[military hardware] Choosing the right tool

[Rabid]

Okay, people. I have two questions for all the Military Hardware experts and Armchair Generals out there.


First one :

I'm playing this online Diplomacy/Wargame game (well, it's 75% diplomacy, 15% management and 10% warfare, but whatever).
In Game, we have the possibility to build some armament from specification (well, at least the ratio between different offensive/defensive trait, the cost and the time to build it following that), and I want to build a cheap and rustic close-air support aircraft that could be fielded and mass produced by a Second World power (I'm playing an “upgraded” Tanzania). And I want to inspire myself from real-world aircraft for that.

For your information, In Game I'm friend with pretty much everybody, be it the US, China, Japan, Europe, Brazil or the New Warsaw Pact (In 2001. It's... complicated...). The divergence date from our world is 1995. I upgraded my country (Tanzania) from a third world shithole to a prosperous Second World power, and it will soon become a First World one (progress in game is much faster that it should be IRL, but whatever). I have the money and the industrial basis to produce my own armament, if I have the right blueprints.

So, basically, here are the required specifications for the aircraft I want to build :

[*]With the industrial infrastructure of a 2nd/1.5st World power, can be “cheaply” mass produced (between $ 1,000,000 and 30,000,000 per unit), and an individual unit must take something like 3-5 months or less to be produced
[*]It must be very rustic and durable, necessitating only relatively little maintenance.
[*]The primary zone on which it will be deployed is Africa and the Arabic Peninsula, and the probable enemy is Sudan. It must resist to these climatic conditions (from the humidity of the jungle to the sands of the Sahara).
[*]It must be capable of landing and taking off from short dirt-runway
[*]The technological level of the thing must range from the 60s to the end of the 90s.

The Doctrine of Use of this armament would roughly be an aerial version of the zerg rush, overwhelming the target from the air with a mass of cheap units. Air superiority is pretty much assumed. The targets ranges from enemy troop position and vehicles to buildings, and some fortified positions. So the aircraft should be versatile enough to do these things.

Basically, the only airplane I have found so far fitting those specification is the Soviet Su-25, possibly an updated version of it, with better electronic or some stuff like that. I thought of the American A-10 Thunderbolt II, but I think it will be a maintenance bitch under the African climate, I don't know.

But to satisfy my curiosity, and just to see if I'm not mistaken... Do you guys know other planes that could do the job ? Be it existing ones or prototypes ? Or is even the Su-25 not fitted to such specifications ? I don't want to deploy Il-2 Sturmovik, they are too old and outdated...


Second question :

What would be the requirements for IFV and MBT fighting in an African theater, with all its various climatic conditions and its general lack of terrestrial infrastructure ? I think a must have is that it should be Air-transportable. But after that ? How would you see a High-Intensity war in Africa ? What would be the challenges, the obstacles ?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Let the milwanking commence:

The Su-25 fits your needs fairly well. Even lower cost alternatives could be the various light attack and counter-insurgency aircraft such as the A-37B Dragonfly or IA 58 Pucará. You could give them upgraded avionics and possibly more powerful engines in the case of the Pucará. Attacking fortified positions with light aircraft such as these is somewhat difficult, because they are not able to carry large bombs. Typically they are limited to 250 kg / 500 lbs. bombs.

On the more expensive but also more capable end you could consider attack versions of advanced jet trainer aircraft such as Alpha Jet and Hawk. They are not as rugged and easy to maintain as real attack or COIN aircraft, but still cheaper and simpler than actual multi-role fighters.

About MBTs and IFVs: MBTs are air transportable only in the heaviest transport aircraft due to their weight. If you want an air transportable tank, you should better look to light tanks such as the CV 90120-T or even heavily armed wheeled vehicles such as the Centauro 120. Wheeled vehicles in general do have certain advantages, unless you want to go to a very difficult terrain. They are cheaper to maintain and operate and can go for longer distances without refueling. You can't really have a wheeled vehicle with a MBT level of armor, but that may not be needed depending on what your enemy has and where the battle is going to take place. In general wheeled vehicles have worked well in desert and savanna type environments since WW2, but during the rainy season with mud and in forests their mobility may not be sufficient. But since you are French you should already know that. The French Army loves their wheels

[[R_H]]

What would be the requirements for IFV and MBT fighting in an African theater, with all its various climatic conditions and its general lack of terrestrial infrastructure ? I think a must have is that it should be Air-transportable. But after that ? How would you see a High-Intensity war in Africa ? What would be the challenges, the obstacles ?

