if the 707 was in or out?

With the F404 F-4, is it still possible within the rules seeing it is a limited proposal as part of a greater paper report by McDonnell? If it is how modern a F404 can be contemplated?

In looking at the Israeli Nammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Nammer) modification for the Mirage III & 5, was at any stage was the PW1120 offered as an upgrade engine or was it only offered on the later offered proposed new builds. More simply is it ok to fit an PW1120 as part of a Nammer upgrade to a Mirage III or 5?   

If the 707 is out any one have thoughts on a jet tanker and a modern AEW&C?

The VC-10 is one candidate for a jet tanker.

dy031101 has put forward the DC-8 for both. Under the upgrade rules is it ok to the fit later E-3 modernisations or is it stuck at the early 1970's development level? The DC-8 was the alternative in the selection against the 707 that led to the E-3. Also were there any later AEW&C proposals for the DC-8? PHALCON?
Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?

With the 727, again were there any tanker conversions or proposals? Also the same with AEW&C? (I am thinking possibly PHALCON again)

The Sikorsky S-61 Sea King might be useful as a maritime AEW platform (any comments to a different choice or the most capable version), along with an S-2 Tracker AEW upgrade (Brazil).   

Any others?

       

Norman Friedman comes to the rescue again...  From US Cruisers pg.422 discussing Strike Cruisers (CSGN) proposals for either new construction or conversion of the USS Long Beach

"There was one other attempt ot provide a strike cruiser.  The Long Beach was proposed as a basis for reconstruction, with a suit close to that of the CSGN: two Mk 26 Mod 2 launchers, Harpoon cannisters forward of the bridge, a Tomahawk right aft, and two 8-in/55 lightweight guns.  Her SQS-23 sonar would have been upgraded to an SQQ-23 (two dome passive/active) configuration.  Congress allocated $371 million in FY 77, expecting to add $164 million in FY 78 and $248 million in FY 79.  However, President Ford canceled the program shortly before leaving office, and instead the Long Beach was modestly overhauled in 1980-82."  http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis1.jpg (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis1.jpg)

Also, on page 414 is an artists conception of a Long Beach CSGN w/AEGIS presumably one of the various conversion proposals.  The notes for the illustration say,
"The Long Beach was proposed for conversion to an Aegis missile cruiser.  Reportedly the project was dropped because it would have diverted funds from new-construction ships such as the Ticonderoga.  This is the official sketch of the proposal, showing the SPY-1 arrays on the fore and aft sides of the single superstructure mass, with one 8-in/55 lightweight gun forward of the Mk 26 missile launcher.  Harpoon antiship missiles and Tomahawk long-range cruise missiles would have been fired from the fixed cannister launchers.  The radome would have accommodated a Mk 86 gunfire control system for the 8-in gun."  http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis2.jpg (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d28/MConrads/USACGN-09LongBeachAegis2.jpg)

The links are from Secret Projects forum http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=813.0 (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=813.0)

It looks like the Long Beach conversion had progressed (at least $371 million of design studies worth, in 1977 dollars) a great deal before the project was cancelled for political reasons.  A refitted and thoroughly modernized AEGIS Long Beach strike cruiser would be a great asset.  As a carrier escort, flagship or for theatre level missile defense with the AEGIS/Standard missile combo, the Long Beach looks very desirable.

:cheers: & happy modeling, Bryan

Quote from: blue520 on October 20, 2009, 06:53:14 AM
Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?

A quick glance at Wikipedia entry yielded these: Douglas did try to entre the DC-8 for the tanker project circulated in 1954, but the USAF ordered the KC-135 before Douglas could complete their bid.

Probe-and-Drogue tankers should be relatively straightforward to convert though, as is adding a refuelling probe to an aircraft that is previously incapable of midair refuelling.

If I interpret Logan's examples correctly, items that are somehow related but not strictly part of the families of rule violators would be up to individual participants (MiG-21MF/21bis, if you really want to although Logan personally wouldn't, and MiG-19/J-6 are okay, but definitely not J-7 and Q-5, both of which are still in production after 1990).

That being said, what if the item is derived from the rule violators, not the other way around?  I'd have liked to include the Tu-126 in one of the versions of my list, but the Tu-126 is based on Tu-114, which is derived from the Tu-95 (unlike the rule-violating Q-5, which is derived from the rule-compliant J-6).

(If 707, KC-135, and KC-10 are out...... is anyone willing to entertain the idea of partially re-engining jet-boosted KC-97Ls with turboprops for a boom-equipped tanker?  Anyway......)

I feel tempted to ask if reverse-engineering engines would be okay, but there might be a possibility of going into a debate similar to the F404 v.s. F414 one if tuning-up the engine beyond existing specifications should prove tempting......

The original list has been tentatively named Mk.1  ;D

Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 20, 2009, 07:48:58 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 20, 2009, 06:53:14 AM
Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?

A quick glance at Wikipedia entry yielded these: Douglas did try to entre the DC-8 for the tanker project circulated in 1954, but the USAF ordered the KC-135 before Douglas could complete their bid.

Probe-and-Drogue tankers should be relatively straightforward to convert though, as is adding a refuelling probe to an aircraft that is previously incapable of midair refuelling.

How ever there was a large number of design changes between the tanker project period and the first production DC-8, I was thinking of any later proposals.

The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

Quote from: Weaver on October 20, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

Well, she was launched in 1961 so she is an older vessel - theoretically, not too much technology transfer.  Nuclear-propulsion is a military application of peacefully and widely used civilian nuclear-power.  If I recall correctly, the US has "aided" France & the UK in the design of ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads and nuclear-powered subs as early as the 1950's, 60's & 70's.  Also IIRC, through "dual-key" arrangements Germany, Canada, Italy, Turkey and other NATO nations have had access to American short & medium range nuclear missiles.  I don't know how much real control the host nations had over these powerful assets but there was some sort of agreement that was suitable for everyone.

I think the nuclear-propulsion hurdle is a lower standard of technology transfer than missiles or other advanced systems.  I suspect (although I don't know for certain) that the biggest issue for exporting nuclear-powered warships is cost (nuclear power ain't cheap - particularly in a new ship);otherwise, why haven't trusted nations like Japan, Germany, Australia, Italy, etc bought nuclear-powered vessels.  Most navies aren't able to swallow the expense of nuclear-powered ships.  However, I'm hoping that the Long Beach will be more affordable as it is "used" equipment.  It may be, that the cost of 1) the ship + 2) refit/conversion + 3) the annual maintanance, manpower, upkeep, etc. + 4) refuelling and all of the other expenses make the Long Beach cost prohibitive even if it is purchased at a lower, "used equipment" cost.

:cheers: Bryan        

Quote from: blue520 on October 20, 2009, 08:47:20 AM
The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

I'd think so if you stick with the Probe-and-Drogue method.

=========================================

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Army

Leopard 1 MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour (it is said that a T-72 turret was indeed mounted on a Leopard 1 hull for trials, so I take it as a fair game)

=========================================

Random thoughts:

To create a nominally "Europe-centric" Mk.1 list, I might swap out the Phantom and Seasprites in the future and put them in my upcoming Mk.2 list instead- trouble is, I'll need to find a replacement for the Seasprites now......

Comments, answers to any and all of the as-of-yet-unanswered questions, and suggestions (well I think that covers every category of replies) are welcomed.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 20, 2009, 08:55:20 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 20, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

Well, she was launched in 1961 so she is an older vessel - theoretically, not too much technology transfer.  Nuclear-propulsion is a military application of peacefully and widely used civilian nuclear-power.  If I recall correctly, the US has "aided" France & the UK in the design of ballistic missiles, nuclear warheads and nuclear-powered subs as early as the 1950's, 60's & 70's.  Also IIRC, through "dual-key" arrangements Germany, Canada, Italy, Turkey and other NATO nations have had access to American short & medium range nuclear missiles.  I don't know how much real control the host nations had over these powerful assets but there was some sort of agreement that was suitable for everyone.

I think the nuclear-propulsion hurdle is a lower standard of technology transfer than missiles or other advanced systems.  I suspect (although I don't know for certain) that the biggest issue for exporting nuclear-powered warships is cost (nuclear power ain't cheap - particularly in a new ship);otherwise, why haven't trusted nations like Japan, Germany, Australia, Italy, etc bought nuclear-powered vessels.  Most navies aren't able to swallow the expense of nuclear-powered ships.  However, I'm hoping that the Long Beach will be more affordable as it is "used" equipment.  It may be, that the cost of 1) the ship + 2) refit/conversion + 3) the annual maintanance, manpower, upkeep, etc. + 4) refuelling and all of the other expenses make the Long Beach cost prohibitive even if it is purchased at a lower, "used equipment" cost.

:cheers: Bryan        

Well the nuke users in that list are all NATO members and Geriatria isn't. You're right that the sheer cost of nuclear propulsion is a huge barrier, but equally, I don't see anyone too keen on exporting nuclear submarine technology outside the big power-blocks either: 3rd world navies have had to laboriously develop it themselves, if at all. Another factor would be the specialised maintenance facilities needed by nuclear propulsion. Geriatria will either have to build it all for themselves (for one ship) or send the ship back to the USA every time it's reactors need maintenance and/or refuelling. If they do it themselves, how do the new cores get to Geriatria to be fitted?

From what I can see, I'd say the Seasprite is in, just not the new-built SH-2Gs.  SH-2Fs brought up to SH-2G standard is fine with me, however.


The TAM likewise looks fine since those were assembled from stored parts.  If that looks like it wasn't the case, it gets disqualified.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 19, 2009, 01:57:59 PM
=========================================

Random thoughts:

How much can I up-gun the AC-119?  I'm thinking along the line of the proposed AC-27 Spartan......
I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

Also, would the 40/20 rule apply to private contractors servicing my military- for example, commercial tanker services like Omega?
Yes, private contractors under contract with your country are subject to the same restrictions.

DC-8 can serve as a basis for a variety of combat-support platforms: AEW&C, tanker, ECM, and etc.
That's fine with me.

I can't resist thinking of a refurbished Boeing 727 (adding a refuelling probe wouldn't count as a major modification, would it?) as a transport for the head of state and other VIPs after Bryan H. presented his country as a constitutional monarchy (I may or may not follow suit)......
In my opinion, the 727 is a great option for this.

Now onto army tanks...... the M60A1/A3 has a seperate sight for the commander...... does it allow the commander to acquire target and then pass it to the gunner, allowing the tank to, in rapid sequence, shoot at two targets without needing to acquire each one sequentially?

Finally, how do you look at the twin 20mm cannons of the T-72M1 Moderna tank?  I thought that these would be pretty handy in dealing with gunmen hiding in higher floors of a building during MOUT scenarioes...... but am I correct in thinking so?
The T-72 is out because of production dates.

I was thinking...... having been experienced in peacekeeping operations, maybe the gendarmes would have contributed some thoughts on having some features suitable for MOUT incorporated into their fighting vehicles......

=========================================

Quote from: dy031101 on October 19, 2009, 10:04:26 PM
I found most dedicated gunships to be either still in production or related to utility designs that are still in production...... another candidate I am interested in is the Alouette III (I might end up writing different versions of the list...... and I like the Airfox and Alpha XH-1......), but HAL is said to be still delivering Chetaks as late as 2002...... are they brand-new or re-built?

They're rebuilds.  I think the Chetak is a great choice.

Quote from: blue520 on October 20, 2009, 06:53:14 AM
Was there ever a decision made on if the 707 was in or out?
I don't know.  I say out, because some people are saying some were new-built after 1990.  I want keep it out to make this a bit more interesting anyway.

With the F404 F-4, is it still possible within the rules seeing it is a limited proposal as part of a greater paper report by McDonnell? If it is how modern a F404 can be contemplated?
No, F404 is out if all we have is the McDD report.  They didn't look seriously at it, and I can't see that anyone else did, either.

In looking at the Israeli Nammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAI_Nammer) modification for the Mirage III & 5, was at any stage was the PW1120 offered as an upgrade engine or was it only offered on the later offered proposed new builds. More simply is it ok to fit an PW1120 as part of a Nammer upgrade to a Mirage III or 5?   
No idea.

If the 707 is out any one have thoughts on a jet tanker and a modern AEW&C?

The VC-10 is one candidate for a jet tanker.
I say that a few other ideas are the KA-3B and the KC-97J.

dy031101 has put forward the DC-8 for both. Under the upgrade rules is it ok to the fit later E-3 modernisations or is it stuck at the early 1970's development level? The DC-8 was the alternative in the selection against the 707 that led to the E-3. Also were there any later AEW&C proposals for the DC-8? PHALCON?
Are there any tanker conversions or proposals for the production DC-8?
I don't know what has or hasn't been proposed for modern conversions.  I'd say that, based on the original AWACS proposal, the DC-8 with radome could be upgraded to current E-3 standards.

With the 727, again were there any tanker conversions or proposals? Also the same with AEW&C? (I am thinking possibly PHALCON again)

The Sikorsky S-61 Sea King might be useful as a maritime AEW platform (any comments to a different choice or the most capable version), along with an S-2 Tracker AEW upgrade (Brazil).   
Both of those should work.  I was planning on the S-2 TurboTracker with balance beam radar, myself, like Brazil.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 20, 2009, 07:48:58 AM
That being said, what if the item is derived from the rule violators, not the other way around?  I'd have liked to include the Tu-126 in one of the versions of my list, but the Tu-126 is based on Tu-114, which is derived from the Tu-95 (unlike the rule-violating Q-5, which is derived from the rule-compliant J-6).
What does everyone else think?  I'm fine with Tu-126 and Tu-114, but not the Tu-95 or Tu-142.  I think they're much more different from each other than the 707/C-135 family.  What do others think?

(If 707, KC-135, and KC-10 are out...... is anyone willing to entertain the idea of partially re-engining jet-boosted KC-97Ls with turboprops for a boom-equipped tanker?  Anyway......)
That's fine by me.  Stick to actual turboprops proposed for the C-97 series, though.

I feel tempted to ask if reverse-engineering engines would be okay, but there might be a possibility of going into a debate similar to the F404 v.s. F414 one if tuning-up the engine beyond existing specifications should prove tempting......
I'm fine with the RM12 instead of the F404, for example.  It's 60% F404 and has almost identical dimensions in every respect, as shown earlier.

Quote from: Weaver on October 20, 2009, 08:30:53 AM
Would the USN really part with a nuclear-powered vessel to Geriatria? It's hard to imagine.

Speaking of political realities, could Geriatria acquire Japanese hardware (of any sort), i.e. does the real-world Japanese embargo on arms sales apply in this whiff world?

I say yes to Japan, but let's try to keep nuclear ships out of this.

Quote from: blue520 on October 20, 2009, 08:47:20 AM
The question I should have asked is "Are tanker conversions simple enough to be outside rule 7?".

Probe & drogue, sure.  You can put a couple of refueling pods on a Transall C-160 and use it as a tactical tanker, but I think you need to at least show there was a proposal for the boom modification.  I think the DC-8 qualifies for the boom based on the early proposals.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 20, 2009, 09:22:09 AM
Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

Army

Leopard 1 MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour

(To create a nominally "Europe-centric" Mk.1 list, I might swap out the Phantom and Seasprites in the future and put them in my upcoming Mk.2 list instead- trouble is, I'll need to find a replacement for the Seasprites now......)

Both of those sound fine.  The Seasprites can be replaced by the Alouette II and III in most roles, I think.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

The heaviest I would ever go is the Bushmaster IV for 40mm/L70 Bofors ammunitions, but with the notion of me never realizing the AC-119 ever being armed with anything bigger than the 20mm Vulcan guns, I'd be more than happy if I can settle with the Bushmaster II.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
The T-72 is out because of production dates.

