If you don't have nukes consider yourself fucked militarily from a global perspective. Nobody will hesitate to roll their absolute worst in and fuck your shit up because the only risk is minimal casualties and the expenses of reaching you.
>>27782884 Massive sub rush during d-day was the allies worst nightmare. If the germans could have attacked with both subs and some surface assets the entire invasion force would been absolutely wrecked. Although at that point in the war they no longer had the forces to do so.
First, let's get squared away on mission. Give up on repelling an invasion from a major nation-state. You simply don't have the resources to make that happen. Instead, good relations with the US and UK (which they have) and not drawing the ire of other major nations nearby (which they don't) are the order of the day.
We're talking a medium sized island. Immediate neighbors are a mix of high dollar paradises and despotic shitholes.
So the mission is to repel minor local countries (many, highly unstable) and have a capability to counter terrorists and criminals. With a tourism-based economy, safety vs crime is a priority; a shithole neighbor isn't likely to try to invade you for fear of arousing the US or UK.
Total population is about 3 million, GDP is about $16 billion ($6,000 per capita). You've got a population the size of Israel or a small US city, with a standard of living roughly comparable to Kurdistan. National culture and competence is good for the third world. Labor is cheap. You won't get economies of scale for buying in bulk. Tech level can't be very high; you don't have the infrastructure. Small area to defend, so you don't need a lot of troops.
Figure a defense budget of $150 million and 3000 troops including staff. Bulk it out with reserves drawn from the police, and you'll be coordinating with them most of the time anyway vs smuggling, etc.
Figure a four way split between personnel, hardware, facilities, and "etc". Average salary in the $12k-$15k range (ie well above average); this ensures you get the best people and are somewhat resistant to corruption.
continued... don't forget to post more of that fine ass.
>>27782340 What kind of military hardware. People willing to commit suicide, very effective tactic. Japanese Kamikaze, Tamil Tigers, Islamic Jihadist, effective use this to both destroy and demoralise superior opponents.
You need a decent tunnel/mountain/camo systems. No army likes fighting up a mountain, this will always be true.
Sustainable and high quality anti aircraft capability. Modern powers love having CAS for their ground forces and the ability to decimate all above ground facilities. A good supply of manpads, mobile AA, and fixed.
Kiss goodbye to your fixed AA in the first day, but these should have been covered by mobile and manpad systems that should cost the attacking forces on hardware.
The reason the ukranian war has gone on for so long is because the rebels have access to the BUK system, a very effective mobile AA platform.
Unfortuantely unless you have a BUK like system and a steady supply of replacements, strategic bomber will probably end up smashing all of your static AA.
Still having decent amount of quality manpads should keep the C-130s and helicopters grounded.
>>27783555 While I agree on most points the best deterent is a supporting nation. Your nukes can be found and disabled on such a small island and a single nuke will wipe you out. The Norks' best deterrent is China. They didnt even have nukes they could deliver until 50+ years after the cease fire.
3000 men isn't a lot. Mechanization would normally help you maximize their effectiveness... but your economy won't support a lot of that.
I suggest a layered approach. An infantry division minimum, of course. Probably leave them as separate regiments. (did I say 3000? Fuck, I meant 30,000 people. 1% of your population, 1% of your GDP is a good rule of thumb for a comparatively low-threat strategic problem).
Infantry provide your police power and are just plain useful for all kinds of things. Call a few companies "special forces"-- this is a stretch, but they'll certainly be your best forces and something for everyone else to aspire to.
Mostly jeeps or the equivalent. Don't bother with milspec; trucks and pickups are more than adequate. A handful of LAVs and maybe something like a Rooikat for very nasty situations.
A naval base or two, probably piggybacked on your major ports. A dedicated air base, plus understandings with the civilian airports that you'll "borrow" them in a major situation.
Your "fleet" consists of 2-3 good, solid, multiuse destroyers. Buy used from a major power; they probably will train your sailors anyway. Plus cutters and speedboats for coastal patrols and enforcing your territorial waters.
Helicopters. Pick good solid multirole navalized designs. Maybe used burger or bong designs? You'll probably get a good deal A few attack choppers, but mostly multirole transport designs that lob torps or missiles as a secondary mission.
Normally I'd say at your per-capita GDP, go for slavshit, but not htis time. The US or UK will have to subsidize this stuff, and they'll probably play ball as it's pocket change to them and more often or not it's their richest citizens on vacation the shit will be used to defend/rescue. Buy used/reconditioned.
Well shit, I can't believe somebody actually delivered such a well thought out and in-depth strategy. You sir are a god amongst men. I can't find anything wrong with your plan. Do you think that fixed A A can be protected if well hidden and not used until necessary? Also, why not beef up military numbers, is it just not necessary?
I would be very interested in picking your brain concerning another island like Puerto Rico, assuming of course that it gained independence. They have slightly more people and a higher gdp.
OK last post. Reminder: correct 3000 men to 30,000. That's 1% of your population, which is about right. It sounds big, but remember a lot of these guys will be doing support or staff jobs.