Tracked vehicles tend to have better tactical mobility than wheeled, but wheeled tend to have better strategic mobility, especially in the absence of railroads/haulers.

Basically like what South Africa has been doing in terms of vehicle design, as MA touched upon.

[Rabid]

The Su-25 fits your needs fairly well. Even lower cost alternatives could be the various light attack and counter-insurgency aircraft such as the A-37B Dragonfly or IA 58 Pucará. You could give them upgraded avionics and possibly more powerful engines in the case of the Pucará. Attacking fortified positions with light aircraft such as these is somewhat difficult, because they are not able to carry large bombs. Typically they are limited to 250 kg / 500 lbs. bombs.

On the more expensive but also more capable end you could consider attack versions of advanced jet trainer aircraft such as Alpha Jet and Hawk. They are not as rugged and easy to maintain as real attack or COIN aircraft, but still cheaper and simpler than actual multi-role fighters.

I see. Then I think I'll pick the Su-25 as a standard, while developing the A-37B Dragonfly in case I need something cheaper and easier to produce.

Now, what would fit for Air-Superiority tasks against 3rd-4th generation fighter ? It would be good if it was Multirole. American F-16 ? Or would it be too much of a maintenance bitch ? (what is a "maintenance bitch" : for each hour of flight, too many hours of maintenance, plus it don't support rough climatic condition when non-used (sand, humidity, etc.))

About MBTs and IFVs: MBTs are air transportable only in the heaviest transport aircraft due to their weight. If you want an air transportable tank, you should better look to light tanks such as the CV 90120-T or even heavily armed wheeled vehicles such as the Centauro 120. Wheeled vehicles in general do have certain advantages, unless you want to go to a very difficult terrain. They are cheaper to maintain and operate and can go for longer distances without refueling. You can't really have a wheeled vehicle with a MBT level of armor, but that may not be needed depending on what your enemy has and where the battle is going to take place. In general wheeled vehicles have worked well in desert and savanna type environments since WW2, but during the rainy season with mud and in forests their mobility may not be sufficient. But since you are French you should already know that. The French Army loves their wheels

Yes. You can never have too many wheels. (before / after)

The Centauro 120 seems interesting for light-armor purposes/anti-tank tasks. I wonder how good it fare in river-crossing... Not so well, I guess.

As far as IFVs goes, I think that the Egyptian Fahd could be interesting, as it is cheaper, simpler and far lighter than other modern IFV while being roughly as modular, and with good off-road capabilities. Any comment on that ?

What would be the requirements for IFV and MBT fighting in an African theater, with all its various climatic conditions and its general lack of terrestrial infrastructure ? I think a must have is that it should be Air-transportable. But after that ? How would you see a High-Intensity war in Africa ? What would be the challenges, the obstacles ?

Tracked vehicles tend to have better tactical mobility than wheeled, but wheeled tend to have better strategic mobility, especially in the absence of railroads/haulers.

Basically like what South Africa has been doing in terms of vehicle design, as MA touched upon.

Yes, it seems that the South African Ratel would be a good deal, with the fact that it seem to pack a good amount of firepower (primary armament : 90 mm GT2 semi-automatic gun) while retaining the capability to transport troop (4 crew, 6 passenger : 10 soldiers total). Like other modern IFV, it can also be turned in a tank destroyer by the addition of a guided-missile launcher (<= big image).

Maybe I'll pick it.



Now, another question, while we are at it : with the same issue about cheapness and rusticity as with the CAS aircraft in mind, what model of attack helicopter should I choose ?

We have the the All Time Classic Mi-24/25/35 Hind, of the Soviet-Afghan war fame, but I guess it may be a little outdated. Should I head directly toward the more modern Mi-28 ? What are the other alternative ?
Is it interesting to have an helicopter capable of transporting leg infantry, or would it be better to separate the "attack" and "transport" function between two different aircraft ?
Waddaya think ?

