Improve your Country's Military

[TheMann]

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

Fair enough.

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

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

I can see this point, but nuclear weapons are incredibly expensive things and a small nuclear weapons stockpile is not really necessary unless you can be reasonably sure it can be used, which means missile submarines or some sort of ballistic missile, the latter of which is useless unless it was ICBM range to us and the former of which Canada would not have the capacity to build until the 1980s. Bombers with nuclear cruise missiles aren't really an option until the late 1950s and early 1960s, and could Canada build a strategic bomber that worked well at that time period? One idea that might work here is a Commonwealth project on this allowing Canada to acquire Avro Vulcans for the role, but even that would be relatively pointless as a Vulcan hasn't the range to go over the pole without multiple aerial refueling tankers. A mini-SAC probably isn't really in Canada's interest, though.

My ideal modern Canadian military (that isn't my somewhat-wankish TL ) is one which can provide major backup to NATO and have the ability to operate all over the world by the 1990s. My fleet above would be made up of three light carriers, twelve air-warfare destroyers, sixteen patrol frigates, twelve SSNs and supply and support ships to match, plus arctic assets and lots of patrol aircraft. In a NATO-Warsaw Pact fight with this, I'd be wanting the RCN to have the job of helping the RN and USN sanitize the Atlantic of enemy submarines and have the RCAF flying its medium bombers from Britain and its fighters from Germany to help clean up the Russian opposition.

 

[Bytewave]

For what it's worth, I would be thinking full-time nuclear submarine rotation, for warhead delivery. Its expensive, sure, but pennies for the fountain compared to the kind of military expenditures we're talking about here. In the cold war, knowing Canada has independent and undetectable submarine-based strike capability puts us up as a major player. Post-cold war, it makes us by default the guys the US are courting as their closest allies instead of being the indebted serfs that aren't coming up with their wheat quotas. (IRL, they've always been pretty disappointed at our lightweight military).

Nuclear submarine is the way to go for real deterrence, land-based ICBMs are too easy to first-strike. And if Israel can afford it in our timeline, this ridiculously wasteful and 19th-century-minded Canada we're discussing can pull it off.

My fleet above would be made up of three light carriers, twelve air-warfare destroyers, sixteen patrol frigates, twelve SSNs and supply and support ships to match, plus arctic assets and lots of patrol aircraft. In a NATO-Warsaw Pact fight with this, I'd be wanting the RCN to have the job of helping the RN and USN sanitize the Atlantic of enemy submarines and have the RCAF flying its medium bombers from Britain and its fighters from Germany to help clean up the Russian opposition.

You seem to be thinking heavily in terms of playing our current role better. But surely the whole point of such heavy militaristic expenditures should be to give us more real power and influence internationally. If we're spending all that money just to be a better Robin to the US' Batman, at that point I strongly advise spending it on cuter hookers for the Senate instead.

 

[Jukra]

For the post-war Finnish military I'll offer just a few general points without going to details:

-Reorganize the conscription service in 1950's. With post-war budgets the plenty of 1930's will never come, so focus on short service for the whole age class and a longer service for those who will serve and fill up General Forces.

-Focus on quality rather than quantity for General Forces, even if it means cutting them down into a very few brigades.

- Scrap the coastal artillery already in 1970's, replace it with missiles far lower in maintenance costs.

- Scrap the idea of FAC-M's in 1980's. Buy truck mounted RBS-15SF coastal defence missiles instead. More can be purchased and they can be used as cruise missiles against ground targets as well if the threat does not require coastal defence.

- Scrap the idea of domestic 155mm gun. Buy Swedish FH-77's instead.

- Post cold-war start reorganizing the forces already in 1990's.

- Ditch the fighter purchase of early 1990's for SAM oriented air defence. Some 15-20 single engine fighters, preferably JAS, would be enough to for air policing duties and enough to force the enemy to use efforts to suppress fighter arm. Back the sensors with Erieye radar, preferably mounted in a business jet.

- Reorient the Fleet towards corvette-sized multipurpose combatants capable of escorting trade, engage in mine warfare duties and take part in international operations

- For long range attack purposes don't buy aircraft mounted JASSM but instead truck mounted Taurus and more ATACMS.

 

[Ato]

So... I guess the Falklanders had better learn how to shoot down helicopters?

This is a post 1990 set up.

And I am being entirely serious, perhaps THE major problem with the UK military today is that it is being caught between two conflicting ideals.
One the one hand politicians like to jump on international causes and show Britain is "punching above it's weight", but on the other the hand they really don't want to pay for the capability to do it properly.

The result is a facade, an over expensive military that is under functional for it's cost. Cost cutting measures by accountants have dictated doctine and policy and lead to a force that may look good to joe public, but is woefully inadquate for the task at hand.


The UK is perfectly capable of maintaing a high quality expeditionary military. However if it is not done properly, it is not worth doing at all.

As cost will be the main political consideration, and my own bias against hawkish intervention and military adventurism, i think it would be far better to reorganize the military into an effective, and low cost homeland defence force.


The era when there was a potential for instant global conflict has been over for more than two decades, and a large standing military is simply no longer necessery for a country such as ours.
In the event that a major conflcit did begin to brew, the capacity for modern industrialized nations to rapidly rearm has been already proven.

