The Eutopian Military Thinktank

[The_Hawk]

"Actually, the F-2 is mostly Japanese-built; I don't know how much American say there is in how it's distributed. Of course, it's no better than the F-16, costs three times as much to construct, and doesn't really suit our needs; those are more significant problems, to my mind.

"Given that we're an island nation and our pilots are going to spend a lot of their time over water, twin-engine designs are one of my biggest concerns. American would be preferable, in which case I'm going to have to recommend the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. Failing that, the regular C/D Hornet. Of course, we're going to have to get the embargo lifted, but that's long been assumed to be a necessary antecedent to any major military acquisitions programme. If the Americans balk at selling us their planes -- and frankly, I think if we offer them enough money, they won't be -- we'll have to think about alternative sources. I've heard the Eurofighter bandied about, but if I recall the MiG-29 has better range. Su-27 Flanker's another possibility."

 

[Petrarca]

The plane's a modernization of the -16 redone by Japanese manufacturers. Almost half the technological costs have been payed by the US government, making it even less likely that a close American ally will sell us the aircraft without Washington's approval.

I share your concern about the basic -16 airframe in general. The plane was designed as a light dogfighter with a single engine; ground attack capability was added later. It would at best be a complement to first-line fighter squadrons- a very expensive complement.

I personally don't like the F/A-18 in any of its iterations. Originally it was the failed competitor of the -16, though admittedly the USN has succeeded in turning it into a capable naval strike fighter. As for Russian planes- the avionics, radar, and missiles are clearly inferior to Western makes. Theoretically we could rip them all out and rebuild the plane's electronics, but that's absurdly complicated. I'll check into the European aircraft.

 

[Craig Ashley]

Well for the aircraft debate, I'd suggest those who are most knowledgable compile a report on the various models. Top speed, altitude, range, weapon systems, manuverability, reliability, cost of upkeep, and anything else that might be pertinent to the discussion. It will help us make an informed decision and not based on generalities.

I'd like to bring up two other issues. I think most thinkers agree the draft is hurting, not helping Eutopia's armed forces. Increased pay and training will help recruitment efforts once the draft is over, but I'm not sure it will be enough. Tutition vouchers are nice, but Eutopia's tutitions are very modest to begin with - at just 2000 ducats a semester. Plus, lower income families have low to no interest loans and even grants available to them. We may need to offer some other benefit to help recruit the type of people we need.

I said all that to ask this, how many active individuals will each branch need once modernization is complete? How many reserves do we want to keep around? What is going to be the cost of training these troops with modern and therefor much more technical equipment? These are issues we need to look at, because they will establish the running costs of the military long after the modernization process is over.

Secondly, I think the centerpiece of our armed forces should be a highly trained and versitile special forces, with state of the art equipment for a multitude of situations. I think Eutopia's armed forces are much more likely to face an irregular or unconvential foe, and our forces could be demployed in dozens of different settings and situations. What sort of weaponry and equipment are we looking at for special forces? What do we currently have? How many situations can we think of where they might be deployed?

 

[The_Hawk]

"Just to touch on the long-term impact of modernization, Jake -- a more modern military means a smaller military. For example, losing the Essexes means a reduction in our required sailors by a rather substantial fraction -- a few thousand per boat. If I remember correctly those two ships account for maybe 40 percent of our pre-secession Navy's crew requirements. Of course, it would be preferable to concentrate those losses in the conscripts that we're going to lose anyway.

"So we trim down some of our fighting men that way. We'll probably also need to reduce the number of army divisions. Now that might sound like a disagreeable option, but given that we'll be losing conscripts (and thus gaining professionalism), and the remaining troops will have better equipment and training, it should roughly balance out. The same logic applies to costs; we need to train fewer men and women, but we need to train them better. The difficulty will be in balancing the equation so that we reduce numbers to gain back costs by roughly the same amount as we need to pay out for training and maintenance.

"Of course, acquisitions, for the most part, are going to be separate from that, but they'll be one-time costs."

 

[Craig Ashley]

I agree with everything your saying, I just want to know what is the absolute minimum we need for the army, navy, and airforce? Plus, what is the maximum we want? We need to set the parameters, so we can set our recruitment packages to meet our needs.

And are there any ideas what the cost will be per solider for training and compensation packages? I agree it should be cheaper, since even though we are spending more per soldier, we will have far less soldiers. I'm just curious if anyone has an estimate.

And we need to remember that modern equipment will likely mean increased maintence costs - even if major repairs are less frequent.

 

[Petrarca]

Additionally, a large number of skilled personnel spending their time training conscripts can be shifted to other duties, including further training for a real professional force.

If memory serves, we have 70,000 long-servicemen in all branches, as well as a little more than a quarter-million conscripts. The number of servicemen will need to be increased, but we could increase that number by 50% and still save money by eliminating conscription.