[Coyote]

A lot of the South African stuff would be good to look at, since not only is it built to near-similar specifications but it is also nearly analogous to the political situation you describe. South Africa was very much a regional power and might have been considered "2nd World" so you have a pretty close match.

For close-air support planes, one thing I'd ask is who you might be fighting. Sounds like you're in good with most of the major powers, so maybe another regional challenger, or guerrillas? In that case, maybe something like the OV-10 Bronco or one of Embraer's Tucano trainer/fighters might be better. As prop planes they're slower but have more of a chance of seeing light infantry in the bush, and have better loiter over target ability than a jet. Of course, they'd get hosed out of the sky by a peer challenging land army with real AA defenses, in which case the Sukhoi is a better bet.

Other questions-- you may want a couple of MBT divisions or Brigades as spearhead (and for local saber-rattling) but have most of the army equipped with something else. The Centauro might be the sort of thing to go with; the Italians might sell fairly cheaply and the maintenance requirements might be easier for a still-developing country. Your vehicles are only as good as your ability to maintain & sustain them-- if your populace is still mostly illiterate goat-herders, you'll have a tough time sustaining much beyond "technicals".

For IFVs the Ratel may be sufficient. For flavor you may even still have long-range recon patrols in rough country on horseback, like some of the South African patrols and (IIRC) the Rhodesian Selous Scouts.

For helicopters, there's nothing wrong with the Mi-24, properly updated. Look at it this way-- parts are everywhere, you can bring in trained crews from just about any country if you need to, and you only need to buy one helicopter for both transport and support. With dedicated attacks helos and transport helos, that's two rotary-wing aircraft that are expensive to train on and maintain.

There's also the Rhodesian option: two Alouettes (or similar-- a more modern version might be one of the Hughes 500 line with a NOTAR), one equipped as a "G-Car" and one equipped as the "K-Car". That's putting helos at the fire team level, but for small raids against isolated insurgent bands, it can work.

A lot depends on who you're going to be fighting, and what your population can work to sustain.

[Zaune]

Just to show the flag for us Brits, some people may persist in referring to it as a tracked reconnaissance vehicle, but the Alvis Scorpion and/or Scimitar are well worth looking into for your air-transportable AFV needs. They're fast enough to keep pace with most wheeled APCs on the road and not much slower off it, and the export version comes with the option of a 90mm gun instead of the original 76mm.

[Raj Ahten]

For really shitty African jungle terrain a tracked vehicle could proof invaluable. The Executive Outcomes mercenary band made extensive use of BMP-2's in Angola and Sierra Leone. They liked them because they were mechanically reliable and amphibious (Not to mention cheap). In terrain with the best road available being a dirt track, being able to forde rivers at will and not get bogged down in the mud proved useful. For jungle type warfare, helicopters are the tool of choice though. Everyone from the Americans in Vietnam to the Portuguese in their colonial wars to the aforementioned mercenary company all really liked their helicopters. Again in terrain with little to no infrastructure being able to bypass the "impenetrable" jungle is pretty damn nice.

Though if you are fearing invasion from a large power rather than just fighting brush wars, Buy the best damn aircraft you can (because they are only for fighting one battle which could very well decide the future of your nation) and invest in nukes.

So basically If I were you I would buy an expensive air force to operate your nuclear deterrent and gain air superiority over anyone in a non nuclear war. I'd also includes a lot of helicopters for COIN ops and strategic lift aircraft with good short runway performance like the c-130 and c-17 to resupply yourself in low infrastructure areas. Once you have air superiority your air cav can strike anywhere at will while whatever light armor you decide on can move as best its able through the rough terrain.

I hope this rambling post provided something of value for you.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The problem with the Fahd is that it's only 4x4 and has relatively small wheels, too. That will limit mobility on anything but hard surfaces considering that we are talking about a 12.5 tonne vehicle for the IFV variant (the original APC was 1.6 tonnes lighter). 4x4 is all well and good for vehicles in the sub-10 tonne class, but for heavier than that you really want 6x6 or 8x8. The armor is also pretty marginal, but will protect from small arms fire.