I'm only interested in the turret.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
They're rebuilds.  I think the Chetak is a great choice.

Makes my life a whole lot easier.  :thumbsup:  So do the clearances of Tu-126 and Alouette III.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
That's fine by me.  Stick to actual turboprops proposed for the C-97 series, though.

P&W T34 turboprops were tested on the YC-97J.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 20, 2009, 09:45:32 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
I'd say nothing over the original 40mm caliber.  Other than that, I'm fine with it.

The heaviest I would ever go is the Bushmaster IV for 40mm/L70 Bofors ammunitions, but with the notion of me never realizing the AC-119 ever being armed with anything bigger than the 20mm Vulcan guns, I'd be more than happy if I can settle with the Bushmaster II.

You're probably right about that.  Just to be safe, how about no guns 35mm and over and no guns (regardless of caliber) over 200kg for the AC-119?

Anyone have a problem with that?

Also, no gunship conversions of airframes not proposed for the job with weapons caliber greater than 20mm.  That seem fair?

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Weaver on October 20, 2009, 09:26:28 AM
Well the nuke users in that list are all NATO members and Geriatria isn't. You're right that the sheer cost of nuclear propulsion is a huge barrier, but equally, I don't see anyone too keen on exporting nuclear submarine technology outside the big power-blocks either: 3rd world navies have had to laboriously develop it themselves, if at all. Another factor would be the specialised maintenance facilities needed by nuclear propulsion. Geriatria will either have to build it all for themselves (for one ship) or send the ship back to the USA every time it's reactors need maintenance and/or refuelling. If they do it themselves, how do the new cores get to Geriatria to be fitted?

Geriatria has rebuilt her shipyards but right now they're better equipped for cruise ships, freighters, fishing vessels and sail yachts - nuclear core replacement is out of our league at this point. 

Geriatria will wait until 2020 and buy some Ticonderoga class CG's.  We will include Ticonderoga's in the negotiations over the basing right for US forces.  The AEGIS system will have to wait & land-based air defense missiles will have to work for now.  Properly outfitted Spruances will be adequate for surface warfare and carrier escort (ex-Clemenceau) duties.

:cheers: Bryan 

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 10:37:30 AM
Just to be safe, how about no guns 35mm and over and no guns (regardless of caliber) over 200kg for the AC-119?

No problem whatsoever.

(I think I'll stay out of any argument over the second rule addendum although personally I have no problem with it, either.)

Right now I see four three choices:

1. pay Sargent Fletcher Inc. to finish development of the advanced 27mm gunpod for my tactical fighters and re-arm the AC-119s with the same 27mm cannons.

2. swap out the Phantoms for MiG-23s/23BNs/27s and re-arm the AC-119s with GSh-6-30  :wacko: or GSh-2-30 guns......

3. swap out the Phantoms for SAAB 37s and re-arm the AC-119s with Oerlikon KCA guns.

4. wait until my army vehicle armaments can be fully worked out.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 20, 2009, 09:27:16 AM
I'm fine with the RM12 instead of the F404, for example.  It's 60% F404 and has almost identical dimensions in every respect, as shown earlier.

Can I take it as if reverse-engineering engines is fine so long as the engines are built as-is, not changed into a super powerplant whose use virtually violates Rule #7?

Or should I at least pay some lip service to the idea of "just taking wrecked engines and fixing 'em"?

Quote from: blue520 on October 15, 2009, 03:29:23 AM
I know this is from a couple of pages back but have been looking into the T-54/T-55 family and came across this web page http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/chimbtt69ii.htm (http://www.onwar.com/weapons/afv/data/chimbtt69ii.htm) which states the Type 69-II production was from 1974 to 1988. Also the Type 69 wikipedia page list the Iraqi variants as upgrades.

I just found out that Romania was still coming up with new versions of their T-55 derivatives well into the 80s.  Does anyone know the duration and the nature (again, new-build v.s. upgrade) of their production?

=========================================

Addendum to my Mk.1 list:

I'm under the impression that of all new-generation WVRAAMs, IRIS-T is has the longest range at 25km (previously I thought the ASRAAM is at 18km) and would like to equip my supersonic fighters with it, with the navy's Viggens being the first to receive the missiles; G.91R has a secondary air defense duty with AIM-9L/M-class weapons.

Air Force

Tu-126 (AEW&C replacing the originally-specified SP-2H AEW; upgraded with Phalcon system)

Tu-114 (some Probe-and-Drogue tankers, others ELINT/ECM)

Saab 37 Viggen (replaced the originally-specified Phantoms; majority being JA-37 fighters upgraded to the newest standard, and if there's a possibility of adopting the fire control radar to fire Meteor AAMs in the future......; and the obligatory trainers, too)

AC-119s will be upgunned with 3~4 Oerlikon KCA cannons

Navy

Il-38 (ASW/Ocean-patrol replacing the originally-specified SP-2H ASW; brought to SD standard)

Saab 37 Viggen (AJS-37 in maritime roles)

Army

Gepard AA tank (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Leopard 1 GCT AU-F2 155mm SPH

Leopard 1 TOS-1 220mm Artillery Rocket (for the same reason as my MBT choice)

=========================================

Random thoughts:

I used to ask questions in the General Modelling section about how one might rehabilitate mothballed WWII-vintage AFVs to some kind of fighting shape...... I thought this might be a good chance to really have fun with the idea (if I knew enough about specifications of modern weaponries, that is).  I probably won't make those ideas specific to any version of my list......

Does anyone know the turret ring diametres of LCTS-90, CT-CV, CV90-120, and Leopard 2 turrets respectively?

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 08:09:42 AM
I'm surprised no-ones gone for F-106s or Lightnings yet, to be honest.

I had thought about making F-102s and F-106s competitive for modern air combat before......  How much of an upgrade did the Swedish Rb 27 represent over the AIM-26B, if at all?

Short of coming up with a WVRAAM that didn't enter production (what-if successor of XAIM-4H)...... perhaps the internal carriages can be modified for carrying the Russian R-60 missiles, and BVRAAMs can be carried under the wings (unfortunately, in place of the drop tanks...... maybe we can try testing weapon-carrying supersonic tanks taken from the Mirages on the Century Deltas......)

Lightnings? what for??? gate guarding?  ;D

The Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar is claimed to be designed to generate minimal aerodynamic effect...... how much of truth is there to it?

Or maybe I should just ask point-blank if I can put the "Top Hat" radar into the Dassault Mercure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mercure) to make an AEW plane...... or would that be considered as a major airframe modification?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 21, 2009, 02:52:47 PM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 09, 2009, 08:09:42 AM
I'm surprised no-ones gone for F-106s or Lightnings yet, to be honest.

I had thought about making F-102s and F-106s competitive for modern air combat before......  How much of an upgrade did the Swedish Rb 27 represent over the AIM-26B, if at all?

Short of coming up with a WVRAAM that didn't enter production (what-if successor of XAIM-4H)...... perhaps the internal carriages can be modified for carrying the Russian R-60 missiles, and BVRAAMs can be carried under the wings (unfortunately, in place of the drop tanks...... maybe we can try testing weapon-carrying supersonic tanks taken from the Mirages on the Century Deltas......)

Wouldn't any attempt to upgrade the -106 to modern capability violate the rule about mods having to have been proposed in the real world? We talk about modded -106s on here all the time, but AFAIK, the most "modern" proposed mod in the real world replaced all the Falcons with a couple of Sparrows: hardly a modern loadout.

Quote from: Weaver on October 22, 2009, 01:03:35 AM
Wouldn't any attempt to upgrade the -106 to modern capability violate the rule about mods having to have been proposed in the real world? We talk about modded -106s on here all the time, but AFAIK, the most "modern" proposed mod in the real world replaced all the Falcons with a couple of Sparrows: hardly a modern loadout.

IIRC, avionics upgrade and the use of modern ordnances would fall under Rule #6 but not Rule #7, which in this case concerns major aerodynamic modifications.

Why going for F106s if you can order phantoms? I think the delta is quite limited in her capabilities, even if you fit sparrows.

Quote from: gunfighter on October 22, 2009, 06:32:24 AM
Why going for F106s if you can order phantoms? I think the delta is quite limited in her capabilities, even if you fit sparrows.

Just for something fresh and fun...... I mean everyone is choosing Phantoms, as did I in my Mk.1 list (although now replaced, it'll still be in another version)  ;D

OK, that´s right. Are F8s eligible? I think no one has mentioned them.

Can not see any reason why the F-8 Crusader should be ineligible. If you are talking about the export version of the the Shenyang J-8 then it would be ineligible.

Sure I meant the crusader... ;D I´ll think in the upgrades. As for engines, maybe a F404 would do well. It would need BVR capability, but I don´t know which radar could fit inside that small radome, any ideas?
Just to get rid fo those boring phantoms    :lol:

Quote from: gunfighter on October 22, 2009, 09:40:30 AM
Sure I meant the crusader... ;D I´ll think in the upgrades. As for engines, maybe a F404 would do well. It would need BVR capability, but I don´t know which radar could fit inside that small radome, any ideas?
Just to get rid fo those boring phantoms    :lol:

For re-engining the F-8, I'd follow the lead of the A-7 and use either one afterburning engine of the F100/F110 class or two afterburning F404s (cf. Vought V.529).  For the radar, how about a variation of the An/APG-68 or equivalent radar.  The antenna should be small enough to fit the F-8's radome without overmuch trouble.  For that matter, a derivative of the AN/APG-67 fitted to the F-20 and A-50 would likely fit, too.  As a different option, I wonder if the reduced diamter antenna version of the AN/APG-65 fitted to teh AV-8B+ would fit?

Has anyone proposed an engine re-fit for the Crusader? If not, then it fall foul of rule #7.

Wasn't there real-world talk (not sure how serious) of a Spey-powered version?

Is there any aircraft other than the Vulcan bomber be proposed to use the Rolls-Royce Olympus or Wright J67?

Adding on to Weaver, with the Crusader and engines you have to remember rule 7 (limited to actual or proposed upgrades) and are not really sure how the the rules apply with the applying A-7 proposals to the F-8 (think it would be out). I was doing a hunt around to see if any one had proposed any re-engines for the French (or any at all) and turned up zero.

Interesting to see some one else bring up the Vought V-529 (BTW the A-7 conversion was for 2 non-afterburning F404s), I have been thinking about this aircraft in order to keep a similarity with a F404 powered A-4 rather than go for a re-engine like the A-7F.

I have seen different re-engining proposals for the F-8 variants.

The only engine options I'm aware of at the moment for the F-8 are:

J57
J75
J79
Spey

Let me know if there are others that were considered.  I'd be interested in them.  As for the F-106, the only engine seriously studied for that same airframe was the original J75.  I'd love to see other options (I'd imagine somebody at Convair considered some other ones).

Cheers,

Logan

OK, my original idea was to replace the radar with a ELTA 2032, thus allowing medium range shots like Derbys. I have checked that the APQ-94 had an antenae diameter of 533mm, and the ELTA has a 500mm dish, so it is possible.
I will analyze the engine options, maybe the speys are good choices.

According to my American Secret Project book, the F-106 was originally (as the F-102B) designed to combine the airframe of the F-102A with the J67...... I'd have liked to think that it means I can re-engine the F-102 with the Olympus except...... oh actually, may I try the Olympus 320?

As far as the F-106 goes...... evolution of the design did feature other engines, but the resulting aircraft would've had little if any at all in common with the baseline Delta Dart...... I don't think I wanna go there......

Quote from: dy031101 on October 22, 2009, 11:12:32 AM
According to my American Secret Project book, the F-106 was originally (as the F-102B) designed to combine the airframe of the F-102A with the J67...... I'd have liked to think that it means I can re-engine the F-102 with the Olympus except I could find nothing on the development of the J67 other than its identity as an Olympus Americanized and wonder if an afterburning version did end up materialising at all......

Maybe I can try Olympus 320?

As far as the F-106 goes...... evolution of the design did feature other engines, but the resulting aircraft would've had little if any at all in common with the baseline Delta Dart...... I don't think I wanna go there......

Yeah, I have the secret projects book, too, and that's what I gathered from the F-106.  They were different airframes, basically.  On the J67...

QuoteIn the event, the J67 engine never did materialize as a realistic powerplant for American aircraft.

From Joe Baugher's great site. (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_1.html)

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 22, 2009, 11:33:07 AM
On the J67...

QuoteIn the event, the J67 engine never did materialize as a realistic powerplant for American aircraft.

From Joe Baugher's great site. (http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_1.html)

Was it because of the time constraint or performance figure?  How different was the J67 from the Olympus 320 (or rather vice-versa, for the purpose of re-engining the refurbished F-102A into the F-102B) though?

I mean if this would be no problem, I want to incorporate it in my "Delta-wing Country" (maybe Mk.3) version of the list.  ;D

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 19, 2009, 09:09:30 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 19, 2009, 05:13:12 AM
Would it be permissible inside the rules to modify any aircraft with an engine that has never been proposed for that aircraft, that is smaller in length and diameter than the original engines and a proposed modification engine, also the engine it was developed from was proposed as an modification and the amount of changes would be similar. In this case the aircraft in question is the F-4 and I am wondering about fitting F414s to it. The F414 is smaller in length and diameter than the J79, Spey Mk 202 & also the PW1120, also there was a proposed modernisation (McDonnell Douglas) for the F-4 that induced the F404 as one of the options.   

No, it's not permissible.  We've been over this already.  The F414 =/= F404.  We went over this when Brian H tried to turn the A-4 Skyhawk into a Gripen NG. (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26195.msg383535.html#msg383535)

One could do much worse than making a A-4 into a Gripen (w/the F404); versus, making it into a Gripen NG (w/the F414).  ;D

:cheers: Bryan

As I am still pondering about the choice of my fighters in my Mk.1 list...... I saw a potential trouble for MiG-23, one of my candidates......

The ground-attack MiG-27 was licence-built in India, with deliveries said to last into 1996 (examples after 1988 were built with increasing local content)......

Does anyone have more info on that?

Another issue to think about with F-8 Crusaders: they're made of a special Vought-developed alloy called Metallite and it doesn't like high humidity. Some second-hand aircraft were sold to the Phillipines in the late 1970s, and by 1984, when a Vought team went out to restore them, they were practically falling apart. The Vought team devised a replacement composite material made from local plywood and sheets of a different alloy, but they still didn't last much longer.

Anyway, there's another option. The YA-7F Strikefighter wasn't just a re-engining job: it also had a seriously stretched fuselage and an afterburner, and made Mach 1.6 on tests. That makes it effectively a modern, land-based Crusader: give it a modern multi-mode radar with AI capability and there's no reason it couldn't be a poor-man's F-16.

As well as the F-100-PW-220 powered A-7F, there was also a proposed International Corsair III, which would have had a 27.600lb F110-GE-100, a similar fuselage stretch, automatic maneuvering flaps and digital avionics.

Here are my two lists so far...... they are incomplete right now and are still subject to change, but I might as well post them now...... I want to balance between a asthetically-pleasing fleet and a practical one (at least as best as I could  ;D), so comments and opinions are always welcomed as I go.

=========================================

For aircraft types, conversion trainers will be acquired where available.

F-106 and Johan Draken in the Mk.2 list clearly each needs a new radar.  Without checking antenna dish sizes, I'd nonetheless think that the new radars are likely to come from either FIAR or Elta......