It's long been acknowledged that the best manner to deal with an opposing force is through an asymmetrical option. This applies to terrorism as well as conventional warfare. Let me speak first for the navy. The Streetfighter concept developed by Admiral Cebrowski is probably the best and most flexible approach to deal with multiple types of conventional and unconventional threats. This requires substantial investment in command and control as well as small ships from corvettes on down. Frigates and destroyers will still be needed, though. In the air, I think we need not only to modernize our combat jets but also maintain patrol craft of various sorts.

 

[The_Hawk]

Actually, reduced maintenance costs are one thing I like about the Super Hornet -- it uses something like 25% fewer parts than the run-of-the-mill Hornet. But that's just an aside.

Absolute minimums and maximums are hard. To a great extent it depends on what role we're conceiving of for our military -- something we argued about endlessly in the GCMR. I would say, if we chose to become isolationist and minimalistic in our military strategy, the absolute minimum would be a division of regular line troops, with perhaps a few attached battalions for special use, a small navy of maybe 15 corvettes and a handful of bigger frigates, and perhaps four or five squadrons of interceptors. But no one seems interested in being quite that minimalistic.

On the other end of the spectrum, for anything short of major offensive combat operations, I would say the maximum would be five divisions, perhaps with another couple in reserve; two fleets of 20-25 major capital ships between them, as well as an equal number of smaller vessels; and anywhere up to perhaps 250 attack aircraft, along with a large fleet of support planes (ECM, recon, C&C, cargo, fuelers, that sort of thing.) But that's the other end of the spectrum, which, most importantly, we can't afford.

As for resigning bonuses, pay raises, and those sorts of things... I'll have to get back to you on that. It'll take a bit of work.

 

[Petrarca]

I suggest being careful with the number of divisions projected. If they are maintained at the NATO standard numbers, then each will require 15,000 soldiers in each formation as well as between twenty and thirty-five thousand soldiers in support roles. Considering that we don't have large supply lines or forward bases to maintain, I would estimate the number of troops needed for each division as 37,000.

As for the fleet, I need to warn about the dangers of overexuberant planning. Let's take as an example the Spanish navy, which has one VSTOL carrier and nine frigates as their major surface force. There are additionally five converted Knoxes that will probably be soon retired. Four or five 6000t frigates, similar to the four modern large frigates of the Spanish F-100 type and complemented by a larger destroyer-type vessel or another frigate, would form an enviable core of a surface fleet here. I can't stress enough the utility of Streetfighter-style corvettes given our current situation, which requires green-water capability as well as the ability to maintain \wide but still linked naval operations.

 

[The_Hawk]

Absolutely true. Again, a great deal depends on what we conceive of our military's role as. Indeed, we could do with very few major capital ships if we had no desire to project power outside of our territorial waters, but we must add that layer if we want to participate in international operations (at least navally), and yet another layer if we imagine offense as a realistic possibility (which I do not.)

In any case, I consider a modest fleet of small ships operating out of numerous small bases scattered around our country to be the basis of our future naval strength; such a thing is necessary to maintain adequate patrolling (think how many of the smugglings or murders-at-sea of the past several terms would have been prevented had there been a naval vessel on site!) Anything else should be built upon that.

 

[Petrarca]

In theory, we could go on with precisely zero major surface combatants, but that's betting everything on the Streetfighter concept while completely ignoring the flaws inherent in it. In my estimation, we need between half a dozen and ten frigate types with perhaps a destroyer or two included in there.

I can elaborate more, but an American, Admiral Cebrowski, devised his "Streetfighter" plan around a large group of small ships in the corvette size range. It involves precise coordination across the fleet to use the advantages of multiple platforms in different locations as a synchronized, highly effective instrument. Larger vessels such as frigate task groups could easily form the pivots of such formations, and would be inherently valuable because of their AAW and ASW capabilities. And if peacetime maritime issues are a high priority, a greater number of vessels is worthwhile. The modules on the ideal Streetfighter warship can be changed relatively easily, giving Coast Guard-like capability if needed, and law enforcement could be included as part of the training regimen.

 

[unmerged(24047)]

"I suggest that first of all we set a summary of all the issues to be worked on, before starting debating randomly on them"

 

[HJ Tulp]

As I understand the Streetfighter concept means that a navy would consist of a large number of smaller vessels that would converge on one point to then hit the enemy hard because they have more platforms to shoot from?

I personally think that Eutopia should have atleast some offensive capabilities because we can't rely on others to do it for us. Say terrorists attack us and their base is in some African nation and the US doesn't do anything about because they dislike us. What are we gonna do? What if we are attacked and we are able to defeat the invasion force but the OPFOR refuses peace talks? We need to be able to strike atleast a bit. That's why 2 Rotterdam class and 1 Wasp class would be good for the Eutopian Navy in my humble opinion.

