Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Minimal Air Defense
Roman    5/29/2007 8:57:07 PM
What kind of minimal air defense (in terms of personnel and equipment) would be the smallest air defense worth having? By 'minimal' I mean the smallest that is still worth obtaining and maintaining at all - any smaller and one would be better off not fighting for the skies at all and investing the money elsewhere.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT
Herald1234    Amateur hour.   6/13/2007 10:42:16 PM





When you get those true figures if you can, recompute your assumptions about COSTS. That new tally doesn't even count the costs for training in perishable maintenance as well as combat skills plus hardware and software upgrades plus at least a thousand things you never took into account just for RAFALEs not to mention the 1400 other line items a modern military uses.

 

Herald 




You think maybe I'm an amateur? LOL

I took all of that in account.

I took 1,2 m$ for training (spare +oils) and manpower is in professional manpower budget (9 men per Rafale for maintenance+conscripts : it is even over estimated).For such a low budget pilots are send abroad to get initial training.No trainer for this country.Pilots are trained at NATO level (180 hours per year and I supposed 12 pilots trained).


Yes you are.
 
Some things you didn't consider for your one Rafale.
 
a. spare engine.
b. tires
c. spare pilot.
d. second ground crew.
e.proprietary French maintenance stands.
f. bomb techs and ordnance techs
g. inventory of plug-in/pull-out avionics modules.
h. tow tractor
i. weather shelter
j. maintenance shed 
k. replacement radar.
and numerous other things you ignored.
 
Herald
l. midlife upgrade.   
 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       6/14/2007 8:53:10 AM
for french stratege

maybe i calculate differnet than you
here is my formula

i calculate

that finland budget 2,8 bilion usd
our country 144 mil usd

20,9x time lower

readiness strengh
finland army 34700 (16000 cadre)  wartime 350000
than our country 20x less
1668 (800 cadre) wartime c17000
 
in budget
personal costs 20x less rhan in finland
= 59 mil usd

but 40 mil usd for 800 profesional soldiers is very  much
50000 usd per one Profesional soldier

average income = 5540 usd per year
i take 150% of average salaries in our fictional country as avarage military salary (8300 usd per year/ 691 usd per month)

than increase number of profesional soldier about 50%
= 1200 cadre soldiers  = 10mil usd
(also increase numbers of wartime soldiers from 17000 to 22100( here i make mistake , this will be 25500)

with conscript and civilian personal costs give total 17 mil usd (personal costs)

thaat i save 42 mil usd
this figure i divide betwen Operation and Procurement
which raise both about 50%

O&M  from 44mil usd to 64 mil usd
Procurement  from 41mil usd to 62 mil usd

ore we can give 42 mil usd to procurement
than procurement will be 83 mil usd


Armed forces  of our fictional is now 20x less than Finland armed forces
But population is only 2,9 x less than Finland population

maybe i calculate wrong





 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       6/14/2007 10:53:17 AM












When you get those true figures if you can, recompute your assumptions about COSTS. That new tally doesn't even count the costs for training in perishable maintenance as well as combat skills plus hardware and software upgrades plus at least a thousand things you never took into account just for RAFALEs not to mention the 1400 other line items a modern military uses.



 



Herald 









You think maybe I'm an amateur? LOL



I took all of that in account.



I took 1,2 m$ for training (spare +oils) and manpower is in professional manpower budget (9 men per Rafale for maintenance+conscripts : it is even over estimated).For such a low budget pilots are send abroad to get initial training.No trainer for this country.Pilots are trained at NATO level (180 hours per year and I supposed 12 pilots trained).




Yes you are.
 

Some things you didn't consider for your one Rafale.

 

a. spare engine.
b. tires

c. spare pilot.

d. second ground crew.

e.proprietary French maintenance stands.

f. bomb techs and ordnance techs

g. inventory of plug-in/pull-out avionics modules.

h. tow tractor

i. weather shelter

j. maintenance shed 

k. replacement radar.

and numerous other things you ignored.

 

Herald

l. midlife upgrade.   

that we can used Gripen costs

1,034 bilion usd contract also include
- equipment for ground support and maintenance
- spare parts and logistic support for ten years
- training for pilots and ground crew
- flying combat simulator
- operation combat planning system
- pilots equipment

plus additional costs
- infrastucture on air force base 435 milion usd
- basic combat weapons 230mil usd
- one flying hour costs  2700 usd (calculate 1,5 pilots per aircraft in 180 hours per year (25,5 mil usd per one fighter for 35 years)
- update aircrafts in year 2020 , from 4th generation to 4,5 generation 220mil usd

thath for one Fighter 162 mil usd
- plus inflation
- plus payment for pilots and groun crews (costs ?)
- plus additional spare parts after 10 years (costs ?)

training for Gripen
training for 21 pilots and 39 technics before deliver Gripens
durring 10 years of contract, training additional 10 pilots and 26 technics
also Sweden send 13 advisors (including 2 pilots) they stay in Czech republic on Gripen AF base for 10 years




 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/14/2007 5:18:25 PM
Title
a. spare engine.
b. tires
c. spare pilot.
d. second ground crew.
e.proprietary French maintenance stands.
f. bomb techs and ordnance techs
g. inventory of plug-in/pull-out avionics modules.
h. tow tractor
i. weather shelter
j. maintenance shed 
k. replacement radar.
and numerous other things you ignored
.I took that in account.Weather shelter is in infrastruture.Tire is in spares.
A Rafale cost 47 m€ so 62 m$.Remains 10 m$ per fighter including 6 mica (4 m$).So 42 m$ for maintenance kits and tow tractors (cost nothing) and over items.
 