The Ratel was a good vehicle in its day, but it's basically early 1970s technology. By modern standards it's underpowered and also a bit heavy for a 6x6 vehicle. Armor is reasonably good, but not great. If I had to choose between the two I would still choose the Ratel, but preferably with an uprated engine.

[Rabid]

Thanks everybody for your answers. That was helpful.


- Probable battleground (defensive) : Tanzania, Congo Democratic Republic, Angola, Saudi Arabia
- Probable/possible battleground (offensive) : Sudan (my military buildup is centered against it right now), Ghana/Cote-d'Ivoire, Morocco.
- Probable Enemy : Sudan.

If I fuck up horribly (which shouldn't happen), it will be me against the whole world, so...


Quick recap. Tell me if I made a wrong choice here :

Air :

Close-Air-Support : Su-25, with updated avionics and fire control.
COIN operations : OV-10 Bronco, or a variation capable of using roads as runway.
General Purpose Helicopter : Mil Mi-24 Hind, with updated avionics, armament and fire control.

I want a multirole fighter good at air superiority tasks. Will the F-16 do ?
I also want some sort of Force Projection Capability. I guess it will be the usual C-130/C-17 mix ? Or do you have a better proposal ?


Ground - Transport :

IFV : South African Ratel
Armored Troop Transport : French VAB
Jungle Fighting Vehicle/Troop-Cargo Transport : British Alvis Scimitar for the blowing-up job, and the Swedish Bv 206S for the troop-transportation/cargo-hauling tasks.
Armored Fighting Vehicle / Armored Recon Vehicle : Primarily the Italian B1 Centauro and its variant, secondarily the British Alvis Scimitar.
Light Recon : French VBL
Main Battle Tank : A mix of Ukrainian T-80UD (mostly) and Russian T-90 (a few), maybe ?


Ground - Artillery :

*Big question mark*

What would be the needs ? Should I look more toward towed artillery, or should I prefer self-propelled artillery like that or that. And what about MLRS ?


Navy - Brown and Green Water :

Considering I'm mostly into coastal defense, is there a need for me to buy/develop big vessel, or could I just use a conjunction of AWACS/Reconnaissance Aircraft and Coastal Missile Battery (like some Harpoon/Exocet) ? Should I develop a Navy at all ?
However, in the future I may want to develop a LHD. That kind of thing need an escort. Would some Frigate suffice ? (I have to add that sadly, the game mechanics do not allow to represent submarines...)
Maybe I'll steal/buy/copy/inspire myself from the Admiral Kouznetsov when I want a "light" aircraft carrier... Is this design good ?

[Beowulf]

Air :

Close-Air-Support : Su-25, with updated avionics and fire control.
COIN operations : OV-10 Bronco, or a variation capable of using roads as runway.
General Purpose Helicopter : Mil Mi-24 Hind, with updated avionics, armament and fire control.

I want a multirole fighter good at air superiority tasks. Will the F-16 do ?
I also want some sort of Force Projection Capability. I guess it will be the usual C-130/C-17 mix ? Or do you have a better proposal ?

Go the path not taken: Boeing C-14 for your transports. F-16XL for the fighters. Big wing gives extra maneuverability, and extra load capacity. Single engine makes it cheaper. And have a lot of them. That's important. The more you have, the cheaper they are individually. Both of those aircraft had flying prototypes, so they got fairly far along the development process.

I'd keep the OV-10, but I'd go all western for the fixed wing aircraft. If you want a cheaper dedicated attack aircraft than the F-16, I'd go with the A-7E. The US should nearly giving them away as they retire them in favor of the brand new F/A-18, during the late 80's, so it should be possible to pick them up for around as much as the Su-25, if not less. The advantage of using a Western aircraft is that much of the intergration work for your munitions should already be done. And you don't have to learn Cyrillic.

As technology advances, being up close and personal matters less for CAS. Currently, one of the most popular CAS aircraft in Afghanistan is a bomber, simply because it can carry a bunch of bombs, and loiter for a really long time, thus allowing them to be where they're needed faster. Laser guidance is wonderful.

You might want to have an older fighter in service as well (some European countries had F-4s operating until this year). France sold Dassault Mirages to nearly everyone. Given the timing, you'd probably end up getting the IIIE version.