Maybe it would be smart if we would develope two different plans? One for a strictly defensive military and one with some offensive capabilities?

 

[Petrarca]

Greater platform numbers is not a firepower advantage. Smaller but larger platforms can carry just as much if not more in throw weight. Their advantage is speed and flexibility, particularly the advantage of plunging into littoral zone, risking the ship but gaining potentially huge advantages. The loss of a forward platform like that would hurt, of course, but nowhere near as much as the loss of a heavy frigate or destroyer.

Smaller vessels are particularly suited to an innovation-- "network-centric warfare"-- which calls for fleet assets to be interconnected to facilitate communications and coordination. In a network-centric-warfare environment, smaller ships would have more communication nodes in place, providing better flexibility and survivability when the vessels' missions are synergistically coordinated.

This is from one naval analyst:
"Swarms of Streetfighters, either working with a mothership or self-deployable, would be used in the littoral environment and heavily leverage emerging IT systems. One such IT system, called Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), allows ships in a battle group to share a common, tactical, real-time picture of the battle space. When an enemy aircraft or missile threatens any one of them— they all see it and track it in real-time. Then, whoever is in the best position can knock it out of the sky while others can hold their fire. It also allows ships to operate in spread out formations, presenting a more difficult target."

As for the question of sealift capabilities, I highly recommend following the trend set by the Australians and Americans. They are testing high-speed transports such as the Jervis Bay ferry constructed along novel design lines such as cataramans.

 

[unmerged(31558)]

"I have typed up my ideas for the military if any desire to look at them"

Reformation of the Eutopian Military

By Charles F. Johnston

In General

-The military should be completely volunteer based with conscription executed during times of "serious war"[World War, Casualties at and over 5,000 military personal, must be a war officially declared]

-Should number 120,000 professional volunteer troops in the army, 600 military aircraft, 40 military ships[these numbers can vary depending on expert opinion]

-Payment should be at least 25,000 ducats and not beyond 120,000 ducats.

-Training should be a combination of basic and advanced designed by experts

-Service should be four years at a time confirmed by a contract, breaking the contract without good reason should be considered treason.

-All able human beings should be accepted into the military[meaning homosexuals, women, different ethnic groups, etc]

-Leaders should have a degree in military science and have served within the military for at least ten years.

-Must maintain the most advanced military as possible for Eutopia

-Should serve the purpose of global peace and Eutopian defence of all our citizens and of our territory

Army

-Regular forces should have the primary purpose of defending Eutopia, with a limit on how many troops sent outside our borders in undeclared war.

-Special forces should have the primary goal of aiding in outside conflicts and situations during undeclared war.

-Special forces should maintain a large[for special forces standards]and effective force of at least 5,000 members who are considered the best of the best.

-The army should be given at least 40% of funds allocated to military

Airforce

-Should recieve 30% of military budget

-Should maintain a top gun like group for the best of our pilots

Navy

-Should patrol all of our national waters constantly

-Should have a coast guard branch

-Should recieve 30% of the military budget

Any questions?

 

[Deaghaidh]

What do people think of expanding the two mountain ranger regiments into a division? I think we'll likely have a lot of need for that sort of unit.

Also I'd suggest Farpoint for a site for any new military base, especially Navy and if we can buy out the Americans lease and expand from there.

 

[I Killed Kenny]

I would like to join the think tank....

 

[unmerged(24047)]

I would like to explain you all my idea.
We need to face an advanced problem, and probably it's our luck, because it's easier to reformate entirely a decaying organization that having to change many small things.

We should first of all prepare a Rapid Deployement force, in wich we should devote the funds firstly, to test the reformation and see the results.
We could use the mountain Rangers, the Marines and the Airborne Regiment to form a Brigade sized force ground force, capable of being used in few hours on the soil of our Island, and due to it's "lightness" we could also use it as a part of international Peace missions around the world.
These units should have the chance to try as first the new individual equipment we need badly.

To support this Rapid Deployment Brigade we should assemble the first units of new aircrafts (i suggest some cheap american model, like the F-16). This newly equipped units should also be used as much as possible in cooperation with international partners such as NATO, to make them gain the experience we need.

On the sea, if we want to support a deployment of troops anywhere, we need to reform an amphibious task force. I support Admiral Tulp with the idea of Wasp class ships, wich are already tested on the field.

This newly formed "new generation" of Eutopian military should have maximum priority, in order to test the new equipment and gain experience.

I think that by creating a core of well trained, well equipped and field tested troops we will have in few years (no "heavy" formations , except for the navy's ships, shuld be involved) a battle ready force, deployable anywhere, in wich we could start the renewing that will be later extended to all the Armed Forces.

What do you think of this idea?