Herald
l. midlife upgrade
 
I did not buy any ground to air ordnance in the contract at 500 m$.They are bought separatly as midlife upgrade as it is done many years later.
 
.   
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/14/2007 5:20:37 PM
A Rafale cost 47 m€  without VAT( 56 with VAT) which is not payed on exports.Korean had even a better price.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Baloney as usual   6/14/2007 7:32:04 PM
 
As usual you make an assertion wqithout proof.
 
So do you use rye or wheat when you make your baloney sandwich?
 


Title
a. spare engine.
b. tires

c. spare pilot.

d. second ground crew.

e.proprietary French maintenance stands.

f. bomb techs and ordnance techs

g. inventory of plug-in/pull-out avionics modules.

h. tow tractor

i. weather shelter

j. maintenance shed 

k. replacement radar.

and numerous other things you ignored

.I took that in account.Weather shelter is in infrastruture.Tire is in spares.

A Rafale cost 47 m€ so 62 m$.Remains 10 m$ per fighter including 6 mica (4 m$).So 42 m$ for maintenance kits and tow tractors (cost nothing) and over items.

 



Herald

l. midlife upgrade


 

I did not buy any ground to air ordnance in the contract at 500 m$.They are bought separatly as midlife upgrade as it is done many years later.

 

.   



Herald
 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       6/15/2007 7:11:36 AM
hm that Gripen in this report costs good
(good compromise)
 
Quote    Reply

kalaloch    Pool Ball Defense   6/16/2007 8:36:58 AM
Back in the late 70's, I read an article from "Army Magazine" that still seems to be applicable in the challenge of dealing with SEAD. While it dealt primarily with Korea, I've seen the same tactical doctrine employed by the Soviets/Russians (and their clients), as well as a number of western nations.
They referred to it as the "Pool Ball Defense". Basically, you're looking at a zone of coverage in a rectangle. Each individual weapon system has its range and capabilities (speed, height engagement, either active or passive guidance), and the effective overlap to cover any gaps or holes in that coverage.
One of the difficulties facing any ADA unit commander is going to be the placement of their units for the most effective coverage over a given range of envelope engagements, and what complimentary support units will be available. The other side is sheer trickery on the part of the OPFOR (as in how Israel got the Syrians to illuminate their ADA radars prior to the Bekka Valley Turkey Shoot). Right now, the technology seems to favor stealthy, sensor/weapon equipped UCAV's that would preceed a more conventional series of airstrikes; after all, the best air defense is still counter-air and killing the bad guys air force while it's still on the ground.
Even with two small nations, each with limited resources, a determined attacker will take the potential losses to hit a target they believe holds enough value in destroying or doing substantial damage to.
 
India and Pakistan have had it out with less than state-of-the-art air defenses and combat aircraft before, with ugly attrition rates; but targets were still hit. Pilot training, and air force support can defeat a technologically superior force with lower standards of training and less logisitical support. Then there's the whole issue of replacement aircraft, because there's only a handful of countries that produce combat aircraft; and political considerations come into play in obtaining spares and new aircraft during active hostilities. It's easy to see how two small countries could quickly be left with no flyable fixed or rotary-wing craft.
 
All of that said, without limited (battlefield) air-superiority, or at the very least parity, means that someone is going to get hurt really bad. In the 21st century, very few militaries can live off of the land and still be considered an effective fighting force. Even the best of farmers doesn't have a barn full of ripened 30mm HEI.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       6/16/2007 9:43:46 AM
Title
link
As usual you make an assertion wqithout proof.
So do you use rye or wheat when you make your baloney sandwich?
Let see
In the report you mentioned on table 1 we find : Rafale cost/unit=m$ 62.1
Not far way the price I mentioned ! (m$ 62)
Source is =

Sources: GAO, CBO, NAO, DoD, UK MoD, French Parliament for data; defense-aerospace.com for analysis.

Figures are latest available)
BUT their work is still correct (but average) since below you can read:

Manufacturer’s comment:

Dassault noted that prices quoted in French defense budget documents are inclusive of valueadded

tax (VAT) at 19.6%. If VAT, which is not applicable on export contracts, is excluded, the

total cost of the Rafale program drops to 27.82 billion euros, and the average program unit cost is

reduced to 94.63 million euros.

Again excluding VAT, the prices of the various versions are 47.3 million euros for the Rafale M,

41.5 million euros for the Rafale C and 43.3 million euros for the Rafale B.

These figures are all at January 2005 prices, Dassault says.
And what did O say? That Rafale cost 47 m€!
Who was right?
It is sad you don't acknowledge my superiority in accounting !

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

murabit821       6/16/2007 7:28:50 PM
for Kalaloch

we also reach meny reasons that why we dont give Fighters for this small country
but we still believe , we can have limited  small Air defence (GBAD)
what you mean about this ?
there is some value, advantage ?
or give away AD and put enemy free sky ?

for French stratege
how is about Rafale flying hour costs
and about Pilots payments
do you have some info ?
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9   NEXT



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics