Brasilian tank EE-T1 Osorio; a combination of the loss of the Saudi Offer, end of the Cold War and financial problems killed it. If the Cold War doesn't end (which means Germany and US retaining tanks like the Leopard 1 and M60 in their reserves) there's a good chance of a greater client base. Likewise the AMX-40, a french tank built for the export market, stalled and then overran by the end of the Cold War.
Military equipment during a continuous Cold War
- Thread starter Sport25ing
- Start date
See spoilers because there is a lot of shit going on:
Romania was kind of cursed as the Ceaucescu couple didn't want to fund weapon programs much, which slowed down/killed many developments or forced the Army to hide some programs. That said things were still progressing:
Tank-wise, Romania was working on TR-85 upgrades, namely by testing Yugoslav DNNS combined day/night passive IR sight to replace the old two sights. For the longer term, there was the TR-125 which was a locally-developped tank based on the T-72 with a Polish LWR, an intended 1000-1100hp turbodiesel (880hp in trials), TR-85's FCS and possibly improved hull armor. The exact configuration of the production version is unknown since the program was still in a fairly early stage in 1989. Finally, to bolster numbers they were to modernize 250 T-34-85s with T-55/72 components (580hp engine), skirts and a laser rangefinder.
They were already looking into a new turret and armament for the MLI-84 IFV, again just no Israeli systems.
The infantry was waiting for a RPG-7 replacement, the LGEI-99 Snake that could be operated from indoors.
2S1s were to be replaced by the Model 89 122mm SPG (MLI-84-based 2S1)
They were developping an attack helicopter based on Puma automotives, the IAR-318. It had features to reduce the thermal and radar signature like many contemporary helos, and laser-guided ATGMs were in development for it.
The IAR 95 multirole aircraft had been cancelled, but the avionics and ECM developped for it were to be used to upgrade Mig-21 (used Israeli components OTL instead) and IAr 93 (which would have been made compatible with guided munitions, and would have received submunitions dispensers). So they were getting there
Tank-wise, Romania was working on TR-85 upgrades, namely by testing Yugoslav DNNS combined day/night passive IR sight to replace the old two sights. For the longer term, there was the TR-125 which was a locally-developped tank based on the T-72 with a Polish LWR, an intended 1000-1100hp turbodiesel (880hp in trials), TR-85's FCS and possibly improved hull armor. The exact configuration of the production version is unknown since the program was still in a fairly early stage in 1989. Finally, to bolster numbers they were to modernize 250 T-34-85s with T-55/72 components (580hp engine), skirts and a laser rangefinder.
They were already looking into a new turret and armament for the MLI-84 IFV, again just no Israeli systems.
The infantry was waiting for a RPG-7 replacement, the LGEI-99 Snake that could be operated from indoors.
2S1s were to be replaced by the Model 89 122mm SPG (MLI-84-based 2S1)
They were developping an attack helicopter based on Puma automotives, the IAR-318. It had features to reduce the thermal and radar signature like many contemporary helos, and laser-guided ATGMs were in development for it.
The IAR 95 multirole aircraft had been cancelled, but the avionics and ECM developped for it were to be used to upgrade Mig-21 (used Israeli components OTL instead) and IAr 93 (which would have been made compatible with guided munitions, and would have received submunitions dispensers). So they were getting there
Grad-1 MLRS based on MT-LB, more BMP-23s with recon version
Both countries were developping components for T-72 modernisations but were really looking at T-72S (export T-72B) licenses, with ERAWA/DYNA ERA and DRAWA/PALCAT FCSes. These components may have been integrated on T-72S, and the ERA may have replaced composite addons on T-55AM2s. Czech DU APFSDS was in development.
The Czechoslovaks were developping a recon version of BMP-2, the STROP-2 SHORAD system, and the Ondava SPG which was a Dana with a L47 barrel and new loading mechanism. Most likely the Poles would have got Ondava too.
Otherwise, they still catch up with the USSR with more BMP-2s, Konkurs and other stuff
The Czechoslovaks were developping a recon version of BMP-2, the STROP-2 SHORAD system, and the Ondava SPG which was a Dana with a L47 barrel and new loading mechanism. Most likely the Poles would have got Ondava too.
Otherwise, they still catch up with the USSR with more BMP-2s, Konkurs and other stuff
Proliferation of Soviet equipment like Tunguska SPAAG, Buk SAM, Tundscha mortars, BMP-2s and BTR-80s, T-72S.
But they also wanted to upgrade T-72M1s with the FCS, missile capability, gun, stabilizer and engine from T-72S as the T-72M1M.
But they also wanted to upgrade T-72M1s with the FCS, missile capability, gun, stabilizer and engine from T-72S as the T-72M1M.
See my previous posts on the Soviets.
Added to that, they were about to introduce new tandem/improved ATGM warheads (Invar for Refleks, Udar for Konkurs, Ataka for Shturm), new 125mm APFSDS (3BM46 DU to make the most out of 2A46M), 2A66 125mm and Ankers APFSDS if the gun works, Ka-50 attack helicopters, Su-25T ATGM slingers and otherwise more of what they were churning out in 1991. Mi-28 was intended for export at the time, so expect it more in the Warsaw Pact proper.