As for helicopters, rather than having a single general purpose helicopter, I'd suggest having seperate attack and transport helicopters. It's unlikely that you'll have a Mi-24 performing both attack and transport roles in a single mission, which is actually something the Soviets found out in Afghanistan. I'd suggest the time tested Huey/Cobra combo. UH-1N and AH-1J would be the models to get. The UH-1N is also available from Europe, BTW.

Ground - Transport :

IFV : South African Ratel
Armored Troop Transport : French VAB
Jungle Fighting Vehicle/Troop-Cargo Transport : British Alvis Scimitar for the blowing-up job, and the Swedish Bv 206S for the troop-transportation/cargo-hauling tasks.
Armored Fighting Vehicle / Armored Recon Vehicle : Primarily the Italian B1 Centauro and its variant, secondarily the British Alvis Scimitar.
Light Recon : French VBL
Main Battle Tank : A mix of Ukrainian T-80UD (mostly) and Russian T-90 (a few), maybe ?

You have lot of vehicle types there, that really should be at most 3. You should have a tracked vehicle, a wheeled vehicle, and a light vehicle (which may be light). The different jobs can be taken care of by using different variants. Since you appear to be on good terms with the Swedish, I'd suggest the CV90. It has a IFV variant, Mobile Gun variant, air defense variant, and a mortar variant. It has also been decentl exported. Possibly could keep the Alvis CVR(T) as a recon vehicle as it is significantly lower in profile. I'd also keep the Ratel, as a wheeled IFV, as wheeled vehicle tend to break down significantly less often than tracked.

Since the USSR still exists, it's unlikely that they'll sell either the T-80 or the T-90. You're probably stuck getting a T-72 from them. I dislike the Soviet autoloader design, but it's probably going to be cheapest modern-ish tank you can get.

Ground - Artillery :

*Big question mark*

What would be the needs ? Should I look more toward towed artillery, or should I prefer self-propelled artillery like that or that. And what about MLRS ?

Get a G6 from South Africa. MLRS, buy soviet?

Navy - Brown and Green Water :

Considering I'm mostly into coastal defense, is there a need for me to buy/develop big vessel, or could I just use a conjunction of AWACS/Reconnaissance Aircraft and Coastal Missile Battery (like some Harpoon/Exocet) ? Should I develop a Navy at all ?
However, in the future I may want to develop a LHD. That kind of thing need an escort. Would some Frigate suffice ? (I have to add that sadly, the game mechanics do not allow to represent submarines...)
Maybe I'll steal/buy/copy/inspire myself from the Admiral Kouznetsov when I want a "light" aircraft carrier... Is this design good ?

You don't want an aircraft carrier. Really, you don't. They cost a bunch, you need at least 2 to be worth a damn, and a small one won't do much for you. And you'd need carrier capable aircraft. It's just a headache. You don't need it unless you want to play a big boy, like the Soviets, US, or UK. Which your background doesn't support.

LHDs would be useful, as they are frequently utilized for humanitarian purposes. However, they're expensive. If you just want to protect your coast, you'll probably want a bunch of small frigates and patrol boats. If you're eyeing a bit more than that, possibly get some Kidd class destroyers from the US. You would have had to buy them in the early 80s though. They are some of the most capable non-AEGIS ships available in the time period. Most of the ships with phased array radars don't reach commissioning until the past decade IRL.

I'd suggest carrying Harpoon/Exocets on aircraft, rather than in coastal missile batteries. Gives more unpredicatability in the threat axis. You'd still need a maritime patrol aircraft to search for the targets though.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Air :

Close-Air-Support : Su-25, with updated avionics and fire control.
COIN operations : OV-10 Bronco, or a variation capable of using roads as runway.
General Purpose Helicopter : Mil Mi-24 Hind, with updated avionics, armament and fire control.

F-16XL for the fighters. Big wing gives extra maneuverability, and extra load capacity. Single engine makes it cheaper. And have a lot of them. That's important. The more you have, the cheaper they are individually. Both of those aircraft had flying prototypes, so they got fairly far along the development process.