Mk.1 (doing quite a bit of business with Israel, South Africa, and former Eastern-Bloc):

AAMs include Magic-II (Mirages and G.91), Python 5 (Mirages), MICA (Mirage F.1 and Nammer)

ASMs include AGM-65 (all fighter types including G.91), ARMAT (Mirages), and AM.39 (Il-38)

Aircraft powerplant so far include Atar 9K-50 (Mirages), Orpheus (G.91, Gnat, C/AC-119), NK-12 (An-22, Tu-114/126), AI-20 (Il-38), Dart (Argosy), Artouste (Alouette III)

Air Force

Mirage F.1

Nammer (made system-equal with the Mirage F1; tactical recce capability provided through either aquisition of pods or conversions of a number of airframes into a specialized version)

Finger (these strike fighters, visually the same as the Argentine machines but with a more up-to-date avionics suite and Atar 9K-50 engine, are hopefully the first supersonic fighters to be inducted into the reconstituted air force)

G.91R/4 (strike fighter with a secondary air defense role using Magic II missiles)

Mirage IV (bomber)

There also is to be several examples of a strategic recce platform, which is either a Nammer with an extreme-range camera in place of fire control radar or Mirage IV with an extreme-range camera under fuselage

Gnat (advanced trainer, upgraded to Gnat II a.k.a. Ajeet standard)

Some turboprop kitplane for basic training

Tu-126 (upgraded with Phalcon system)

Tu-114 (some Probe-and-Drogue tankers, others ELINT/ECM)

An-22 (strategic airlifter, if Allied assets cannot fulfil the need of shipping mechanized peacekeepers overseas)

AW.660 Argosy

C-119/AC-119 with Orpheus Booster Turbojet (AC-119 upgunned with 3 BK-27 cannons also used by tactical fighters in a podded form)

Navy

Il-38 (brought to SD standard)

Army

Alouette III Utility

Alouette III Gunship based on Alpha XH-1

Leopard 1 MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour

Gepard AA tank (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Leopard 1 GCT AU-F2 155mm SPH

Leopard 1 TOS-1 220mm Artillery Rocket

M48 Patton MBT upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and improved hull armour

M48 Patton AA tank with Gepard turret (with Stinger SAM add-on)

M48 Patton GCT AU-F2 155mm SPH

M48 Patton TOS-1 220mm Artillery Rocket

M41 Walker Bulldog light tank with CT-CV turret

PT-76 light tank with CT-CV turret

Marder 1A5 IFV

BTR-50M IFV

=========================================

Mk.2 (air combat fleet dominated by delta-winged aircraft......):

AAMs include R-60M/KM (F-106), Magic-II/Sidewinder (Viggen, Kfir, Draken), IRIS-T (Viggen, Kfir), MICA (all BVR-capable fighter types except for JA-37), AIM-120 (JA-37)

ASMs include AS.30, AGM-65, RBS-15, BK-90

Aircraft powerplant so far include JT8D (SAAB 37, Mercure), J79 (Kfir), J75 (F/TF-106), Olympus (Vulcan), Avon (SAAB 35), J34 (SP-2H), Tyne (Belfast, C-160), T64 (SP-2H), Artouste (Alouette III)

Air Force

Ordnance-carrying under-wing supersonic tanks used by the Kfir fleet will be tested for use with the F-106 as well

JA-37 Viggen (upgraded to the most up-to-date standard)

Kfir (C.2/C.7 upgraded by French firms to become system equal to Mirage IIIEX, thus featuring F.1-style radome and refuelling probe)

Saab 35 Draken (both the air defense Johan and the strike fighter F.25 models)

F-106 Delta Dart (weapons bay modified to carry R-60 missiles)

AVRO Vulcan

Dassault Mercure AEW (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)

Short Belfast (to be used in conjunctionn with Allied assets to ship mechanized peacekeepers overseas due to scarcity of airframes)

Transall C-160

Navy

AJS-37 Viggen (maritime/anti-ship strike type with radar modified with ability to cue WVRAAMs; IRIS-T will be allocated to them first)

SP-2H Neptune (upgraded with T64 turboprops and up-to-date avionics)

Army

Alouette III Utility

Alouette III Airfox Gunship

Pz.68/88 MBT (with proposed upgrade that includes the 120mm gun)

Flakpanzer 68/88 AA tank (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Centurion MBT with Olifant 2 turret

Centurion AA tank with Gepard turret (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Mk F3 155mm SPH (modernised with new ordnances)

AMX-13 light tank with CT-CV turret

Ikv-91 light tank with CT-CV turret

AMX-VCI APC

Pbv 302 APC

dy031101:
MiG-27ML - http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html) has it down as license for 188 MiG-27s (option for 50 more), 165 produced, last aircraft TS-665 delivered March 1997.

"Dassault Mercure AEW (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)" is such a modification allowed?
If it is, two other alternatives you may want to think over.
The Ericsson Erieye on the C-160, reduces the number of aircraft types.
Erieye or Top Hat (with a modified support, like the one for the Erieye) on a Boeing 727, JT8D for engine commonality, younger airframes (early '80s rather than early '70s), more than big enough for a full fit out for the Top Hat systems, T-tails seem to be fine with this sort of radar fit (example Embraer R-99 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99)), could also have a common type tanker and there is the Super 27 JT8D-217 re-engine if you want a more modern but related engine upgrade.

Olympus - This post (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7691.msg69086/highlight,olympus.html#msg69086) on secret projects lists the F-105 as having a Olympus proposal.

C-119 - Another one from secret projects (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,889.msg6952.html#msg6952), there was a proposal that did not get past the design phase for a turboprop re-engine using the Allison T56. The T56 was also a used in a turboprop re-engine (http://www.oldwings.nl/content/c123t/c123t.htm) of the C-123 Provider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-123_Provider), which could be an alternative to the AW.660 Argosy, bringing you engine types down buy one. 

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
MiG-27ML - http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html) has it down as license for 188 MiG-27s (option for 50 more), 165 produced, last aircraft TS-665 delivered March 1997.

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
"Dassault Mercure AEW (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)" is such a modification allowed?

Yeah, those two (and to a lessor extent, re-engining F-102 with Olympus) are the items I'm kinda awaiting the rule interpretations for but elected to include in the list for the time being.

The one thing I can see against the AEW Boeing 727, apart from getting it and my Mercure proposal Logan-approved  ;D, is the centre engine- the antenna would be in the way of its intake unless you go for an the underfuselage radome, and it doesn't look like Boeing 727 has a lot of ground clearance.

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
C-119 - Another one from secret projects (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,889.msg6952.html#msg6952), there was a proposal that did not get past the design phase for a turboprop re-engine using the Allison T56.

Hum...... the question is the same as the F404-powered Phantom topic- was it seriously studied?  Even though it did not get past the design phase, was the design at least completed, just lacking a prototype?

=========================================

Random thoughts:

Other than Orpheus and J85, J34 was also used as a booster jet for the C-119...... something that might be of interest to some.

Might need a tank to fill up the shortfalls in terms of numerical strengths of my MBTs just in case...... a modified M48?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 23, 2009, 06:01:37 AM

The one thing I can see against the AEW Boeing 727, apart from getting it and my Mercure proposal Logan-approved  ;D, is the centre engine- the antenna would be in the way of its intake unless you go for an the underfuselage radome, and it doesn't look like Boeing 727 has a lot of ground clearance.

Hum...... the question is the same as the F404-powered Phantom topic- was it seriously studied?  Even though it did not get past the design phase, was the design at least completed, just lacking a prototype?

The thing I see that would be getting in the way for the No.2 engine intake on the 727 in not the antenna but the supports, that is where a inverted V support (like the Erieye supports) coupled with the wider fuselage of the 727 over the Saab340 & ERJ 145, would raise the antenna high enough and provide enough gap between the struts low down to provide a clean flow path.

With the C-119 T56, the link I gave you is all the info I have.   

Quote from: dy031101 on October 22, 2009, 04:34:18 PM
As I am still pondering about the choice of my fighters in my Mk.1 list...... I saw a potential trouble for MiG-23, one of my candidates......

The ground-attack MiG-27 was licence-built in India, with deliveries said to last into 1996 (examples after 1988 were built with increasing local content)......

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
MiG-27ML - http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html (http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Specs/MiG-27.html) has it down as license for 188 MiG-27s (option for 50 more), 165 produced, last aircraft TS-665 delivered March 1997.

This, in my opinion, counts out the MiG-23 & family.  It's like the Su-27 and Su-30.  Just because they're different designations with different roles, they're still the same basic airframe.  The MiG-23 airframe has been in production after 1990, it's disqualified.

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
"Dassault Mercure AEW (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)" is such a modification allowed?
If it is, two other alternatives you may want to think over.
The Ericsson Erieye on the C-160, reduces the number of aircraft types.
Erieye or Top Hat (with a modified support, like the one for the Erieye) on a Boeing 727, JT8D for engine commonality, younger airframes (early '80s rather than early '70s), more than big enough for a full fit out for the Top Hat systems, T-tails seem to be fine with this sort of radar fit (example Embraer R-99 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_R-99)), could also have a common type tanker and there is the Super 27 JT8D-217 re-engine if you want a more modern but related engine upgrade.

I'm fine with the AEW upgrades because you can't live without them, as long as it's not a GIANT (E-3 Sentry) dish unless such a proposal existed.  The balance beam type is fine, as would be a smaller, Hawkeye-type dish on a large plane.  I personally am considering putting the radar from an E-2D onto an Il-38 à la P-3AEW&C.

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
Olympus - This post (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7691.msg69086/highlight,olympus.html#msg69086) on secret projects lists the F-105 as having a Olympus proposal.

Yeah, but who would want the F-105?

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
C-119 - Another one from secret projects (http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,889.msg6952.html#msg6952), there was a proposal that did not get past the design phase for a turboprop re-engine using the Allison T56. The T56 was also a used in a turboprop re-engine (http://www.oldwings.nl/content/c123t/c123t.htm) of the C-123 Provider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-123_Provider), which could be an alternative to the AW.660 Argosy, bringing you engine types down buy one. 

I mentioned the C-123T already and I think it's a great option.  That's a good, solid plane.  I'd be more worried about a C-119.  Maybe a few for gunships if you want (although I'd prefer AC-47Ts), but lacking a cargo ramp and with the airframe age, I'd not rate them as might first option.  Also, I wonder...if they never even got past the design phase, did they encounter insurmountable obstacles or was it prohibitively expensive, do you think?  It was seriously studied, so I'll allow it, but I won't go with it.

Quote from: Weaver on October 22, 2009, 07:10:47 PM
Anyway, there's another option. The YA-7F Strikefighter wasn't just a re-engining job: it also had a seriously stretched fuselage and an afterburner, and made Mach 1.6 on tests. That makes it effectively a modern, land-based Crusader: give it a modern multi-mode radar with AI capability and there's no reason it couldn't be a poor-man's F-16.

As well as the F-100-PW-220 powered A-7F, there was also a proposed International Corsair III, which would have had a 27.600lb F110-GE-100, a similar fuselage stretch, automatic maneuvering flaps and digital avionics.

Now I think that's one of the best planes you can have in this scenario.  You can put the latest F110 in it, give it a glass cockpit, even have a two-seat variant.  For anything A-G, this should be an awesome, reliable, cheap-to-operate plane.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 23, 2009, 06:01:37 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 01:27:43 AM
"Dassault Mercure AEW (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)" is such a modification allowed?

Yeah, those two (and to a lessor extent, re-engining F-102 with Olympus) are the items I'm kinda awaiting the rule interpretations for but elected to include in the list for the time being.

Yeah, those are fine with me.  I don't see the point behind the F-102.  Not worth the trouble.  Just stick with Mirages and F-106s if you want to go crazy.  Fine with me, though.

Cheers,

Logan

What do you all think, Challenger 1, in or out?  Is it too similar to the Challenger 2 or not?

Some vehicles that I like a lot for this are the Strv 103, the Ikv 91, and the Ratel family.

Cheers,

Logan

I am weakly leaning towards out for the Challenger 1. If some one very badly wanted it I would not raise it as an issue, but it would have to firmly fixed a the Challenger 1 development level. Personally I would not choose it.

The Strv 103 and Ikv 91 are great, rather innovative for their age. The Strv 103 was one of the first pieces of armour I looked at when starting out and the Ikv 91 would be a natural partner (also the pbv 302). If the rules included no upgrades on armored vehicle they would probably be one of my first selections.

I looked at the Ratel family and could not pin down a production end date, so I dismissed it as possibly running past 1990. The Ratel ZT3 with the Leopard (Ingwe) anti-armour missile is reported to be rather effective and has been battle proven against tanks. Any suggestions for a replacement of the 90 mm gun on the Ratel 90?      

I'm inclined to agree with blue520 on the Challenger 1 matter.  Challenger 2 looks and sounds like an improved Challenger 1, but then it's only less than 5% Challenger 1......

Which leads to one question from me.  A question is already raised about the Olifant v.s. Centurion issue...... now, say, I take a bunch of Centurion hulks from various scrapyards, have the Jordanians rebuilding them into the Temsah APCs, and then put the CV90-120 turrets on them...... would the resulting vehicles violate Rule #4?

(That makes two questions to go about the Centurion tanks now.)

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 23, 2009, 07:39:09 AM
I'm fine with the AEW upgrades because you can't live without them, as long as it's not a GIANT (E-3 Sentry) dish unless such a proposal existed.  The balance beam type is fine, as would be a smaller, Hawkeye-type dish on a large plane.  I personally am considering putting the radar from an E-2D onto an Il-38 à la P-3AEW&C.

I was thinking exactly the same thing but using Searchwater 2000 as a backup just in case.  :cheers:

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 23, 2009, 07:39:09 AM
Yeah, but who would want the F-105?

I probably would...... but it doesn't stir up enough madness in me to consider re-engining.  ;D

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 10:11:17 AM
I looked at the Ratel family and could not pin down a production end date, so I dismissed it as possibly running past 1990.

Assuming production was never interrupted and considering the industrial capability of South Africa (which I know nothing about), how long would it take to manufacture, say, 2000 Ratels?  If it won't take us past 1990, then most likely Ratel is safe for selection.  ;D

I'm fairly certain that Ratels were produced after 1990. KADDB in Jordan is still listing it as a "product", but it's not clear if they're rebuilds or new builds.

I'd say the Chally I is in: the II is effectively a new tank with the same name.

BTW KADDB offer a whole range of upgrade goodies. Their low-profile Falcon turret makes the Chally I much more attractive and can be adapted to different hulls. They also do a 120mm RUAG upgrade for the M60.

Quote from: Weaver on October 23, 2009, 06:01:28 PM
I'm fairly certain that Ratels were produced after 1990. KADDB in Jordan is still listing it as a "product", but it's not clear if they're rebuilds or new builds.

I'd say the Chally I is in: the II is effectively a new tank with the same name.

BTW KADDB offer a whole range of upgrade goodies. Their low-profile Falcon turret makes the Chally I much more attractive and can be adapted to different hulls. They also do a 120mm RUAG upgrade for the M60.

I haven't seen anything saying the Ratel was built after 1990.  In fact, while I read that Ratel Mk 3 production started in 1988, when I read far more into it, it seems as if the Mk 2 and Mk 3 versions of the Ratel were both incremental upgrades of the Mk 1 vehicles produced in the 1970s.  As far as KADDB's Ratels listed on the site, those are all the old Ratels that South Africa sold them.  Apparently they sold them about 120 around 2002-03.  From the South African production numbers that I've seen, Jordan can buy up enough vehicles to meet even the largest requests in the future.  If someone has some data showing it was still in new-build production after 1990, that's fine, but I've not seen evidence of that yet.


The KADDB M60 upgrade is fine, but the M60T/Sabra is far better in basically every respect.  I think the KADDB is just aimed at the large market of M60 users that hate Israel.  I like their M60 ARV very much.  If you're going to use M60s, that seems the way to compliment them.


As for the Challenger 1, I would definitely make that my main MBT, equipped with the Falcon turret.  There are a few competitors out there, but it's one of my favorites.