Added to that, they were about to introduce new tandem/improved ATGM warheads (Invar for Refleks, Udar for Konkurs, Ataka for Shturm), new 125mm APFSDS (3BM46 DU to make the most out of 2A46M), 2A66 125mm and Ankers APFSDS if the gun works, Ka-50 attack helicopters, Su-25T ATGM slingers and otherwise more of what they were churning out in 1991. Mi-28 was intended for export at the time, so expect it more in the Warsaw Pact proper.
Still no, because G11 was adopted and the backup in case it truly failed (which was not the case) was G41, not G36.
Last edited:
Probably not. The trouble with the Peacekeeper was survivability, or rather lack thereof. That’s why Congress greatly limited the number procured (in the 1980s, well before the end of the Cold War) and is why Midgetman was under active development at the end of the Cold War. You’re much more likely to see Midgetman be deployed and replace Minuteman III than more Peacekeeper.
That has been pretty much debunked. The issues were never as bad as made out.
Given the great disparity in fighter aircraft by 1980s its so surprise that Soviets relied more and more on nukes and IRBM to achieve their goals in case of a large conflict with NATO
On the other hand if Soviets get better AAM in widespread service will their legacy fleet of mig23/25 not be a bigger threat than OTL , esp since even in early 90s there were a lot of mirage F1 and F4 in widespread service
Not every NATO fighter is a F15 , and early F16s had significant limitations in A2A as you noted
Mig31 has a very different role from mig25PD/PDS evolution , this foxbat version if further advanced in a continuing Cold War can potentially carry newer R27/R73 in subsequent modifications.
Mig23MLD with newer missiles can be counter to F4E
In a world with a continued Cold War and no nuclear detente wouldn't the US want to have a delivery system about as capable as the Soviet SS-18 Satan and the Chinese DF-5A. After all ITTL there'd still be some 20'000+ nuclear warheads in US arsenals as of 2022, which would require delivery systems to be of strategic and tactical value.
Last edited:
Russian pilots were flying as little as 90-120 hours per year and air combat training was limited. NATO were flying 200-240 hours per year and pilots/units were flying in exercises like Red Flag which is about as close to war as they get without actually shooting people down. Also most militaries in Europe were flying as if in combat, RAF Germany were flying tactically for the whole cold war, that meant in RAFG's case that if they saw another RAFG aircraft they could jump them with the loser paying the winners bar bills. The WARPAC pilots didn't get that sort of mental attitude or skill level.
WARPAC pilots might have the better airframe's in some cases and even better AAM's but a good NATO pilot was likely to get the upper hand over his Eastern opponent.
Last edited:
If you stand still, you’re dead. There was a bad enough technical disparity by 1990 and you want to make it worse? And even if that didn’t happen, new and better fighters would give the Soviets an advantage rather than just standing still.
Monk, the MiG-25PDS and MiG-31 do the exact same job: intercept low-flying aircraft and missiles for the PVO.
No. If you look at the actual discussions that were taking place around the U.S. nuclear force in the 1980s, they mostly had to do with justifying the continued existence of the ICBM arm (the SLBM and bomber arms were quite secure) and trying to fight what was perceived as the biggest weakness of the force, survivability. It was believed that silo-based missiles would be easily and quickly destroyed during a nuclear war, so to be worth building new ICBMs needed to offer some advantage in survivability over the older designs. Some attempts were made to design silos that would be adequately improved in survivability, but these collapsed either because it was impossible (you start needing impossibly tough silos) or the side effects or costs were politically undesirable (many schemes involved turning enormous amounts of public land into missile bases where missiles would be covertly shuttled between numerous silos, any of which might or might not be empty, which was very unpopular in the states where that public land was found). In the end, the only practical schemes had to do with dispersion, that is being able to move the missiles around such a large area that it was impractical for the Soviets to nuke all of the missiles before they could launch. Peacekeeper had rail-mobile Peacekeeper, but that was always politically marginal and had major issues in clogging up the U.S. rail network if it actually had to disperse. So, the focus turned towards the smaller, road-mobile Midgetman, which was easier to justify and not as politically fraught.
No one, so far as I can tell, particularly cared about or was interested in matching the Soviets or Chinese in throw weight. I'm not precisely sure why, but I suspect it came from a combination of U.S. technical sophistication (our missiles/bombs were probably more reliable and accurate, so fewer of them were needed to hit a given target), better intelligence (the Soviets at least seemed to be very interested in countering ABM systems that never existed), and perhaps relative disinterest in the ICBM force on the part of Air Force brass (how many missile men have been at the top?). For this reason, I don't think it's likely that a "throw weight race" is likely to produce interest in retaining Peacekeeper. What people will focus on is whether the ICBM system is capable of meeting the desire for a reliable second-strike option, not whether the U.S. can launch as many warheads per missile as the Soviets or Chinese. And that metric is probably better fulfilled by more, smaller missiles than fewer, bigger ones.