 

[Henriksson]

Dissolve the whole army and replace it with a militia. Given that Sweden will be just as safe from a geopolitical standpoint, might as well throw as little money at it as possible.

 

[abc123]

Pogledaj moje pitanje:



Offer znači ponuda, što najvjerojatnije znaš već. Nisam pitao za korvetu, nego kada je ponuđena zajedno sa Gripenima. Toga nema na wikipediji.

A valjda ti nisam dobro pročitao odgovor, jer znaš da sam te pitao za što nisi čuo? A što se tiče ponude, pa ponuda koliko ja znam nije nikad službeno ni dana, no pošto su Švedi sami u to negdje vrijeme i izbacili iz službe 2 te korvete, mislim da ne bi bilo nikakva problema da dobijemo 2 komada, isto ko od Finaca ona 2 Helsinkija...
A mislim da bi nam takva 2 brodića baš super došla. Osobno bih više volio 2 podmornice kao Vastergotland klasa, ali i ovo bi bilo super...

 

[Have Blue-117]

Some more:
There is nothing we have currently or in development that can replace the A-10, so why bother. New build A-10s with necessary avionics enhancements and new engines would suit us fine, and sell some to our allies while we're at it.

Replace our existing jet trainer fleet with the T-50 and buy the Super Tucano for lighter COIN duties that don't require an A-10.

Give the Marines more funding so they can update their M1 fleet to M1A2s. I wouldn't have cancelled the EFV so that will replace their AAV-7s and buy the Patria based Havoc to replace the LAV family.

Get the E-3, RC-135, and E-8 replaced.

I don't care if its not American, the KC-30 won the initial tanker competition and we're buying it. It has American engines and will be built here so I don't see a problem with it. Maybe buy some KC-777s to make Boeing happy and replace the KC-10.

Start a competition to replace the C-130 and all the other lighter transports in our inventory. I don't know who would win, but its between the A400M, KC-390, and the AN-70.

Update the C-17 with newer engines and composites, and maybe and enlarged variant say 50-70% larger with GENx or GE90s to eventually replace the C-5.

Develop a new stealthy VTOL jet with the UK to replace the Harrier and aborted F-35B.

Start looking into future replacements for the Chinook and Blackhawk families.

 

[Riain]

Some suggestions for the US are mainly replacing some of the cheap co-in gear like the Bronco and Caribou aircraft in order to do many of the jobs the US is using expensive helicopters for. They're cheap to keep in service and can realise massive cost savings elsewhere with regards to helicopter flight hours.

 

[Panica]

Some other thoughts

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

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

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

Separate design and manufacuring.
For exmple you can buy licences for G5-52 marksman and no waste bilions on XM2001 Cruseder
Adopt Tick-Tock strategy (what INTE does) for upgrades...
Every 5 years (6) develop new airframe than after 5y new avionics and engines and again.
Do small evolutionary changes reather than big jumps.
Consider cost as factor in combat efectivnes More can do more...
When building a prototype build them in numbers that could scartch head of your enemy. For example B-70 Only in 10pcs could be headache for USSR air defence and you already spent money on it in development...
Commonality should be goal but not a need... (Share engines and radars but do not overshoot it)
F-14 Super tomcat to service
Naval ATF... Could be used by USAF (Yes same aircraft for USN a USAF! ) With hooks etc... Naval aircraft could be used on land but not otherwise!

 

[Simon]

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

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

I believe that would be Mike Sparks, the gentleman who has been waging a one man crusade to have the M113 named the 'Gavin' in honour of General James M. Gavin. He's apparently become something of a running joke on various military forums both for this and his other views on armoured vehicles, his insistence on bringing back 8-inch and 16-inch guns to give the Marines the naval gunfire support that they apparently need, and his other... ah, interesting views shall we say.

...and have the RCAF flying its medium bombers from Britain and its fighters from Germany to help clean up the Russian opposition.

If Canada is running medium bombers like the TSR-2 or F-111 in the 70s then the obvious solution is to add them to the US nuclear weapons sharing programme Canada was part of until 1984, gets you the firepower to use against the only opponent I could ever see Canada deploying nuclear weapons against whilst avoiding the major costs. Sorting out an airfield for them in either the UK or Germany certainly shouldn't be a problem.

 

[TheMann]

If Canada is running medium bombers like the TSR-2 or F-111 in the 70s then the obvious solution is to add them to the US nuclear weapons sharing programme Canada was part of until 1984, gets you the firepower to use against the only opponent I could ever see Canada deploying nuclear weapons against whilst avoiding the major costs. Sorting out an airfield for them in either the UK or Germany certainly shouldn't be a problem.

I agree that the Canadian medium strike bombers would be part of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program, no doubt about it, but I would not imagine that being the only role they are used for.

 

[modelcitizen]

My parents are from Israel.

So I can chat at that subject


Go back to the Arik Sharon "doctrine" of targeting specific terrorist leaders instead of the recent-ish nonsense of targeting civilian infrastructure. Take a wild guess which one drove up recruiting more for terrorist groups.

And remove the mother----ing exemption that the ultra-Orthodox have from serving in the IDF. STUDY YOUR STUDIES LATER. Delaying college is good enough for everybody else, don't think you're so mother----ing special and then act as if your vote should matter as much as or more than the next person's.