Cheers,

Logan

You're right about the Ratel. What I was thinking of was this upgraded version, currently on offer:

http://www.military-today.com/apc/iklwa.htm

However it's not entered production yet. It can be produced from re-build Ratels or as a new-build.

That raises an interesting question about the rules: suppose something re-enters production? For instance, suppose Geriatria buys 2nd hand Ratels, but then OMC start producing new Iklwas for somebody else. Do Geriatria have to give them all back? Cancel any unfulfilled orders? What about spares and support?

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 23, 2009, 07:39:09 AM
This, in my opinion, counts out the MiG-23 & family.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 23, 2009, 07:39:09 AM
I don't see the point behind the F-102.  Not worth the trouble.  Just stick with Mirages and F-106s if you want to go crazy.

Fair enough.  You know, I'd have liked to consider upgraded MiG-21bis with Analog-144 wings......  :banghead:

(All references I could find except for Air Vectors website only described the Analog-144 as "built".  Air Vectors described it as "production MiG-21S refitted with new wings, leading me to want to think that the delta wings can be refitted to already-built airframes.)

Anyway, after a day of fine-tuning Mk.1 (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,26195.msg386207.html#msg386207) in my head, I've finally decided I'll need another mark to adequately write up this "Western aircraft with Eastern-Bloc weapons" kind of crazy......

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 10:11:17 AM
The Strv 103 and Ikv 91 are great, rather innovative for their age. The Strv 103 was one of the first pieces of armour I looked at when starting out and the Ikv 91 would be a natural partner (also the pbv 302). If the rules included no upgrades on armored vehicle they would probably be one of my first selections.

I'd take the Ikv 91...... would its turret ring be able to accommodate the CT-CV turret (105mm gun, indirect fire mode, tested on a LAV-III)?

Quote from: blue520 on October 23, 2009, 10:11:17 AM
Any suggestions for a replacement of the 90 mm gun on the Ratel 90?     

Cockerill has a Mk.3 gun meant as a replacement to all low-pressure 90mm guns that came before it.

For main AEW&C/VIP (+non combat) transport/tanker I am thinking of the 727 and wanted to get peoples thoughts on this.
I am looking for a type that may be expensive to procure (but doesn't have to be), is going to last at least 10 years in daily service and is economical to run. Edit: By "expensive to procure" I mean the initial cost are not a major problem if it can last the time to at least 2020.

My thoughts were early 1980's Boeing 727-200 striped down and rebuilt, fatigued and critical airframe sections renewed and a full reskinning. Should give ten to fifteen plus years of further service with out major issues.  
Engines replaced by twin CFM56-5C2 31200lbf engines (proposed re-engine by Volpar Aircraft Corporation, Snow Aviation also proposed one using the IAE V2530) replacing engines 1 and 3, number 2 engine inlet replaced by a fairing and the APU moved to the removed number 2 engine position with a tail cone replacing the exhaust. Seeing the CFM56-5C2 is in use on the A340-200/300 and there is a large CFM56 family it should be economical to maintain, also this conversion was expected to reduce fuel consumption and improve the range by 48%.
Fit winglets and 2 man glass cockpit. Obtain gravel runway kits for the option to use temporary or dispersed dirt/gravel airfields if necessary.

The AEW&C version would use the Northrop Grumman MESA (top hat) radar system, the 727-200 should have enough volume to do a full fit out per the 737 AEW&C.
With the tanker I was planing one refuelling pod under each wing and additional internal tanks as a multi-role tanker transport. Similar in concept to the Airbus A310 MRTT, but with less fuel capacity and having a rough runway capability.
May also have one or two dedicated transports additionally to the MRTT for freight and VIP transport, the gravel runway ability gives it a limited strategic transport ability.

To supplement the 727 I was thinking of obtaining a limited number of Douglas DC-8 Super 70 (which has the CFM56-2 engines) with limited upgrades (like a glass cockpit), probably about 5 aircraft. Two as transports and 3 as tankers (similar to the KC-135). Due to the age of these aircraft they would be in limited use to reduce maintenance and operating costs, but would be maintained in top condition.

Thoughts or alternative suggestions any one?                    

Just a thought: if other nations are still using eligible hardware, can we "bribe" them to retire it early so we can use it? That is to say, if Jordan doesn't want to part with it's newly-upgraded Chally Is, can we pay them Leo IIA6 or Leclerc unit prices in order to free them up?

A 727 with either three upgraded JT8Ds (JT8D-217s on the sides and a cropped-fan version in the center to deal with the airflow and size restrictions of the center duct) or two larger engines would not only work for the AEW and VIP (C-22, anyone?) roles, but the provisions were always there, even if not used, for a tanker version.  If you needed one that could get out of tighter airfields, the 727-200 wing on the shorter 727-100 fuselage with the upgraded engines should work well.  If you go with the JT8D-powered 737-200 for some roles where a larger aircraft is unncessary, then sticking with the JT8D for the 727 variants wouldn't be a logistics problem.  I know Boeing studied stretched 707s to match the DC-8 Series 60 and 70 aircraft, but never actually built any; would these be appropriate aircraft for conversion and use under the rules?

Quote from: elmayerle on October 24, 2009, 01:01:33 PM
A 727 with either three upgraded JT8Ds (JT8D-217s on the sides and a cropped-fan version in the center to deal with the airflow and size restrictions of the center duct)

There is a thing called the "Super 27" that replaces the outboard engines with JT8D-217s. A cropped-fan version would be kind of pointless though since that's just basically a JT8D-15 anyway.

Well, there is something of a difference as fan blade aerodynamics has improved greatly over the years and successive developments of the JT8D have improved the efficiencies of the high-pressure compressor and the hot section.  The overall idea is to bring all three engines up to teh same standard with the fan section being the only difference.  Yeah, there'a a lot of "little things" but they do add up.

I think 737 is still being produced today.

727 has provision for a tanker version?  You mean as in being seriously studied?  As a boom tanker or just plain probe and drogue one?

Quote from: elmayerle on October 24, 2009, 01:01:33 PM
If you needed one that could get out of tighter airfields, the 727-200 wing on the shorter 727-100 fuselage with the upgraded engines should work well.

Now that might be the reason to incorporate the 727 in my Mk.2 list.  Thanks for the info  :thumbsup:

The alternative AEW proposals from blue520 are sounding better by the minute.  I had considered the 727 as a VIP transport but little else.

Quote from: elmayerle on October 24, 2009, 02:08:14 PM
Well, there is something of a difference as fan blade aerodynamics has improved greatly over the years and successive developments of the JT8D have improved the efficiencies of the high-pressure compressor and the hot section.  The overall idea is to bring all three engines up to teh same standard with the fan section being the only difference.  Yeah, there'a a lot of "little things" but they do add up.

Why not go with entirely different engines then? Even the -200 series is considered fuel thirsty by modern standards. You could put V2500s on the sides like they do with the MD90s, or the BMW 715 engines on the 717. And you could put a lot of different smaller turbofan engines in the middle nacelle or even plug it up alltogether since the V2500 has more than enough thrust for two.

Quote from: Just call me Ray on October 24, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
Why not go with entirely different engines then? Even the -200 series is considered fuel thirsty by modern standards. You could put V2500s on the sides like they do with the MD90s, or the BMW 715 engines on the 717. And you could put a lot of different smaller turbofan engines in the middle nacelle or even plug it up alltogether since the V2500 has more than enough thrust for two.

Alternate timeline rules:

7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades

If an engine fit is proposed, it'd be a go; otherwise we can't use it.

Quote from: Weaver on October 24, 2009, 04:49:19 AM
Just a thought: if other nations are still using eligible hardware, can we "bribe" them to retire it early so we can use it? That is to say, if Jordan doesn't want to part with it's newly-upgraded Chally Is, can we pay them Leo IIA6 or Leclerc unit prices in order to free them up?

I've kind of been thinking of something similar.  Basically, Geriatria might pay for design work and even "production" of the modernization on existing combat systems (air, land or sea) so that when the deadline changes the system is ready.  For instance, the F-14 has been fully retired but under the treaty conditions Geriatria won't be able to have them until 2020.  Geriatria might propose to the US that the retired airframes be "reserved" or stored in useable condition for until January 1, 2020.  It might also contract to have the aircraft run through a reconditioning and modernization program prior to actually taking them; so that when 01/01/20 rolls around the Geriatria AF can take posession of fully modernized, reconditioned and ready to go F/A-14D Super Tomcat 21's.

For aircraft: I'm thinking in "ultimate" terms; as in, the "ultimate" A-7 or "ultimate" A-4, etc...  Absolutely max out the performance and military effectiveness of these older types.

I've been thinking about some of the logistic problems involved with keeping some of the older types running.  I'm leaning toward limiting the number of airframe types (at least for the "major" roles), limiting the number of engine types and only buying types where 100+ airframes are available for spares support (apart from the operational airframes).  I'm going to try to follow similar guidelines for the Army and Navy.

On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

:cheers: Bryan

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

Well they could always call in Chinooks to move their 105mm...... I guess those who use the pack howitzers do so because moving around on difficult terrains is more often than not a necessity.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 24, 2009, 06:41:43 PM

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

Well they could always call in Chinooks to move their 105mm...... I guess those who use the pack howitzers do so because moving around on difficult terrains is more often than not a necessity.

Since, helicopters seem to be one of the harder categories of aircraft to find suitable treaty approved types; some 75mm & 105mm pack howitzers might be in order.  After all, the treaty says nothing about production of towed artillery - we'll just buy blueprints, tooling and license rights for the 75mm pack howitzer and some version of 105mm howitzer.

:cheers: Bryan 

Running on the idea that my nation would have a mountainous internal region or at least one border, I was thinking of having a small dedicated group of mountain artillery. Equipped with the Mod 56 105 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_Mod_56) pack howitzer (also with MANPADS like the Stinger for self defence) & mule teams for primary transport and supply (but with helicopter support). For a light howitzer for the rest of the army something like the 105mm L118 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118_Light_Gun)/M119A2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M119_howitzer). I am not all that savvy when it comes to artillery munitions, are the rounds for the Mod 56 compatible with the M119 and vice versa?

Any one know the maximum sling weight for the CH-46 Sea Knight?

Seeing the Alouette II & III are in, is the Aerospatiale Lama (a Alouette II with the engines of a III) ok?
On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_Gazelle) in or out?

Does the Sea King have a sling hook and if it does what is the maximum weight? What about the S-61R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_S-61R) or the Westland Commando version?

With the S-64 Skycrane/CH-54 Tarhe pods capable of transporting up to 87 troops were built but were unable to carry an additional sling load and pods that did have the ability to troops and slung cargo were designed but not obtained, is it ok to use the later advanced pods?

One thing I have been thinking about is how would truck supported mounted infantry (or motorcycle infantry) go in modern warfare. I was contemplating an adapted Light Horse model, each troop was divided into about ten 4-man sections, before combat all men dismount and one man holds the horses while the other three proceed forwards. Besides standard armament each troop could be issued with additional weapons (and ammunition) carried on horse back to be used by the whole troupe, 2 men carrying a anti-armour RPG (example Panzerfaust 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerfaust_3)), 1 a Stinger or similar MANPAD and the fourth with a bipod mounted "light weight" heavy machine gun like the Russian Kord 12.7 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kord_machine_gun) (alternative suggestions?). While being more vulnerable than troops in APCs they have greater manoeuvrability and ability to go places APCs can not, making them a more difficult target.        

727
Was there any major difference between the -100 and -200 wing? If there is I doubt a 727-100 re-wing with that of an -200 would get past rule 7 unless there was a proposal or was actually done.

If people are interested the actual and proposed re-engines for the 727 I have come across are.
Super 27 and similar (actually done) - engines 1 & 3 replaced by JT8D-217 or 219, engine 2 not replaced but a hush kit fitted.

Rolls-Royce Tay (offered by Dee Howard, -100 actually done -200 proposed) - on the -100 all engines replaced by Rolls-Royce Tay 650, enlarged intake for engine 2. A similar change was proposed for the -200 with Tay 670 engines, how ever I do not know if the 670 was ever developed in the end.

Rolls-Royce BR715 (proposed) - engines 1 & 3 replaced by Rolls-Royce BR715. Engine 2, either the JT8D was to be retained and derated, or replaced by a Tay (type not disclosed) or BR710 with intake modifications.

Twin 727 (proposed) - two septate proposals. A 30000 lbf IAE V2530-W5 (similar to the -A5 fitted to the A310 with a casing like the -D5 for the MD80) by Snow Aviation International and a 31200lbf CFM International CFM56-5C2 (also fitted to the A340). Engines 1 and 3 replace and number 2 removed. Number 2 inlet replaced by a fairing and the APU moved to the removed number 2 engine position with a tail cone replacing the exhaust

   
 
   

Quote from: blue520 on October 25, 2009, 12:40:56 PM
Running on the idea that my nation would have a mountainous internal region or at least one border, I was thinking of having a small dedicated group of mountain artillery. Equipped with the Mod 56 105 mm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTO_Melara_Mod_56) pack howitzer (also with MANPADS like the Stinger for self defence) & mule teams for primary transport and supply (but with helicopter support). For a light howitzer for the rest of the army something like the 105mm L118 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118_Light_Gun)/M119A2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M119_howitzer). I am not all that savvy when it comes to artillery munitions, are the rounds for the Mod 56 compatible with the M119 and vice versa?
 

As per that Wiki article:

Oto Mod.56 : US M1 ammo
US L119: US M1 ammo
UK L118: Abbot SPG ammo (NOT interchangeable with M1)

The L118 gun has a longer range than the L119 without using fancy shells, but there is a rocket-assisted shell for the  latter that more than makes up the difference, presumably at some cost in payload though.

Instead of the Mod.56, which in spite of it's widespread useage has an indifferent reputation, why not use the Thompson-Brandt MO120-RT-61 120mm mortar:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortier_120mm_Ray%C3%A9_Tract%C3%A9_Mod%C3%A8le_F1

It's less than half the weight, has more lethal shells (with more fancy options) and 20 deg extra elevation, which often matters more than range in mountain warfare. It's normal maximum range is rather less than the Mod.56 (8000m vas 10,200m) but there's a rocket-assisted bomb that goes to 13,000m if you want.

Quote
Does the Sea King have a sling hook and if it does what is the maximum weight? What about the S-61R or the Westland Commando version?

AFAIK, the Sea King is out: Westland were producing them after 1990.

You're right about mules and horses being useful for transport, particularly in mountainous terrain, but don't underestimate their own unique logistics train: feed, blacksmith, vetinary etc... They're also very vulnerable to arty/mortar fire, since they can't find cover as easily or quickly as soldiers.

This may sound silly, but on reasonably flat terrain with a roads or a firm surface, one of the most cost-effective transport multipliers is the bicycle. It greatly increases "marching" speeds, particularly if personal loads can be ferried ahead by motor transport, it can get to some places that a jeep can't get, it's dirt cheap and it has a very modest logistics tail. It's highly reliable and if it does break, it doesn't block the road, can be recovered easily or even abandoned and recovered later at low cost. It's a cracking way to mobilise a citizen's militia, since with modest support for cycling clubs and the like, the recruits will train themselves for free for fun.... :mellow:

I believe the 727-200 wing had some "high-lift" devices not fitted to the 727-100 in order to deal with the greater gross weight of the longer airacraft.  I'm uncertain as to whether there were studies to fit this wing to the 727-100 for "special performance" versions, but it would seem a logical extension of the design.   Too bad the proposed 727-300 never made it to the cutting metal stage.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 24, 2009, 05:41:07 PM
Alternate timeline rules:

7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades

If an engine fit is proposed, it'd be a go; otherwise we can't use it.