An additional factor is that even if the Cold War continues further arms limitation treaties are entirely possible. SALT was a product of the 1970s, after all. It's entirely conceivable that the 1990s or 2000s sees a detente 2.0 that results in the Peacekeeper dying anyway.
would the USAF keep the FB111 and F111 around for longer? Maybe a upgrade package and converting the FB111s for conventional weapons.
wonder if the Soviet VTOL fighter replacement might work
wonder if the Soviet VTOL fighter replacement might work
The soviet navy was moving to get the Mig-29 and Su-27 on carrier decks, so...
Apparently they were rather seriously looking for upgrades, most importantly F110 engines.
Riain
Banned
I've heard that the Russian's counted their hours more strictly than NATO, something about engine running or taxiing or something counting/not counting, but that only plays around the edges. NATO aircrew were flying 4 or 5 times a week, the Soviets 2 or 3.
Riain
Banned
What about the SDI/Star Wars?
I'm aware that it was basically a blanket term to coordinate a bunch of separate research projects, many of which were highly fanciful. However were there any that showed promise in thr short term, that might be useful in sat 1995 if development had continued?
Also, what about the US ASAT programme? IIUC it fizzled out in the mid-late 80s, but could it be restarted?
I'm aware that it was basically a blanket term to coordinate a bunch of separate research projects, many of which were highly fanciful. However were there any that showed promise in thr short term, that might be useful in sat 1995 if development had continued?
Also, what about the US ASAT programme? IIUC it fizzled out in the mid-late 80s, but could it be restarted?
They were definitely upgrading the avionics, engine upgrades are always one of those things that get proposed but seldom get carried through normally because the airframe is off undergoing major maintenance too and is unavailable for a relatively long time. Plus those generals in the Pentagon can't get nice directorships and consultancies if they go recycling existing aircraft, they need new airframes to justify their new pay.
They did offer the Israeli's a upgraded F111's with new radar, F110 engines and AMRAAM capability. The Israeli's didn't bite, they went for F15's and upgraded F16's with improved range/payload.
The MiG-29 and Su-27 are further developed. The MFI and LFI Projects are also further developed (maybe with more funding, MiG could have developed and produced both the MiG 1.44 and MiG 4.12). The T-90 will still be developed and produced. The Ulyanovsk would have also been finished. The AK-74M would still have been developed and produced. With the Soviets cancelling Object 187, there would likely be no T-95 and as such no T-14. Even with more funding, I don’t see the AN-94 or any other weapon from Project Abakan going anywhere.
As for the United States and NATO? The F-22 might be further developed and they would likely have produced more of them. I don’t see the G-11 or the ACR program going anywhere even with more funding.
As for the United States and NATO? The F-22 might be further developed and they would likely have produced more of them. I don’t see the G-11 or the ACR program going anywhere even with more funding.
Last edited:
I have found the French Military Laws for the 1992-1994, 1995-2000 and 2002-2007 to check the evolution of military programs over the period, I found some interesting info:
- the French Polyphème EFOG-M-like missile that would probably have been developped in a CW scenario
- AuF2 SPG: AuF1 with a 52-cal barrel
- Mirage 2000Ds were supposed to get a Phase 3 of their ECM system
- Tigre HAC with AC3G LP was still planned as late as 2002, with HAD being merely an export version at the time
- VBCI/VBM was to be supplemented by a FSV version with a 2-man turret and supposedly the CTAI 40mm gun (Possibly still 45mm in continued CW).
- Literally everything entering service 5-10 years earlier than OTL (FELIN infantry equipment as early as 2005, Tigre HAC in 2005-2008, Rafale in 1999, SAMP Mamba in 2000 or 2005...)
- Exocet replacement
- new AFV for the Gendarmerie
- Puma Orchidee with battlefield recon radar
- the French Polyphème EFOG-M-like missile that would probably have been developped in a CW scenario
- AuF2 SPG: AuF1 with a 52-cal barrel
- Mirage 2000Ds were supposed to get a Phase 3 of their ECM system
- Tigre HAC with AC3G LP was still planned as late as 2002, with HAD being merely an export version at the time
- VBCI/VBM was to be supplemented by a FSV version with a 2-man turret and supposedly the CTAI 40mm gun (Possibly still 45mm in continued CW).
- Literally everything entering service 5-10 years earlier than OTL (FELIN infantry equipment as early as 2005, Tigre HAC in 2005-2008, Rafale in 1999, SAMP Mamba in 2000 or 2005...)
- Exocet replacement
- new AFV for the Gendarmerie
- Puma Orchidee with battlefield recon radar
The RN will get all 12 of the type 45's it wanted to replace the type 42's instead of only 6. I'd also expect the frigate numbers to be maintained at mid 1980's levels. The RN was also originally intending to order 2 Ocean class LPH.
The Strike Eagle was always intended as an F-111 replacement, so the writing is on the wall for the F-111. And it’s likely they won’t be produced at the same low rate they were IOTL; the full buy of 392 will probably be done by 2001 just like the reduced buy of 236 the Air Force wound up getting.
F-111s will by necessity stick around longer, but by the early 2000s I expect them to be all gone.
IIRC 24 Type 23s were initially planned, to give the Royal Navy 38 frigates and 50 surface combatants overall.