 

[Deaghaidh]

It seems good to me, but I'm just a civilian. But the rapid reaction force is a very good concept.

 

[Petrarca]

-Should number 120,000 professional volunteer troops in the army, 600 military aircraft, 40 military ships[these numbers can vary depending on expert opinion]

600 aircraft is an entirely extravagant estimate. As for the ships, what does that forty consist of? DDGs? Or is that the entire fleet from frigates to small launches?

-Leaders should have a degree in military science and have served within the military for at least ten years.

Are you referring to officers, commissioned and non-commissioned? If so, you're trying to fix the part of the system that isn't broken. Besides, some of the best officers I've served with are mustangs drawn from the ranks.

-Must maintain the most advanced military as possible for Eutopia

We can't have pie-in-sky dreams about what the military should look like. We face hard and fast decisions about allocating our limited resources and we can't shirk them.

-Special forces should maintain a large[for special forces standards]and effective force of at least 5,000 members who are considered the best of the best.

-The army should be given at least 40% of funds allocated to military

Besides nitpicking policy questions best left to the legislature, these points raise my hackles the most. Five thousand men is entirely too large for a special forces unit, and allocating that much to the army when we aren't investing much in high-cost formations is wasteful.

-Should maintain a top gun like group for the best of our pilots

Over the course of history elite formations have proven to be a waste and a detriment to regular units that their strength is drawn from. The only exception is small-unit tactical combat.

Of course, if you're referring to drawing out the best pilots to instruct the rest of the force, then we already have that.

-Should patrol all of our national waters constantly

-Should have a coast guard branch

-Should recieve 30% of the military budget

Is the purpose of this navy to defend the country or save people from boating accidents? Safety is best left to the appropriate ministries.

What do people think of expanding the two mountain ranger regiments into a division? I think we'll likely have a lot of need for that sort of unit.

I'm not sure about an entire division, but it depends on the overall size of the military.

Also I'd suggest Farpoint for a site for any new military base, especially Navy and if we can buy out the Americans lease and expand from there.

We already have a major fleet base in New Lancaster City that was homeport for some of our frigate and sub groups. One in WET would certainly be valued but I wouldn't piss off the Americans just to establish it.

I would like to explain you all my idea.
We need to face an advanced problem, and probably it's our luck, because it's easier to reformate entirely a decaying organization that having to change many small things.

We should first of all prepare a Rapid Deployement force, in wich we should devote the funds firstly, to test the reformation and see the results.
We could use the mountain Rangers, the Marines and the Airborne Regiment to form a Brigade sized force ground force, capable of being used in few hours on the soil of our Island, and due to it's "lightness" we could also use it as a part of international Peace missions around the world.
These units should have the chance to try as first the new individual equipment we need badly.

A regiment is the size of a brigade, so we've already got the force you're talking about and more.

To support this Rapid Deployment Brigade we should assemble the first units of new aircrafts (i suggest some cheap american model, like the F-16). This newly equipped units should also be used as much as possible in cooperation with international partners such as NATO, to make them gain the experience we need.

Of course we need aircraft, but I think the -16 is unsuitable to the country's needs.

On the sea, if we want to support a deployment of troops anywhere, we need to reform an amphibious task force. I support Admiral Tulp with the idea of Wasp class ships, wich are already tested on the field.

I think the Wasp class of amphibious assault ships are too large to be reasonable options. They weigh in at over 40,000 tons and can carry more than twenty helos and launch an entire combat-ready Marine Expeditionary Force (a heavily reinforced battalion) onto hostile shores. Two vessels equal in size to the Rotterdam class would be more than necessary to fulfill our needs to project a land presence overseas. Smaller vessels such as the Galicia or San Giorgio types would probably be better suited to our needs. And a high-speed transport such as the Jervis Bay would be a highly valuable complement to our sealift capacity.

I approve of your thinking, but there are areas that need refinement.

 

[unmerged(24047)]

I welcome your comments.
First of all the size. Yes, i didn't meant Brigade, but Division. I confounded regiment and brigade.
Second. My main idea was to dedicate our resources almost totally to only a few units, to have them quickly combat-ready and remoderned. If we try to remodern the whole armed forces at one time that would mean have most of our units out of order for a long time.
Third. The aircrafts. We need a cheap substitute of our aging aircrafts until we can develop a national alternative. We could receive F-16 maybe in leasing or even for free. It maybe not a definitive solution, but it's a quick and cheap one.
Another option could be get Russians fighters. Sukhois of the last generation are wonderful planes.
Fourth. The Navy. I thought about the Wasp also as a Flagship. Probably for the purpose of projection a couple smaller amphibious carriers would do the trick.
Another issue i didn't treated is the personal weapon. Wich rifle could we use? I suggest to ask the national industry to present projects for a complete line of assault rifle, sniper rifle and saw.