Quote from: blue520Twin 727 (proposed) - two septate proposals. A 30000 lbf IAE V2530-W5 (similar to the -A5 fitted to the A310 with a casing like the -D5 for the MD80) by Snow Aviation International

;D

Thanks Weaver for that the ammunition information is very clearly on the wikipedia pages, do not know how I missed it.
I was drawn to the Mod 56 due to it's reported packabilty, however mortars do look a better option. Was thing about the M120 mortar, but the MO120-RT-61 looks even better. Any idea how well it brakes down for transport?  

Agree bicycles are also a great idea especially if you can off load some of the equipment to other transport modes. Also diesel militarised dual-sport motorcycles like the M1030M1 (http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/military.htm) look potentially promising. Also came across this page on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_Bikes) which has a table of infantry transport types, a interesting one is the electric bicycle.

I was under the impression that the Sea King stopped before 1990, but Weaver is right. Westland did build new Sea Kings past 1990. Final production seems to be listed as 1996, how ever the last new construction was 1992. The last 2 helicopters in '95 and '96 were rebuilds for Norway.  
I counted 6 helicopters first flown in 1990 and a final 6 in 1992.
Five helicopters for the RN (build numbers WA1000-WA1004, registration ZG819-ZG822 & ZG875) and one helicopter for the Norwegian AF (build number WA1005, reg 522) in 1990. Six helicopters for the RAF (build numbers WA1006-WA1011, reg ZH540-ZH545) in 1992. Total 12, how ever the first flight of WA999 is not clear so it may be 13.

Can we call 12 limited production and let the Sea King in? or it it just too many?
         

Quote from: blue520 on October 25, 2009, 08:18:37 PM
Thanks Weaver for that the ammunition information is very clearly on the wikipedia pages, do not know how I missed it.
I was drawn to the Mod 56 due to it's reported packabilty, however mortars do look a better option. Was thing about the M120 mortar, but the MO120-RT-61 looks even better. Any idea how well it brakes down for transport?  

Barrel, sights, carriage (2 x wheels plus axle) and base plate. The standard base plate's a bit of a monster: standard practice is for the crew to swing on the muzzle to lever it up out of a muddy surface.... :blink: However, there's a special mountain version of this mortar. I don't know what the differences are, however, but I'd imagine it's lighter than standard.

Quote
Agree bicycles are also a great idea especially if you can off load some of the equipment to other transport modes. Also diesel militarised dual-sport motorcycles like the M1030M1 (http://www.dieselmotorcycles.com/military.htm) look potentially promising. Also came across this page on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montague_Bikes) which has a table of infantry transport types, a interesting one is the electric bicycle.

IIRC, that M1030 turned out to be a dog and wasn't adopted, at least by the British Army. Note that the website says construction "will begin" in 2006. KADDB in Jordan make a militarised version of the Rokon Ranger two-wheel-drive motorcycle. It's still petrol however.

Quote from: Weaver on October 24, 2009, 04:49:19 AM
Just a thought: if other nations are still using eligible hardware, can we "bribe" them to retire it early so we can use it? That is to say, if Jordan doesn't want to part with it's newly-upgraded Chally Is, can we pay them Leo IIA6 or Leclerc unit prices in order to free them up?

In this scenario, you can basically assume that countries would retire some of their stuff early or keep it around for you, then charge you exorbitant prices knowing that they can take you for more than anyone else because you have nowhere else to buy from.  Basically, don't worry if it's still in user or otherwise unavailable.  Just be aware that you're limited to the number of aircraft/vehicles actually produced and you should basically assume that at least 1/2 the service life of the equipment is already used up.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
I've been thinking about some of the logistic problems involved with keeping some of the older types running.  I'm leaning toward limiting the number of airframe types (at least for the "major" roles), limiting the number of engine types and only buying types where 100+ airframes are available for spares support (apart from the operational airframes).  I'm going to try to follow similar guidelines for the Army and Navy.

I think that's basically a sound concept, but I wouldn't let that be a rule the restricts you from using limited numbers of proven, reliable types in specialized roles.  In other words, I can agree that two squadrons of MiG-25s might be more trouble than they're worth, but I don't think keeping around a dozen S-64 Skycranes for heavy lifting is a bad idea.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 24, 2009, 06:31:25 PM
On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

I think it's basically because mortars are lighter, can be broken down easier, pack a bigger punch, and are just as accurate nowadays (not to mention the special ammunition makes them more versatile).

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 24, 2009, 07:33:22 PM
Since, helicopters seem to be one of the harder categories of aircraft to find suitable treaty approved types; some 75mm & 105mm pack howitzers might be in order.  After all, the treaty says nothing about production of towed artillery - we'll just buy blueprints, tooling and license rights for the 75mm pack howitzer and some version of 105mm howitzer.

I imagined towed artillery and infantry ATGMs would be one way to really help out, but those are typically one-trick ponies.  They're good once and for one thing.  If your enemy has any sort of counter-battery capability, you're screwed.  Now, there's also nothing against softskins, so a CAESAR would be fine, as well.

Quote from: Weaver on October 25, 2009, 01:18:16 PM
...
UK L118: Abbot SPG ammo (NOT interchangeable with M1)
...

I know you only mentioned it in passing, but I think the Abbot would be a truly GREAT piece of kit for this scenario.  It's cheap, reliable, well-loved, and there are tons of them available.  I'd throw a Skyranger turret on it and use it like a modern Falcon AA.  You could use them for all sorts of things, but they're great as-is, too.  A great use of one's money.


Some great ideas on here, to be sure.  I think the 727 and DC-8 ideas are great.  Both are capable, efficient, reliable airframes and there's plenty of them available.

Cheers,

Logan

What were the first generation Harriers (GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A/C/S) originally like to maintain? Were they hardy or required a high constant maintenance program?  Also how well did they age, I can imagine V/STOL would take its toll on engine life (that can be replaced) but what was it like for the airframe.

Quote from: blue520 on October 25, 2009, 12:40:56 PM
On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_Gazelle) in or out?

As far as I'm aware, the Gazelle is in.

Quote from: blue520 on October 28, 2009, 01:25:45 AM
What were the first generation Harriers (GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A/C/S) originally like to maintain? Were they hardy or required a high constant maintenance program?  Also how well did they age, I can imagine V/STOL would take its toll on engine life (that can be replaced) but what was it like for the airframe.

They're not too bad on maintenance hours, but they eat engines at an alarming rate: IIRC most harriers go through three or four in their airframe life. The airframe is generally okay for normal stresses, but the rear fuselage suffers badly from accoustic resonance-induced fatigue due to the efflux from the rear nozzles scrubbing past it. Again, most airframes have at least one complete new rear fuselage during their life. This is why most advanced Harrier-successor proposals concern themselves with divorcing the jet efflux from the airframe.

What this all means is that it's hard to maintain a Harrier fleet without a factory somewhere in the world making engines and rear fuselages. There was a proposal to fit the later, big fan Pegasus into 1st Gen Sea Harrier airframes, but it was expensive, incredibly fiddly (new fuselage frames...) and very slow to complete each conversion, which is why it was dropped and the Sea Harriers retired. I don't know how long RR are going to keep the earlier Pegasus in production, given that only the Indian and Thai navies use the aircraft now. Mind you, if Geriatria bought a large number of old airframes, that might change the equation in itself. I don't see why you couldn't buy/copy the jigs to make new rear fuselages in-house: they're not complicated.

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 25, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
I know you only mentioned it in passing, but I think the Abbot would be a truly GREAT piece of kit for this scenario.  It's cheap, reliable, well-loved, and there are tons of them available.  I'd throw a Skyranger turret on it and use it like a modern Falcon AA.  You could use them for all sorts of things, but they're great as-is, too.  A great use of one's money.

Oh yeah - it's on my list. Another point in it's favour is that it has many common components with the FV432 APC.
Will Skyranger fit though? It was intended for MBT hulls and the Abbot hull is much lighter than that. It might end up being top-heavy.


Speaking of the FV432, it's a good option in all sorts of ways: BAe upgraded a load as "Bulldogs" for use in Iraq which puts new engines, suspension and armour on the table as official upgrades (and Israeli-style "lighthouse" turrets if you want them). The Berlin Brigade had FV432s with Fox turrets, and since the British Army retired the Fox, there "must" be a warehouse full of turrets lying around (IIRC there were fewer Sabres (Fox turret on Scorpion hull) built than donor Foxes). Speaking of Sabres, the same process "must" have generated a pile of spare Scorpion turrets which could be fitted on FV432 hulls if allowed, creating a Fire Support vehicle similar to the Australian M113-based  version. Would it be acceptable to upgrade them to 90mm?

Staying British, Alvis offer a complete rebuild for the Ferret scout car, with a diesel engine and an FVT900 turret with 12.7mm and 7.62mm MGs. There are also engine upgrades for the Saladin and Saracen.

Thanks gral_rj.

Thanks Weaver that helps clarify my thoughts, I was planing to use the Harrier in a forward stationed close ground attack and anti-air (helicopter) role. A number of old Harriers may be more trouble than they are worth for this role. Think I will drop it and move to a combination of helicopters and light attack (and observation) prop aircraft, with support from a advanced trainer and attack jet aircraft. It will help me reduce the number of different engine types.
     

There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

Caddilac Gage/Textron did a number of armoured vehicles that would be useful.  The V-100 Commando would fit, the V-150 & V-200 were different enough to prevent this from being disqualified?  The Cadillac Gage Scout (I've always liked the little wedge of cheese) should be okay too, both are available in significant numbers.  The Stingray light tank is another, they were only supplied to Thailand & deliveries stopped in 1990.

Quote from: gral_rj on October 28, 2009, 02:30:19 AM

Quote from: blue520 on October 25, 2009, 12:40:56 PM
On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C3%A9rospatiale_Gazelle) in or out?

As far as I'm aware, the Gazelle is in.

The question is, was SOKO still building them after 1990?  If so, how many, and were they new-builds or assembled from existing parts (my guess)?

Quote from: Weaver on October 28, 2009, 06:16:06 AM
There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

It's 100% true.  It's also one of the things that I think is very interesting about this scenario.  Shows the upsides and downsides of using the oldies.

Cheers,

Logan

I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 25, 2009, 09:11:34 PM
Now, there's also nothing against softskins, so a CAESAR would be fine, as well.

There are some examples (http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,17240.msg368314.html#msg368314) of what you can mount on HMMWV and other smaller tactical trucks.

Speaking of which, where does a vehicle cease to be a softskin?  For example, are shrapnel-protected variants of tactical trucks considered softskins like the rest of their families or armored vehicles?

Quote from: dy031101 on October 29, 2009, 06:31:50 PM
I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

That's still a controversial subject in military circles and can generate fierce debate! Personally, I'd go for the dedicated fire-support vehicle, since my arguments against MICVs have always been that APCs, light tanks and ATGW-carriers have different maneuver requirements, which they can't satisfy if they're all combined into one vehicle, and that the more you make the infantry's vehicle look like a tank, the more they'll tend to use it like a tank until they come a cropper because, at the end of the day, it isn't. You won't have to go far to find somebody to disagree with me, however.

Quote from: dy031101 on October 29, 2009, 06:31:50 PM
Speaking of which, where does a vehicle cease to be a softskin?  For example, are shrapnel-protected variants of tactical trucks considered softskins like the rest of their families or armored vehicles?

If it was built with armor, it's out.  Also, no standardized armor kits allowed fitted to softskin vehicles.  In short, if it has armor, it better be a chassis from before 1990.

Quote from: Weaver on October 29, 2009, 06:41:17 PM

Quote from: dy031101 on October 29, 2009, 06:31:50 PM
I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

That's still a controversial subject in military circles and can generate fierce debate! Personally, I'd go for the dedicated fire-support vehicle, since my arguments against MICVs have always been that APCs, light tanks and ATGW-carriers have different maneuver requirements, which they can't satisfy if they're all combined into one vehicle, and that the more you make the infantry's vehicle look like a tank, the more they'll tend to use it like a tank until they come a cropper because, at the end of the day, it isn't. You won't have to go far to find somebody to disagree with me, however.

Hah!  You're right.  I disagree.  I was just reading Zaloga's latest book on tank vs tank combat in Gulf War #1 and one of my main takeaways was, "boy, we sure were lucky our Bradleys had those TOWs, they got some use out of them".  There were many times that the Brads got TOW kills on Iraqi tanks.  The RARDEN--good as it is--is not going to cut it against a T-55, let alone a T-72.  A TOW?  That'll do.

I think it's also the reason you see most of the new IFVs either mounting a real serious gun (35/50mm, 40mm, 100mm) instead of the smaller calibers (20mm, 25mm, and 30mm all used to be considered sufficient main armament) or combining a smaller gun with a couple of missiles.

As Anthony G. Williams explains so well:

QuoteSeveral drivers are pushing up the gun calibre of new LAFVs. One of them is that the armour protection of such vehicles is improving, as can clearly be seen as a result of operations in Iraq. The weight of existing LAFVs has been steadily increasing, mainly to add protection: over their lifetime, the M2 Bradley has increased from 23 to 30 tonnes, the Warrior from 25 to 32, the CV90 from 21 (prototype) to 35, the German Marder from 27.5 to 37.5, while the new German Puma weighs in at a massive 43 tonnes. This will require more powerful AP ammunition to achieve reliable penetration in the future.

So, you basically have 3 options:

1) go with a smaller gun only--30mm and under--and risk not being able to destroy even enemy IFVs, let alone tanks
2) go with a much larger caliber and round (and consequently much larger turret and internal volume), but still risk not being able to handle emerging threats ten years from now
or
3) go with a smaller gun for use against soft & lightly armored targets AND a couple of ATGMs for when you really need them

There are a few disadvantages with the ATGM.  You have a separate targeting method, they're bulky and tough to reload, they can be jammed/confused, not all are fire and forget, and sometimes IFV crews get to thinking that they'd rather be tankers and they end up dead.

The advantages are many, however, and I think they're worth it.  They don't need a big, expensive, bulky turret to mount them on.  They have better penetration and overall lethality.  They can target enemy vehicles behind obstructions.

Most importantly to me, however, they can be upgraded and replaced as needed.  When the British Army wisely determined that the RARDEN just didn't cut it anymore when it came to lethality, they had to start a major program (WLIP, then WFLIP), choose between a bunch of new different guns out there, now they're finally to a stage where they can pick a new turret because the new gun is too big for the old one.  It's only been more than six years since the program began.  Assuming there are no budget cuts, program delays, selection protests, unexpected complications, or changes to the program (when could that happen?), then the new gun will START being available to squaddies in about 4 years.  By comparison, the US Bradley went from TOW-1 to TOW-2 in four years for the whole fleet.  When the new TOW-2A/Bs came out, we just put them where the TOW-2s had been.  Simple way to seriously increase the lethality in a second.

I say pick a good 30mm or larger gun and strap a couple of SPIKEs to the side of the turret for insurance.

You don't deny your soldiers a pistol because you're afraid they're going to try to act like the Secret Service or MI6, you give them a pistol then train them how to use it in a disciplined fashion.  Same thing with ATGMs on IFVs.  They might need it.  Give it to them.  Teach them how to use it the right way.

Cheers,

Logan

For my choices of APCs/IFVs (AMX-VCI, Pbv 302, Marder 1, BTR-50), I've intended to use Samson RWS...... they offer different models based on guns calibers, and even the MG-armed Mini-Samson has provision for a two-round Spike ATGM launcher.

I want even infantry carrier platoons to have an ATGM capability of their own in case s**t happens (and yeah, judging from what I read about past wars and battles, it does).  I just couldn't quite make up my mind if I should give all that firepower to, say, the platoon leader (a loaded launcher and reloads) or to distribute the firepower to every vehicle in the platoon (multiple loaded launchers and no reloads- they are, at the end of the day, infantry carriers after all).