I'd keep the OV-10, but I'd go all western for the fixed wing aircraft. If you want a cheaper dedicated attack aircraft than the F-16, I'd go with the A-7E. The US should nearly giving them away as they retire them in favor of the brand new F/A-18, during the late 80's, so it should be possible to pick them up for around as much as the Su-25, if not less. The advantage of using a Western aircraft is that much of the intergration work for your munitions should already be done. And you don't have to learn Cyrillic.

As for helicopters, rather than having a single general purpose helicopter, I'd suggest having seperate attack and transport helicopters. It's unlikely that you'll have a Mi-24 performing both attack and transport roles in a single mission, which is actually something the Soviets found out in Afghanistan. I'd suggest the time tested Huey/Cobra combo. UH-1N and AH-1J would be the models to get. The UH-1N is also available from Europe, BTW.

You have lot of vehicle types there, that really should be at most 3. You should have a tracked vehicle, a wheeled vehicle, and a light vehicle (which may be light). The different jobs can be taken care of by using different variants. Since you appear to be on good terms with the Swedish, I'd suggest the CV90. It has a IFV variant, Mobile Gun variant, air defense variant, and a mortar variant. It has also been decentl exported. Possibly could keep the Alvis CVR(T) as a recon vehicle as it is significantly lower in profile. I'd also keep the Ratel, as a wheeled IFV, as wheeled vehicle tend to break down significantly less often than tracked.

Since the USSR still exists, it's unlikely that they'll sell either the T-80 or the T-90. You're probably stuck getting a T-72 from them. I dislike the Soviet autoloader design, but it's probably going to be cheapest modern-ish tank you can get.

The A-7Es are going to be old and worn when you get them. I think new Su-25s are a much better option for a CAS aircraft. If you are worried about munitions integration, you should then rather get a Western light attacker than old USN surplus. Airframes have a limited lifetime and although it can be extended somewhat, old airframes are still old airframes and ex-USN aircraft are likely to have quite a few flight hours logged. Alpha Jet or A-37B as mentioned earlier are good options, although their range is not very good.

By the way, the Soviets always supplied foreign sales manuals, instrumentation labels and the like in latin alphabet and translated in English, or if the customer's native language was some of the major languages like Spanish, even in local language. So no real need to learn cyrillic.

I agree that there are too many vehicle types. I would go T-72S for MBT (if you can't get T-90), Ratel or why not 6x6 VAB with turret for IFV, VAB for APC is good as well (although preferably 6x6). If you think you need something tracked to go into the jungles, I think MTLB would be a cheap and effective choice. The BV206S is a good vehicle with excellent mobility, but the MTLB is more versatile (it can function as an artillery tractor and towing vehicle), it has very good mobility as well, can be upgraded with a turret for more firepower if needed, and it's going to be much cheaper unless you can get a license for local production from the Swedes.

As for the choppers, I would still choose Mi-24 and Mi-17 over Western alternatives. They are both rugged and easy to maintain. Mi-17 can carry a significant amount of armaments, which could come handy in some situations.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

This thread really reminds me of the good o' STGOD Worlds Ver 1 and 2.

You might want to consider a M60 or refitted M48 tank (Israeli style) if you want cheap, really.

[Lonestar]

This thread really reminds me of the good o' STGOD Worlds Ver 1 and 2.

You might want to consider a M60 or refitted M48 tank (Israeli style) if you want cheap, really.

I'm still impressed we managed to push STGOD 2 along for 18 months.

[Rabid]

For the interested ones, here are informations on the background of my Roleplay (be prepared, it's funky) :
Spoiler

I'm playing the "Tanzania(R) CorpoNation(C)", a (somewhat) fascist political-party/Corporation that turned Tanzania into, well, a CorpoNation - a Country ruled like an enterprise. So far, I have been left in peace, and even appreciated by pretty much everybody because, surprisingly, I'm increasing the living conditions in my country AND I'm promoting Peace and Stability in Africa (or at least that's what they think ). I'm even in a tight alliance with Angola and the Congo Democratic Republic, two Marxist-Leninist Communist country InGame.