Looking at the OV-10 again.  Just by the numbers, it appears that total production was 275 aircraft (157 to the USAF & 118 to the USMC).  81 aircraft were lost during Vietnam; so, 194 aircraft remain.  I don't know the current number remaining but I think a safe number might be in the 125 to 150 range.

The OV-10 seems to do a lot of "low-end" missions well; forward air control, light CAS, COIN, light utility transport, observation & aerial reconnaissance, and more recently civil search and rescue and forest fire protection.

Not only does the OV-10 have useful STOL capability and ability to use automobile fuel instead of Avgas but, additionally, the type seems to have some good growth potential.  IIRC, North American tested or did studies using at least three different engines including the Garrett T76 and the PT6.  The Philippines AF has recently upgraded some of their OV-10's w/ new 4 bladed Hartzell props and "zero timed" the aircraft.  (aside: what exactly does "zero time" mean in aerospace speak?)  Indonesia & Thailand appear to have replaced the four 7.62 M60's with four .50 cal Brownings.  Of course, there is also the extensive USMC OV-10D+ upgrade program.

I think the trick would be to gather up as many OV-10's, upgrade them, and have them in regular use before Boeing resumes production with the "OV-10X."  :thumbsup:  One Geriatria has bought and is using the type, I think they'd be "grandfathered" in.

I think the ideal OV-10 in this situation would be basically an upgraded OV-10D+ with PT6 engines and 4 or 5 bladed props, two .50 cal GAU-19A's in place of the 4 M60's, updated FLIR/EO/laser - maybe some sort of modified LANTIRN or SNIPER integral to the aircraft, and the ability to use Hellfire missiles, LGB/PGM's and Stinger missiles in addition to unguided rockets, dumb bombs and gun pods.   

:cheers: Bryan

Geriatria 2.0

Kingdom of Geriatria
Capitol: Auldfahrt
Population: (2000) 51,257,828
Religion: 91% Catholic, 6% Orthodox
Resources: (top 10) Agriculture, Forests, Coal, Copper, Chromium, Oil, Gas, Gold, Titanium, Phosphates
Industry: Auto manufacturing, Banking & Financial, Steel, Shipbuilding, Textiles, Electronics, Aerospace, Food production, Fishing, Bio-medical research
Climate: Temperate with moderate wet winters and drier summers, snow & extreme cold in mountainous areas
Current issues: Economic development, environmental preservation, reintegration with the international community, external political disputes  
Organizations: UN, Interpol, International Court, NATO/Partnership for Peace; bilateral economic and defense agreements with US, UK, France and Italy

Current issues: Monarchy reestablished by popular vote in 1990; King Michael VI returned after 52 years in exile due an attempted regicide, an attack that killed his brother Prince Joseph, by the former military junta.  The Catholic Church and other religions are regaining their previous position in society after being oppressed by the junta.  The Junta imprisoned over 7000 clergy of all denominations as opposition.  Rebuilding civil society and the national economy after 30 years of the fascist despotism and failed economic policies of the military junta is the primary goal of HM government and the people.  Maintaining political, economic and diplomatic stability are priorities.  

Rebuilding the military with democratic principles within the constraints of the "peace treaty" is also a priority.  With the agreement of the people, as indicated by a freely held, 73% majority vote in 1993; universal military training and conscription are a part of military policy along the lines of the Swiss or Israeli militaries.  Every adult male, upon reaching 18½, serve in active duty for 3 years.  This active duty service is followed by 9 years of National Guard Reserve service and then 9 years of local National Militia service.  As with the Swiss, marksmanship is a source of pride for every citizen and is encouraged by government policy.  As they are not prohibited by treaty, Geriatria produces most of its own small arms, towed artillery and ammunition.  Geriatria produces as much of its armament as is economically practical and is allowed by treaty.  Geriatria is currently in negotiation with the US to allow the US to build a combined Naval base, military airfield and training and logistics base.  Geriatria has been sending some of its officers to various academies and schools, including West Point, Sandhurst and Annapolis, in the US, UK and France for advanced training and education.  Geriatria also participates in Red Flag exercises and other international training exercises.  Geriatria is planning on re-establishing its own military service academies.  Geriatria is an active member in the Partnership for Peace and hopes to gain full NATO and EC membership by 2020.  Geriatria has sent members of its Gendarmerie and more recently military on NATO and UN peacekeeping missions.

Royal Geriatria Air Force – order of battle, squadron = 16 aircraft (please note: lots of reserve sqdns. In keeping w/ the citizen militia concept)

Type:                                             Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks               160/16 (5 reserve sqdns.)
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs                     160/16 (5 reserve sqdns.)
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's              64/16 (2 reserve sqdns.)
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's        64/16 (2 reserve sqdns.)
F-111x/EF-111x                                56/8 (2 reserve sqdns.)
MB.326                                            56
Cessna M150                                    56
SP-2x Super Neptune                         32
DHC-5 Buffalo                                   32
OV-10x Super Bronco                         64 (2 reserve sqdns.)
CH-46                                             32
Alouette II                                       56
Alouette III                             80
Gazelle                                           56

First of all I want to maximize the airframes with the best engines and electronics.  Since we're servicing older airframes, I'd want a limited number of different types of modern engines to simplify logistics and reduce engine maintenance.  I'll try to compensate for possibly excessive maintenance on the older airframes by using "low" maintenance modern engines.  Geriatria's military planners and buyers endeavor to procure the maximum number of airframes possible.  Many will be upgraded, some of the upgraded aircraft will be stored after re-manufacture, other upgraded aircraft will be sent straight to regular use and other aircraft will be kept for spares recovery.  Geriatria's ground crews are highly adept in making the most of limited resources and "less than optimal" (from a maintenance standpoint) airframes.

Engines (for the bulk of the force) I'll settle on are the GE F404, SNECMA M53, PW1120 and GE F110.  When the next decade rolls over we will be ready for F-14D's & A-10's.

A-4's: buy up all A-4M's, A-4N's, OA-4M's, a few score A-4F's and many TA-4J's as soon as the USMC, USN & Israelis retire them.  This should yield about 300+ single seat, late production A-4's and 50+ two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on F404 engines & APG-66s and other Kahu/A-4SU upgrades.  These upgraded A-4 Super Skyhawks would be the backbone of the Air Forces.  They will primarily tasked of light fighter/attack, precision strike and CAS missions.  This would be an analog of the Gripen  

Mirage F.1: buy up 300+ late production Mirage F.1's.  250 single seat and 50 two-seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on SNECMA M53 engines & RDY400 and other Mirage F.1 & Mirage F.1CT upgrades proposed (and done) for French, Moroccan and Spanish aircraft.  They will primarily tasked of light multi-role fighter, and fighter interceptor missions.  After upgrades this would be a "poor-man's Mirage 2000."

A-7's: buy up 200+ A-7D's and 50+ TA-7K's.  Run them through an A-7F type upgrade program centered on F110 engines & other A-7F upgrades proposed.  They will primarily tasked of medium multi-role fighter/bomber, precision strike and interdiction missions.  This would be an analog of the F-16

F-4E's: buy up 200+ late production F-4E's & RF-4E's. Run 100 of them through a hybrid Kurnass 2000/Boeing Super Phantom/Terminator 2020 upgrade program using PW1120 engines, updated radar and electronics.  They will primarily tasked of heavy multi-role fighter/bomber, precision strike, strategic reconnaissance and fighter interceptor missions.

F-111F's buy up all remaining 84? F-111F + several score F-111A's & all EF-111A's.  Run the F-111F's through a upgrade program including GE F110 engines, updated radar & electronics.  They will primarily tasked on long-range medium bombing/precision strike, strategic reconnaissance, electronic warfare, maritime strike and long-range fighter interception.

OV-10D's: buy up all remaining OV-10A's & OV-10D's (possibly 125 to 150 remaining).  Run 100 aircraft through a hybrid upgrade incorporating the OV-10D+ (NOGS) program, the PW Canada PT6 turboprops (as originally studied in the North American LARA proposal) w/ modern 4 or 5 bladed props, upgraded sensors (perhaps some integral version of the SNIPER or LANTIRN), two .50 cal GAU-19's instead of the four 7.62 M60's in the spontons and an upgraded and modernized suite of weapons (including the Hellfire, Stinger, smaller PGM's, unguided rockets, dumb bombs and gun pods).  These aircraft will be tasked with FAC, light CAS, COIN, light utility STOL transport, observation & aerial reconnaissance, and assistance of civil authorities w/ search and rescue and forest fire suppression.

Only these six will be the main force.  Other types in use are DHC-5 transports and Lockheed P-2 Neptune not sure how I'll update the last 2 but definitely new engines.

Royal Geriatria Army

Number:         Type:                                                                      
2500              BTR-60 APC (w/Israeli Saymar upgrades) & variants      
750                M60 MBT (w/ a combination of M60-2000 & M60T upgrades)
750                Leopard 1 (w/ upgrades & 120mm gun)
300                Leopard 1 w/ AUF2 155mm gun
75                  AML-90 Recon Car (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
25                  AML-60/20 Recon Car(w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
100                M3 APC (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
500                Marder 1A5 (w/ a combination of E4 Kuka turret & proposed Canadian upgrades)
I'll continue to work on treaty safe SP Arty, AA Arty/missiles & other armored vehicles

Primary small arms: All manufactured in Geriatria
.22LR      Ruger 10/22 (pre-service/entry-level training rifle)
9mm Para   Browning Hi-Power (pistol)
.40S&W                Glock 22 (pistol)
.40S&W                MP5/40 (submachine gun)
6.8SPC                Galil AR/M (assault rifle) – converted in Geriatria to use the new 6.8SPC round, new primary issue rifle
7.62NATO   FN-FAL (designated marksman/battle rifle) – formerly primary issue rifle
7.62NATO   HK11E (squad automatic weapon/machine rifle)
7.62NATO   FN-MAG (general purpose machine gun)
7.62NATO   Lee Enfield No4 Mk2 (ceremonial rifle & pre-service/entry-level training rifle)
.30-06 Sprg.   Winchester Model 70 (snipers rifle)
.338Lapua   Accuracy International AWSM (medium anti-personnel snipers rifle)
.50Cal.      Barrett M82 (anti-materiel/heavy snipers rifle)
.50Cal.      M2HB (heavy machine gun)
12 Gauge                Remington 870 (combat shotgun)

Royal Geriatia Navy

Aircraft Carrier                (x1)    ex-Clemenceau class
Helicopter Cruisers    (x1)   ex-Andrea Doria class
Destroyers       (x8)    ex-Spruance class
         (x8)   ex-Type 42 class
Frigates                   (x12)   ex-Knox class
Corvettes      (x9)   ex-D'Estienne D'Orves
FAC's         (x10)   ex-Type 143 Albatros
         (x8)   ex-Type 148 Tiger
Submarines      (x12)   ex-Oberon class
         (x6)   ex-Type 206 class
I'm sure all of these will be modernized, updated & upgraded.

Royal Geriatria Naval Air Service
42 A-4's (3 sqdns.), 42 A-7's (3 sqdns.) + helicopters – the aircraft will be upgraded similarly to their AF counterparts, no need for the Navy to reinvent the Wheel!

More to follow – I'm sure a version 3.0 will be necessary...

:cheers: Bryan
   

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 30, 2009, 05:45:32 PM(aside: what exactly does "zero time" mean in aerospace speak?)

Rebuild/refit(don't know which would be appropriate here - probably the latter) the structure so that it's just as when it was brand new.

Quote from: Bryan H. on October 30, 2009, 05:45:32 PM
I think the trick would be to gather up as many OV-10's, upgrade them, and have them in regular use before Boeing resumes production with the "OV-10X."  :thumbsup:  One Geriatria has bought and is using the type, I think they'd be "grandfathered" in.

I think the ideal OV-10 in this situation would be basically an upgraded OV-10D+ with PT6 engines and 4 or 5 bladed props, two .50 cal GAU-19A's in place of the 4 M60's, updated FLIR/EO/laser - maybe some sort of modified LANTIRN or SNIPER integral to the aircraft, and the ability to use Hellfire missiles, LGB/PGM's and Stinger missiles in addition to unguided rockets, dumb bombs and gun pods. 

Well, I can see using the same PT6 variant as the T-6A/B/C with its four-bladed prop (ISTR that it's one of the more powerful variants and, more importantly, the electronic engine controls allow faster response to throttle movements, one place where the T76/TPE331 out-performed the PT6); mind you, you could match it using a late-model TPE331-15.  I'm prejudiced, I've worked with the TPE331 and like it as a straight-forward design, but I know that the PT6A variant in the T-6 is just as good.  Incorporating the guts and windows of SNIPER in place of what's currently installed on the OV-10D would be a good move and, I think, justifiable within the rules.  'Twould also give on the option of using the recently qualified guided versions of various unguided rockets.

Logan - re MICVs, I knew somebody would.... ;D

I don't want to sidetrack this thread into a re-hash of this never-ending debate (we'll be doing wheels vs tracks next... :rolleyes:), so I'll just make a few points to clarify my thinking.

I'm NOT saying that the infantry Platoon shouldn't have ATGWs, I'm saying that the individual section vehicles shouldn't. I see a Platoon having three Section vehicles with proper 8-man dismount teams, lots of armour to protect them, and a one-man turret or RWS with MG/AGL type weapons to provide suppressive fire. Now that sections are starting to carry small guided missiles rather than unguided ATRLs, I'll reluctantly concede that the Section vehicle could have a launcher for these as well at little penalty, since they are now "infantry fires".

The fourth vehicle in the Platoon would be a fire support vehicle with a two-man turret and a large ATGW launcher. My ideal concept would be a bit like the BMP-3: a co-axial autocannon and low-velocity gun or gun/mortar in the front of the turret, but rather than gun-launched ATGWs, I'd prefer a muzzle-loaded box launcher in the bustle. There would be a couple of dismounts in the back who could use a mortar tube and/or tripod ATGW launcher to fire the same ammo from situations where the vehicle couldn't go. Freed from the need to drop off and recover troops, this vehicle could position itself for optimal fire-support/anti-tank cover as needed.

My problem with applying the armour/gun race argument to IFVs is that it pushes the infantry out of their own vehicle. An 8-man section forming two 4-man fire teams is considered optimal, yet many modern MICVs only seat as few as 6 dismounts. This is almost entirely due to the space consumption of two-man turrets and large ATGWs. To my mind, the factors which allow an IFV to be in the right place at the right time are mobility and armour: firepower, particularly firepower which is not related to the infantry mission, comes a poor third. This isn't a unique "armchair general's" view either: look at the Israeli army. You won't find anything bigger than a .50 cal on even the heaviest of their IFVs, but you will find all the armour they can bolt on.

I was thinking about just wiring the OV-10s for use with Litening pods...... but then of course, having internal sensors doesn't sacrifice a hardpoint like you would carrying an external pod.

I have considered many options for my geriatric orbat, but there is still a big concern I hold for this scenario: who would be geriatria´s enemies?. I have played a wargame of my invention for the last 20 years or so, it started with 80s vintage technology: just the sort of weapon systems you could find in a nato vs warpac wargame. Through the years, the game evolved to some kind of cold war, and by now most of the "western" countries are flying F22s, super hornets and late model F15s, while the "bad ones" fly late model flankers, fulcrums and rafales as their primary aircraft. So, I decided to test a geriatria-like emerging country, maybe a province who gained independence and couldn´t afford new aircraft. BUT, and this is what´s all about: it´s not the same placing this country against K who flyes F18C/Ds and F111s ( modeled with the RAAF in mind), that sharing frontiers with F, who has up to 1000 Flankers, fulcrums, F14Ds, F16E/Fs, floggers, frogfoots, J-10s, and a regiment of backfires (it´s a country modeled after China, who have bought every second hand aircraft they could in the past 10 years to replace its hugue inventory of fishbeds and floggers). So, who are supposed to be the bad guys in this case??