InGame, I'm the Founder of both the African Union, a tentative to have something vaguely resembling the EU in Africa (but which in reality allow me to keep an eye on a bunch a African Nations wanting to expand their borders and to persuasively refrain them from doing so - see, when I said I was promoting Peace and Stability ) ; and of the Goma Treaty Organization, which is basically a clone of NATO, minus the "prepare to fight the Warsaw Pact" part, and plus a blend of "Maintain Peace in Africa by every means deemed necessary" and "Let's improve together the life of our People". Are member of the GTO so far (it is just one year old) : Angola, Congo Democratic Republic, Saudi Arabia, Tanzania.

If I'm building my military, it's to gain a sufficiently big stick to dissuade other African Nations to go to war with each other, with the menace "If war break loose, I'm going to unleash Hell on you guys". So far it worked, but I was only menacing them with hot air (happily, they didn't spied me...)

One of my people employee has been elected General Secretary of the United Nations back in 1995-1996, and lasted only one year at this post, falsely (really !) accused of corruption. Well, I gained the post by promising to some blocks of Nations some important UN post, but it is not corruption, it's fair international politic, eh !

All in all, I'm only prosper because people like me and trade with me, giving me the money to improve my infrastructures and my Tech level. I intend this state to last, at least until I annex Sudan *maniacal laughter*

---

The general idea, for each listed piece of equipment, is that it I will have the license to produce it locally (be it a bought or hijacked one - China style).

Right now, my general technological level (what I can produce myself) is something like the one of the US in the early 80s. I'm producing my own electronic (I bought some Japanese and German companies, what with being basically a Megacorp and all that...), and I'm funding a lot of research on micro and nano-electronic. But I'm still lagging 3 to 5 years behind the major power. What it mean is that I will be able to produce stuff with late 90s electronic, but not much better, for the moment.

And right now, I'm mobilizing for war (picture me at Defcon 2, if you want).

---

Being in very good term with the Russian Federation (It's not the USSR, every ex-Republic are now independant, even if a good chunk of them are self-admitted Russian Vassals. Oh, and China is also a member of the New Warsaw Pact, by the way), I could easily buy a Su-25 unlimited license, with the right to produce every pieces. Russia InGame is the embodiment of "Everything has a price attached on it". And that's why I'm more looking toward Russian equipment : the facility to buy all the blueprints.

With what I said earlier, this mean I could later "upgrade" the blueprint with my own experience.

---

Now, about Vehicles.

Taking the various remarks into account, I think this will more look like I'll have 3 vehicles, without tacking into account variations on a same model and MBTs.

So, that would pretty much look that :

- for heavy pounding : CV90 (treads) (and I see that it is somehow air transportable. Yummy !)
- for when mobility matter : AMX-10 RC (wheels)
- As a backbone vehicle : VAB or TPz Fuchs (modified to be amphibious) ? The VAB is tested and approved under african conditions, but the Fuchs is a 6x6. Which seems best ? Also, there's the Russian BTR-90, but it seems that it isn't as versatile as the two others...

About the MBTs, now.

Buying Russian isn't a problem, it would even be the sensible thing to do, here. I think I'll take a modernized T-72 as a backbone MBT. Now, the question is : For the bleeding edge MBT, should I choose a T-90 or an M1A2 Abrams ? How much does the M1A2 suffer in the Irakistan sands ? And would the Merkava IV be an option ? I guess not...
A good point would be a MBT that could be strategically mobile by itself : not needing to be transported by train or loaded on trucks in order to do 1000 Km or more.

---

Aircrafts...

Hmmm... The "Road Not Taken(R)" seems interesting. This gives me :

- A low-tech tactical troop transport with good capacities, both in weight and short-runway area. And mass produced, it could give me an important strategic edge over my adversaries.
- A multirole fighter with an increased weapon load, meaning that it can unleash MORE Hell in less sortie, meaning less maintenance costs ('cause he flight less, you see ? ).

Any thoughts on a 80+ metric ton cargo aircraft ? I was thinking C-5 Galaxy or An-124, with a preference for the Antonov.

---

Navy...

Well, a brown water navy will suffice for the moment. I'll use fighter/bomber based missile to sink any incoming ship.

[Beowulf]

The A-7Es are going to be old and worn when you get them. I think new Su-25s are a much better option for a CAS aircraft. If you are worried about munitions integration, you should then rather get a Western light attacker than old USN surplus. Airframes have a limited lifetime and although it can be extended somewhat, old airframes are still old airframes and ex-USN aircraft are likely to have quite a few flight hours logged. Alpha Jet or A-37B as mentioned earlier are good options, although their range is not very good.

By the way, the Soviets always supplied foreign sales manuals, instrumentation labels and the like in latin alphabet and translated in English, or if the customer's native language was some of the major languages like Spanish, even in local language. So no real need to learn cyrillic.

Well, conceivably he could have gotten 60 or so A-7Es when Greece ordered their A-7Hs, possibly to the same spec, and then gotten replacement aircraft when the USN draw down occurred. Since the USN had ~500 built, he can get the pick of the aircraft, since some will be in much better condition than others. Also, some were built as late as FY79, so there would be some aircraft that were only 10 years old. The should have at least half or more of their airframe time left. Considering the Thai's did exactly what I proposed, this isn't as far fetched as it sounds. Considering the A-37 is just as old as the A-7, I don't see the point in using them, especially since significantly fewer were built. In any case, they should be being replaced by the F-16XL.

As for the choppers, I would still choose Mi-24 and Mi-17 over Western alternatives. They are both rugged and easy to maintain. Mi-17 can carry a significant amount of armaments, which could come handy in some situations.

*shrug* My point is: the Mi-24 was found to work better as either an attack helicopter, or a transport, not both at the same time. If he wants Soviet, he can go for it.

This thread really reminds me of the good o' STGOD Worlds Ver 1 and 2.

Yup!

[Agent Sorchus]

I would consider F-5 or the derivative F-20, mostly because unlike the F16 you could easily get a license to build it locally easily. The XL F-16 is a nice idea for a fighter, but is certainly going to be a costly investment. Even if you get the XL I would look into the F-5 as an support aircraft, because you will have tons of airspace to defend in Africa. (especially true if you need it to attack shipping.)

(So long as you are looking at fantasy craft the F-20 Tigershark is a F16 light that was never produced by the skin of its teeth. Basically a F-5 with advances in airframe and engine while upgrading the avionics to early F16 performance. Sure against a proper 4th generation it is a little disadvantageous, but much cheaper. Not that great a concern based on the opposition you say you should face though. It would also be conceivable to work in upgrades to it.)

[Sea Skimmer]

If you want super cheap air support you could get a whole bunch of Su-17/20/22 airframes very cheeply but with some ability to use guided weapons. The F-16XL would have been expensive but still cheaper then an F-15. Seems kind of unlikely for any kind of real unlikely for any low budget power. A block 20 or 30 F-16 would or be absurdly more likely, or else MiG-29 imports or Mirage 2000. Hell if the F-16XL could be funded you could likely dream of funding the Mirage 4000 as an another option.

The G6 is really crappy as artillery. The gun is okay; but the chassis is a mobile crane design with armor thrown on and not good at anything.

[Raj Ahten]

Just a couple of notes; you've already gotten plenty of good advice from the experts and STGOD vets on individual weapon systems. I'd just chime in my support for Mi-17 and Mi-24 helicopters. They have a good reputation for being able to take abuse that western helicopters just can't. Some of that is just because they are simpler but a lot of people also tend to underestimate Russian engineering in the west.

The second thing is it might be a good to think about your procurements mainly from a role playing angle. Nations don't necessarily pick equipment because they think it is the absolute best on the market. They often have very limited choices (soviet clients got lots of soviet equipment, US clients got older gen US gear etc. So during the cold war were you a US or Soviet client? Maybe you inherited a lot of surplus equipment?) Nations also will buy arms from other nations to cement political pacts or even because a particular arms company offered the best bribes to public officials. So if your nation was friendly with France in the 70's and 80's for instance they could have their older gear mostly be french. Perhaps the US/Soviets or whomever was at one point embargoing you but now that embargo is lifted and you can buy their latest designs. Working out such deals with other players about your mutual pasts can give you interesting weapon systems and good plot hooks. For example perhaps you are still sore about a US arms embargo in the 70's that forced you to buy French.