Hmm, for an opponent, how about the Peoples' Democratic Socialist Republic of Trashkhanistan, a generally mountainous country that, by virtue of its oil deposits and/or its commanding position astride a major oil pipeline or other major artery of worldwide commerce, has the revenues to acquire reasonable numbers of first-line combat equipment.  Alternatively, you could adapt one of the"third-world" countries from Tom Kratman's A Desert Called Peace and Carnifex, two novels i highly recommended and which can be viewd as veiled commentary on certain conflicts.  Col. Kratman is an excapee from the Peoples' Democratic Republic of Massachusetts and is both a good lawyer and a colonel in the US Army Reserve who's served two deployments to Iraq with the Judge Advocate General.

I was thinking of a "democratic" country whose political system sounds likable enough on paper and in foreign ears but, on the flip side, allows its rulers to paint their revenge campaign as the will of the people whether it really is or not.  :wacko:

One option I have in mind (I have already used it with another country), is to let a province get independence from the main state, but keeping good relations with it, or at least having ties with a powerful ally. This way, they may field relatively small air forces under the umbrella, or counting with the reinforcement from a bigger country. This way, for example, they get AWACS, EW and tanker support for their air combat component. They are also the first in the list when the main country retire their front line jets and are offered in the second hand market.

I was envisioning enemies equipped like the current Arab states, but with a political climate more like that of 1967.  All with similar intentions, but not necessarily a close military alliance.  So, your enemies may have anything from top of the line F-15s and F-16s to MiG-29s and MiG-31s.  Also, Rafales, Typhoons, and Flankers are all possibilities.  Enemies equipped with Challenger 2s, M1 Abrams, T-72s, and T-90s are all likely.  Obviously, the higher-end equipment will be fielded in smaller numbers.

For instance, for every upgraded M60T that you field, your enemies are statistically likely to have 1x T-55, 1x T-62, 2x M60A3s, 1x Chieftain, 3x T-72s, 1x T-90, & 1x M1 Abrams.

Same with aircraft.  For every F-4 Kurnass 2000 that you have, you may have to face 2x MiG-21 variants, 1x MiG-23, 1x MiG-29, 1x Mirage 2000, 2x F-16s, 1x Rafale, 1x Typhoon, & 1x Su-27.

Figure a 10:1 numbers advantage with about a quarter of your enemies' equipment being top-of-the-line, half of it being 80s-vintage, and another quarter being nearly as old as your equipment.  Also assume that about half of your enemies' equipment will be of Soviet/Russian/Chinese origin.

Basically, you're in a situation similar to that which Israel was facing prior to the 1967 war.  You've got a lot of old, second-hand equipment and a lot of enemies that want you dead right on your doorstep.  They can buy the latest, greatest equipment and you can't.  Can you upgrade your equipment and employ your military well enough to allow it to hold its own against an enemy with superior numbers and equipment?

Cheers,

Logan

Well, indeed the rules I imposed in my wargame were based on numbers: avery country is allowed a limited number of combat aircraft, so they have to retire the older ones if they want to introduce new jets into service. Most of them have taken the opportunity of modernizing their equipment when the main countries put theirs into storage. The country I modeled after geriatria is just allowed to buy 72 fighters. So, they must be multirole aircraft. In a common scenario, I would have given them F15s with silent eagle kits, 24 Cs and 48 Es. The neighbour country has 56 raptors (18 more on order), 133 typhoons tranche C and 100 F15 Es, so air superiority is not a big concern. As their ground equipment is only 1 division (3 stryker brigades, but I´m considering replacing one of them with a standard armor brigade- a test against a T-80 regiment convinced meof this), CAS and maybe deep strike is far more important. Now, under geriatria rules, I´ll change the eagles with Kurnass, and replace the strykers with marders. I don´t like M60s, maybe I´ll use centurions  :thumbsup:
By now, I think they would face in their area of responsability an armor division (t-80 or chinese equivalent), 40 or so su-30mkf, and 40 Mig-33s.

Did anyone ask if the North Korean Ch'ŏnma-ho is considered a continuation of T-62 production?

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

Mk.1:

AAMs include Magic-II (Mirages and G.91), R-73 (Mirages), MICA (Mirage F.1 and Nammer)

ASMs include AS.30 (all fighter types including G.91), ARMAT (Mirages), and Kh-35 (Il-38)

Aircraft powerplant so far include Atar 9K-50 (Mirages), Orpheus (G.91, Gnat, C/AC-119), NK-12 (An-22, Tu-114/126), AI-20 (Il-38), Dart (Argosy), R-4360 (C/AC-119), Artouste (Alouette III)

Air Force

Mirage F.1

Nammer (made system-equal with the Mirage F1; tactical recce capability provided through either aquisition of pods or conversions of a number of airframes into a specialized version)

Finger (these strike fighters, visually the same as the Argentine machines but with a more up-to-date avionics suite and Atar 9K-50 engine, are hopefully the first supersonic fighters to be inducted into the reconstituted air force)

G.91R/4 (strike fighter with a secondary air defense role using Magic II missiles)

Mirage IV (bomber, although the crew is heavily trained with the use of ARMAT missiles)

Strategic recce platform centred upon an extreme-range camera (either in place of fire control radar onboard a Nammer or in under fuselage pod of a Mirage IV)

Gnat (advanced trainer, upgraded to Gnat II a.k.a. Ajeet standard)

Some turboprop kitplane for basic training

Tu-126 (upgraded with Phalcon system)

Tu-114 (some Probe-and-Drogue tankers, others ELINT/ECM)

An-22 (strategic airlifter, if Allied assets cannot fulfil the need of shipping mechanized peacekeepers overseas)

AW.660 Argosy

C-119/AC-119 with Orpheus Booster Turbojet (AC-119 upgunned with 3 BK-27 cannons also used by tactical fighters in a podded form)

Navy

Il-38 (brought to SD standard)

Army

Alouette III Utility

Alouette III Gunship based on Alpha XH-1

Leopard 1 and M48 Main Battle tanks, upgraded with T-72M1 Moderna turret and applique hull armour

MBT-based AA tanks with Pantsir-S1 system (if combination technically impossible or non-compliant to rules then Gepard AA tank with Stinger SAM add-on)

MBT-based 155mm SPHs GCT AU-F2 turret

MBT-based 220mm Artillery Rocket Systems with TOS-1 launcher

M41 Walker Bulldog and PT-76 light tanks, upgraded with CT-CV turret

Marder 1A5, MT-LB, and BTR-50M IFVs, upgraded with KMDB GROM RCWS (all will have Konkurs launchers, but only designated fire support vehicles will carry reloads)

BRDM-2 scout cars and Konkurs-armed tank destroyer

=========================================

Mk.2 (air combat fleet dominated by delta-winged aircraft......):

AAMs include R-60M/KM (F-106), Magic-II/Sidewinder (Viggen, Kfir, Draken), IRIS-T (Viggen, Kfir), MICA (all BVR-capable fighter types except for JA-37), AIM-120 (JA-37)

ASMs include AS.30, AGM-65, RBS-15, BK-90

Aircraft powerplant so far include JT8D (SAAB 37, Mercure), J79 (Kfir), J75 (F/TF-106), Olympus (Vulcan), Avon (SAAB 35), J34 (SP-2H), Tyne (Belfast, C-160), T64 (SP-2H), Artouste (Alouette III)

Air Force

Ordnance-carrying under-wing supersonic tanks used by the Kfir fleet will be tested for use with the F-106 as well

JA-37 Viggen (upgraded to the most up-to-date standard)

Kfir (C.2/C.7 upgraded by French firms to become system equal to Mirage IIIEX, thus featuring F.1-style radome and refuelling probe)

Saab 35 Draken (both the air defense Johan and the strike fighter F.25 models)

F-106 Delta Dart (weapons bay modified to carry R-60 missiles)

AVRO Vulcan

Some turboprop kitplane for basic training

Dassault Mercure Head-of-State transport and AEW variants (equipped with Northrop Grumman "Top Hat" MESA radar)

Short Belfast (to be used in conjunction with Allied assets to ship mechanized peacekeepers overseas due to scarcity of airframes)

Transall C-160

Navy

AJS-37 Viggen (maritime/anti-ship strike type with radar modified with ability to cue WVRAAMs; IRIS-T will be allocated to them first)

SP-2H Neptune (upgraded with T64 turboprops and up-to-date avionics)

Army

Alouette III Utility

Alouette III Airfox Gunship

Pz.68/88 MBT (with proposed upgrade that includes the 120mm gun)

Flakpanzer 68/88 AA tank (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Centurion MBT with Olifant 2 turret and 120mm gun

Centurion AA tank with Gepard turret (with Stinger SAM add-on)

Bandkanon 1 and Mk F3 155mm SPHs (modernised with new ordnances)

Ikv-91 and AMX-13 light tanks upgraded with CT-CV turret

Pbv 302 and AMX-VCI APC with Rafael Samson RCWS (all will have SPIKE-ER launchers, but only designated fire support vehicles will carry reloads)

=========================================

I'm thinking about putting a few EC-121 Super Constellations rebuilt to the L configuration and upgraded with T34 turboprops and APS-145 radar into the List Mk.3...... except that I haven't decided what else to put into that list for sure.  Maybe a hi-lo mix with DC-8 AWACS?   :mellow:

Mk.3:

AAMs include Sidewinder (F-4 and F-5), Python 5 (F-4 and F-5E/F), AIM-120 (F-4 and F-5)

ASMs include AGM-65 (F-4 and F-5), AGM-142 (F-4), AGM-119 (F-5A with targetting data acquired off-platform)

Aircraft powerplant so far include PW-1120 (F-4), J85 (F-5, C/AC-119K), J47 (KC-97J), T34 (EC-121L, KC-97J), T56 (C-123T), R-4360 (C/AC-119K), Artouste (Alouette III)

Air Force

F-4E Super Phantom (with conformal tanks on the intersection joints of the fuselage spine and the engine nacelles instead of underfuselage centreline; DASH helmet-mounted display integrated with APG-73 radar)

F-5E/F Tiger III (avionics to F-20 standard; DASH helmet-mounted display integrated with APG-67 radar)

F-5A/B Freedom Fighter (aside from lack of radar, systems are mostly the same as the Tiger III; strike fighters with a secondary air defense duty using Sidewinders)

EC-121L Warning Star (with T34 turboprops and APS-145 radar)

KC-97J Stratofreighter with underwing J47 turbojet engines

C-123T Provider

C/AC-119K (AC-119 upgunned with 3 BK-27 cannons also used by tactical fighters in a podded form)

Hmmm, it begs a few interesting thoughts definately with regards to building your own military.  I have a couple of ideas for aircraft that could be used in theory:

MiG-19 - give it the moving cone nose that was included in the SM-12 update to allow it better supersonic performance.  Modify the nosecone and engine bay and such, you could potentially fit it with an RD-33 engine or similar, and upgrade it much like a swept-wing MiG-21 to attain similar perspective.

MiG-23 - I forget if they qualify, namely when the production lines went cold, but there have been a number of viable upgrades tested on the airframe, including AL-31 mountings, newer radar systems and the like in the 23-98, that could make it a viable variable-geometry wing multi-role light combatant in the fields like the F-16.

Su-15 - one can't forget the original "closed nose" conversion of a fighter - give it the upgrades for things like the Smerch radar - I would imagine you could even go for beefier radars in this monster in all honesty.  Give it the proposed ogive delta modifications that had been considered for better wing area.

Su-22 - M5's could be utilized as they're just upgrades, and would be a good fast bomber unit.

Yak-28 - forget when the H-5 stopped being built, but considering the engines in the pods were R-11's, you could use MiG-21 updates as a grounds for new engines, all the way up to RD-33's ostensibly.

Su-11 - the airframe's about the same as the MiG-21, it could ostensibly be bought up and upgraded similar to the MiG-21, in principle.

Tu-4 - turboprop engines similar to the KJ-1 would give it better performance.  Modify it with swept wings, give it radar-operated defensive guns, potentially with a man-in-loop fire safety where the gun mount includes a camera that zooms in on the target the gun's acquired and gives the defensive weapons officer final engagement control.  One could ostensibly upgrade it with systems like radar and fire control to support large ASMs considering the general airframe of the aircraft is similar to the Badger and Bear, so radar systems would be a possibility - could upgrade the payload capacity as well, potentially, by giving the airframes remodelling similar to the Tu-80, which would still keep it under treaty weight for empty weight, but still allow it to carry rather effective payload weights.

MiG-25 - could be used as well as a heavy intercept aircraft, and could be given AL-41 engines - the AL-41's flight testing was done on a 25PD airframe with the left engine replaced with the AL-41, so in principle that could be grounds for further upgrade.  Could also be given full delta wings as the proposed Shenyang J-10, which would improve fuel capacity, wing loading, and a few other factors like area ruling (as if you need MORE speed in a Foxbat?)


Just a few thoughts there.

Thanks to India's manufacturing MiG-27, the entire MiG-23 family is out of this game.

The rule stipulates that the fuselage modification and re-engining proposals need to be at least seriously considered...... so for example, did any MiG-25 serve as a testbed for the AL-41?  If not, then there's still the D-30 turbofans (it's even been tested).......

Fire control upgrade is another story...... (is giving Yak-28P a radar capable of supporting R-27ER/ET/EM and even R-37 my kind of crazy?  Hell yeah and, IIRC, permissible under the rules of this thread.)

Hmmm, that sucks - I didn't know India manufactured them - I know their Flankers are assembled but not manufactured.

Yes, the MiG-25 actually tested the AL-41 - a MiG-25PD was fitted with an AL-41 in place of its left engine for the flight-tests of the AL-41, in parallel to the pod tests done on the Tu-16.  It was part of the MFI development process.

I dunno, but my thoughts during free time over these days seem to be dominated by tanks......

With the advent of big-gun (as in 105mm and in a few cases even 120mm), two-man, autoloader-equipped turrets primarily meant for wheeled armoured vehicles...... how good of a tank destroyer would I have been able to turn an old Pershing or Patton tank (M26/45/46/47) into by combining it with an Italian Hitfact turret and a 120mm LRF gun......

Quote from: Logan Hartke on October 28, 2009, 08:37:46 AM

Quote from: Weaver on October 28, 2009, 06:16:06 AM
There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

It's 100% true.  It's also one of the things that I think is very interesting about this scenario.  Shows the upsides and downsides of using the oldies.

What about engines that are no longer being manufactured?

What would be the cut-off number where one can still live off second-hand spares, and how many engines does the requirement have to call for at the minimum to make, for example, reverse-engineering worthwhile?

It is that one version of my WIP OrBat has in it EC-121L and KC-97J, both calling for T34 turboprop engines...... I intend to have a tiny fleet of each type living off 2nd-hand spares after zero-timing their fuselages but am wondering what the story would be for their engines.

Quote from: gunfighter on November 30, 2009, 05:43:10 AM
One option I have in mind (I have already used it with another country), is to let a province get independence from the main state, but keeping good relations with it, or at least having ties with a powerful ally. This way, they may field relatively small air forces under the umbrella, or counting with the reinforcement from a bigger country. This way, for example, they get AWACS, EW and tanker support for their air combat component. They are also the first in the list when the main country retire their front line jets and are offered in the second hand market.

Having seen the word Cyprus yesterday by mere chance, I began thinking...... something similar?  Independent but with a big enough ethnic population from your country or just good enough of a tie that if it is attacked, your government might be compelled by public pressure to back that country militarily?  Or even a former province of your country forcibly seperated by the 1970 treaty?

Since it's been nearly 10 years since this was proposed, a whole new set of equipment would be available according to the treaty rules in 1/1/2020. Anyone interested in an updated version of the rules and discussion of this scenario?

Have I really been around here that long? Wow...

Cheers,

Logan

I occasionally do thought-experiments; how to equip an air force of $YEAR with only second-hand equipment which could be reasonably acquired in that period.  For extra challenge add complications from embargoes.

So I'm game for a go!

I did one recently for a notional breakaway from Zambia in 1972, when that country was heading to one-party rule:
- S-58s from French storage, updated with PT6 TwinPacs bought commercially
- T-28s for training and light attack
- F-86s or Commonwealth Sabres for combat roles.  FJ-4B Fury had amazing capabilities but would have been hard to get out of AMARC.
- Transport was trickier, perhaps Noratlas from Portugal stocks and a couple of DC-8s for long-range.  I had thought C-47 initially but decent ones were becoming increasingly rare in that period, certainly not available by the dozen unless you were a MAP recipient.

What surprised me was how difficult it was to minimise the number of engine types and how easy it was to end-up with oddballs like Centaurus engines that'd have to be replaced ASAP when spares ran out.  And also how easy it was to end-up with aircraft originating from only one or two nations, which seemed precarious.

That's the same kind of thing I do, AS.12. I only share about a tenth of those I kick around in my brain, though. Ones that I think other people may find interesting.

So, here are the rules for this scenario updated for 2020.

Updated Treaty Rules:

1. No aircraft or helicopter types that first flew after January 1st, 1980
2. No aircraft or helicopter types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 2000
3. No combat aircraft with an empty weight greater than 50,000 kg
4. No armored vehicle types that were still in serial production anytime after January 1st, 2000
5. No ships launched after January 1st, 1990

Alternate timeline rules:

6. You can upgrade as much as you like
7. Major airframe/chassis/hull modifications (new wings/hull/engines) limited to actual or proposed upgrades
8. Number of aircraft/vehicles/ships limited to actual numbers built
9. Assume equipment has been stored since it was decommissioned or that it will be decommission and transferred to your country on January 1st, 2010

* - There's more modern options, so I think the arms control commission would be less lenient this time around.


So, the obvious one that I know people have been salivating over for some time is the F-14 Tomcat.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com%2Fwarisboring.com%2Fimages%2FIRIAF-F-14-1.jpg&hash=87627bd7da30f2012d1cab99b322e9e3a3b3b306)

I've not the world's biggest F-14 fanboy, but I'd still be making it the backbone of my air force. Even so, there's some other great options out there in addition to the F-14. I don't want to steal anyone's thunder, though, so what are some of the gems you all would choose? There should be some decent late Cold War swag available.

Cheers,

Logan

Hypothetical Air Force:

Interceptors:
F-106 Delta Dart, updated to the F-106C/D (https://www.f-106deltadart.com/piwigo/index.php?/category/3) prototype standard (?)
F-8L Crusader

CAS:
A-7 Corsair II

Cargo:
C-123 (TacAirlift)
C-130H (TacAirlift)
AN-22 (StratAirlift)


I just want to make sure of one thing- indigenous production, based on existing blueprints: allowed by the treaty organization or not?

My first thought was Tornado.  Being wound down with F-35 coming online, plenty available.

Quote from: scooter on November 02, 2018, 02:53:43 PM
Cargo:
C-130H (TacAirlift)

I just want to make sure of one thing- indigenous production, based on existing blueprints: allowed by the treaty organization or not?

The C-130 family is still in production, so that wouldn't be an option, regardless of the age of the particular variant or individual airframe (Rule #2). Indigenous production would not be permitted, but you can have up to the full number of aircraft built originally (See rules #8 & #9). With the exception of the C-130, the that force meets the original outline, scooter. Want to try upgrading now that there's some new stuff available as of 2020?

Quote from: Mossie on November 02, 2018, 02:56:50 PM
My first thought was Tornado.  Being wound down with F-35 coming online, plenty available.

I was hoping someone would catch that one, Mossie! I think my combat force would be heavily dominated by ASF-14/Attack Super Tomcat 21s and Tornado IDS/ECR aircraft operating in the strike role. The Tornado is one of the most modern aircraft that would be available in this scenario.

Cheers,

Logan

Sea Harriers would be available if you consider them a separate type from the AV-8B, but the latter isn't: production ended in 2003.

Jaguar's not available (damn!): India produced some after 2000.

Mirage 2000's not available: production ended in 2007.

The A-10 is in: produced 1972-1984.

AMX is out: first flight 1984.

There's not a lot more to add to the original lists. Most things that first flew after 1970 remained in production into the 21st century.

Yeah, the Mirage 2000 was close, but not quite. The Harriers wouldn't be available because I think there's actually a lot more viable this time around if you think about the full force composition. With the F-14, you can actually get a "teen series" fighter. The A-10 that you mentioned is a huge deal, in my opinion. No better close air support aircraft's been developed for my money.

Here are some others that I think add a lot of capability:

• Mikoyan MiG-31
• Sukhoi Su-17/20/22
• Sukhoi Su-24
• Grumman A-6 Intruder/EA-6 Prowler
• Dassault/Dornier Alpha Jet
• Soko G-4 Super Galeb
• FMA IA 58 Pucará
• Socata TB 30 Epsilon/TB 31 Oméga
• Short 330/360/C-23 Sherpa
• Kawasaki C-1
• Boeing 707/KC-135 family
• Lockheed L-1011 TriStar
• Lockheed P-3 Orion
• Aérospatiale Gazelle
• Kaman SH-2 Seasprite
• Sikorsky/Westland Sea King family
• Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight

That would result in an almost top to bottom replacement of the rotary wing fleet, some much better support aircraft options (such as AWACS), and a nice high performance interceptor to supplement the F-14. Ground attack improves by leaps and bounds, you get more credible MPA, and a modern anti-tank helicopter.

You can still use some of the aircraft from the previous set that probably don't have a good replacement, too. I don't think you really get better airlift options that the C-160, C-141 and C-5, for example. You might even choose to keep on some F-4 Phantoms and F-111s. Likewise, I still think I'd have a lot of OV-10 Broncos flying since you can't get a great attack helicopter, but the Gazelle should ease some of the burden on that fleet.

Cheers,

Logan

Well you might need the Sea Harriers if you need the STOVL capability, say for use from tiny islands or improvised SCADS-style 'aircraft carriers' that you unquestionably threw together at the last minute and definitely didn't have all the bits for squirrelled away years before...

Your comment about the Gazelle got me thinking about the Bo-105 (which I much prefer), but unfortunately it didn't go out of production until 2001.  :banghead: Gazelles have a mixed reputation in combat: the AAC found them to be very vulnerable and fragile in the Falklands, but then the Syrians got some good results against the Israelis in 1982, using pop-up, hit-and-run tactics to fire HOTs at Israeli armour.

The Alpha Jet's a good one. German As were going for a song while they lasted.

If 707-based AWACS was too expensive for you, there's always the option of putting Hawkeye radar on the Orions. That was trialled in real life, and you did say unlimited upgrades, right?

More types you could have (some in one or the other timeframe):

IAI Arava: 103 produced 1972-1988
DHC Dash-7: 113 produced 1975-1988
DHC Buffalo: 122 produced 1965-1986
DHC Caribou: 307 produced 1958-1968 (turboprop conversion available: see wiki)
Westland Scout: 150 produced 1960-1968
Westland Wasp: 133 produced 1963-? (surely can't be after 1980?)
Cessna A-37B Dragonfly: 577 produced 1963-1975
BAC Strikemaster: 146 produced 1967-1984

Those would all totally be options, Weaver. I, too, looked at the Bo 105, but it would absolutely be out. Heck, Indonesia was still building them in 2008, so they are definitely a no-go until at least 2030.

The other aircraft in the list would have all been available back in 2010 according to the earlier rule set, with the exception of the Dash 7. I'd be opting for some of those this go around to supplement a clearly handicapped tactical air transport fleet, the core of which would continue to be formed by the Transall C-160 and DHC Buffalo by default as far as I'm concerned.

(https://i0.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/P3-Orion.jpg)

I'd actually forgotten about the P-3 AEW&C despite them being based just down the road from me. That is an excellent option. You could get all the latest engine and avionics upgrades from the P-3 family and the latest radar upgrades from the Hawkeye and have a very modern platform with a great endurance.

Cheers,

Logan

I actually went back to see what I had posted...

Yes, 40 squadrons of Phantoms but would the world like it? And more spares compared to any F-14.

A key limiting factor is your budget. F-14s and AWACS don't come cheap, even second-hand.

Also, just because the treaty says you can buy something, doesn't mean the owners would be willing to sell it. Classified equipment, or even just national policy, could stop all sorts of things. If the treaty obliged other nations to sell surplus to this country (and it's hard to imagine that) then a nation that didn't want to could just scrap obsolete equipment or keep it allegedly 'in service', just parked up and rusting or dismantled for spares.

As a general template, consider a country more like Israel, but if there was no peace treaty in 1967 and the Arab neighbors ended up getting their act together, invaded, defeated, and occupied the country. Obviously, there are many differences if you read the original post, but it was meant to be a bit of a hybrid of 1967 Israel, WWII Japan, WWI Germany, 1978 Uganda, etc. I was thinking of what some modern Versailles Treaty might be like if your equipment was primarily age-restricted. What kind of treaty would someone come up with in 1970 to try to handicap someone. How would you get around it?

In most cases, those total comprehensive upgrade packages for old airframes don't make economic sense. A used F-16 is almost always a better option than something like a Kfir C.10. But what if you didn't have access to Kfirs? Since the original country wasn't allowed to have a military, the idea is that they'd have a booming economy. This happened to some extent to countries like post-WWII Japan. I also considered the Arab build up to 1973, though. Revenge is a powerful motivator. And think of the current Croatia-Serbia arms race or Saudi Arabia-Qatar arms race. When countries have access to a lot of cash, they can make things very difficult for their neighbors.

(https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/images1314560_kham_pha_tiem_kich_kfir_block_60_israel_datviet-vn_05.jpg)

So, if you want a rough analogue, think about something similar to Israel, but with maybe a bit more territory to defend and greater naval threats to defend against. And no domestic arms industry, either. Assume that you'd be sold almost anything that doesn't violate the treaty rules because other countries know just how vulnerable you are and how vengeful your neighbors have grown. They don't want to violate the treaty since you were clearly in the wrong, but they don't want another hot war. It's in their interest that you maintain a credible deterrence...as long as it's legal. Besides, you're taking old equipment off their hands at a premium, and driving your vengeful neighbors to buy even more of the latest Typhoons, Rafales, and F-35s to counter your recently acquired and upgraded F-14s. From the perspective of the sellers, it's a win-win.

How large should the new military be? Something about the size of the IDF might be a good equivalent, but potentially a bit larger to account for the lower availability and readiness rates of old equipment. No more than say 20 fast jet squadrons, 10 helicopter squadrons, and 12 support squadrons? That's rough, though, you can get away with half that in your conceptual nation if you'd like. It's not specified in the treaty.

(https://www.whatifmodellers.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimagesvc.timeincapp.com%2Fv3%2Ffoundry%2Fimage%2F%3Fq%3D60%26amp%3Burl%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fs3.amazonaws.com%252Fthe-drive-staging%252Fmessage-editor%25252F1524426954153-iasfcamo.png&hash=7df30a2ac13bffc297efc80b7368ca1f6a98102c)

The budget wouldn't be unlimited, but it'd be at least what the IDF's currently is, just assume cash in place of US subsidies. Also, realize that you basically get to save up on equipment acquisition for almost a decade before each force renewal. I didn't want to get too much in the weeds with the details, but you'd probably be taking out these contracts years ahead of time, upgrading the equipment, sending pilots and other personnel to the countries you're making the purchases from to train on the equipment (again, like the Versailles treaty and the Germans training in Lipetsk & Kazan), then only taking delivery after the calendar switches over. Singapore does that today, for example, but that's because of restrictions with geography. They don't have the airspace to train locally. Half of their squadrons are training squadrons in the United States, Australia, or France, for example. Again, nobody wants to violate the terms of the treaty, but they really want your cash, so the idea isn't that you're trying to hide the treaty violations like the Nazis, but rather that you're trying to do the best you can within the restrictions, like the JSDF.

Cheers,

Logan

Quote from: Logan Hartke on November 06, 2018, 08:09:24 AM

(https://i0.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/P3-Orion.jpg)

I'd actually forgotten about the P-3 AEW&C despite them being based just down the road from me. That is an excellent option. You could get all the latest engine and avionics upgrades from the P-3 family and the latest radar upgrades from the Hawkeye and have a very modern platform with a great endurance.

Cheers,

Logan

I've got a plan to do one of my Vickers Vanguards like that

Quote from: Logan Hartke on November 07, 2018, 02:17:33 PM
...like the Versailles treaty and the Germans training in Lipetsk...

I miss-read that and now have mental images of the Luftwaffe in makeup.  Shades of Captain Lockheed & the Starfighters.

Quote from: zenrat on November 08, 2018, 01:07:49 AM

Quote from: Logan Hartke on November 07, 2018, 02:17:33 PM
...like the Versailles treaty and the Germans training in Lipetsk...

I miss-read that and now have mental images of the Luftwaffe in makeup.  Shades of Captain Lockheed & the Starfighters.

"Largactil....five milligrammes"
"Check"
"Valium...ten milligrammes"
"Check"
"Revlon Autumn Blush"
"Which one's that?"
"The pinkish-brown one..."
"Check"
"No, pinkish-brown..."

"Is that makeup captain?"
"Makeup sir?"
"Yes, makeup.  Like Ladies wear."
"Not only ladies wear makeup sir..."

Classic LP.  I must dig it out and give it a spin.

So Navywise

Let's start with HMS Hermes  and given we've rolled on the timeline HMS Invincible and HMS Illustrious


Let's have some A10 Warthogs

Sea Harriers
Blackburn Bucaneers

Building on what came up during previous discussions:

(https://i.imgur.com/8OvO3nG.png)

First, FV432 Mk.3 Bulldog and BTR-60 upgrade package from Saymar (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SBe6Ulq7rw).  I actually would have liked a M230LF with twin Spike LR launcher box (https://i.pinimg.com/736x/a9/55/7e/a9557ea845df029078ffa91b6a230c02--military-armor-military-guns.jpg) for the BTR-60, but I am not entirely certain when the chaingun was first trialed on a remote weapon station.  Infantry gears would probably be largely acquired, whether new or second-hand, from the US.

My sense of scale remains awful, so I began to wonder how I ought to build a squad for each type of transport.  The FV432 as an APC is said to carry 10 passengers, but I would prefer a gunner specifically for that Samson 30 Mk.1; the commander also won't be standing at their cupola on a regular basis and presumably would need their own console for the commander's sight on the RWS.  In fact, I also don't know where they sit when not manning their cupola.

The upgraded BTR-60 does away with the 14.5mm MG turret but originally added a pintle-mounted 12.7mm MG, presumably for the passengers.  With the use of remote-controlled MG, should its control simply be given to the vehicle's commander?

At any rate, I currently set each squad at six men, with platoon HQ having five (FV432) or six (BTR-60, adding a grenadier).  Granted my squad set up was based on a picture of German Panzergrenadier squad showing three riflemen, one automatic rifleman, one grenadier, and one AT operator.  Is that ideal?

Comments and suggestions welcomed (especially since I'm not an expert on organizations  :banghead: ).  Thanks in advance.