Finally, your airforce. Helicopters already answer most of that question. For long-range missions and high loiter time, look no further than the Super Tucano. Subsonic, but you don't NEED more airplane than that. Something that can kill a Tucano can ill anything else that's in your price range. At that point you call the embassy because you're fighting a major power and alliances are your only ticket out.
Normally, I prefer the OV-10 bronco, but not this time. The bronco can do lots of other stuff, but you have helicopters for that and your land area is very small. You don't need that other shit, so might as well get the best subsonic turbo prop fighter you can.
Finally, a good radar network. Pray for a gift of obsolete shit from the US or UK, who might give it to you for cooperation in drug interdiction. If they won't spring for it, then just require military liasons in your civilian airports, or have a law that air traffic controllers have to be air force personnel.
If the US or UK want to station a sonar station, let them but require that it be jointly staffed. If not, don't bother.
There you go. You can stomp any of your neighbors flat, conduct SAR for tourists whose yachts break down, crack down harshly on drug smugglers and organized crime. Vs a major power like Cuba you're toast, but beating them isn't in the cards anyway and this force CAN give them indigestion if they try it.
Most of all, you can afford it. You get a nice, professional force that doesn't fuck your economy or pose the risk of a coup. You lean on allies that you need already to defend vs a big country.
The final word of advice, as with your police and spy services: duplication and competition. You put all that power under one guy, and sooner or later he'll be the generalissimo.
I wouldn't bother with fixed AA at all, even if it worked w/ your defense concept, which I don't think it does. Who's going to attack you with air power like that? Vs any country like that, your AA is a minor speedbump. A shithole nation using converted cessnas or helicopters can be handled easily with manpads and your own air power.
THe thing is, how do you stop America or even cuba from conquering you? You don't, really. It's just not in the cards, so why blow money and resources trying? It's just ordinary pragmatism.
Same reason that I limit the military to 30,000 people, which at 1% of the population is more than enough. The best strategic use of your population and GDP is to promote economic growth. I might spend slightly more money, maybe, but if anything I'd use fewer personnel if I could.
Puerto Rico is essentially Jamaica writ large. As part of the territorial US, this is all moot because they can piggyback on the US military: tech base, equipment, economy, people, etc.
But if I was architecting a military for an independent Puerto Rico or equivalent, it wouldn't look too much different from what I just wrote for Jamaica. Similar threat picture, similar strategic concept, more resources. I'd scale that plan up a bit and leave it at that. Still no jets, though with their demographics it would be tempting to have a half dozen F-16's.... but still not worth it.
Economic growth is the magic pixie dust that makes all other things possible. 9% growth and your standard of living will double in eight years. That's your military budget, your tech base, everything. And there IS such a thing as too big a military even if money isn't an object. After a certain point, your biggest threat can be your own military overthrowing you.
Not that I know of. My training is policy and economics, not military strategy.
THat's the thing, this whole question isn't about tactics or hardware. Really, it's about national policy and procurement. A good grounding in economics (thomas sowell's book?), diplomacy (Henry Kissinger's Diplomacy). A good grounding in business and finance... an intro textbook in operations management would work.
There are academic papers on % of gdp and % of population, but nothing aimed at a popular audience.
Viktor Suvorov is a defector from the GRU in the 70's. His three books: Inside the Soviet Army, Inside Soviet Military Intelligence, and Spetsnaz, are excellent if a little funny in its prose.
Mainly, though, you just have to read experts bitching back and forth about DoD budget policy for a few years and you'll pick up the principles.
>>27783912 Again, great points. In the case of Puerto Rico, do you think that having so many Puerto Ricans on the mainland US acts as a deterrent if there is a conflict? I'd be interested to know your opinion, I personally feel like it would be a minor deterrent, because the US can easily spin the situation using mass media, regardless of who Is to blame in the conflict.
>>27783785 Why get a Tucano at all? It seems like Jamaica only has to worry about patrolling its EEZ and conducting paramilitary/police type work on and around the island. Is that area large enough to justify an expensive bird like Tucano? Most of the actual down&dirty work like maritime rescue is going to require a helo. If you really need the patrol endurance of a fixed-wing, something like a Caravan or King Air with a FLIR slapped on might be both more economical and more suited for the actual role. You don't need a high-performance light attacker to do maritime patrol.
Super Tucano: 9M-14M in 2011 Caravan: 1.8M -1.9M in 2013 Pilatus PC-12/U-28: 4.6M in 2013 King Air C90GTi: 3.4M in 2013
Realistically, how difficult would it be to found a new country in central Africa? We are talking of a Republic, like the US, with a defined and limited government, much kind of like a new Rhodesia? and it will be powered with an economic interest to exploit Africa's natural resources and an stable territory for freedom Will the UN be against it? How much of an opposition will give the multicultural advocates and the ecologist advocates?
>>27784706 I think the biggest hurdles would be agriculture, tribal warfare, and resources. The UN will only be against it if their finger isn't in the pie. You'd also have trouble with China, they've been investing in Africa if I'm not mistaken.
Because you need a plane that can intercept fixed-wing aircraft that violate your airspace. Only a couple, and they're not in the air or even on alert all the time. But if something has to be intercepted and forced down, a converted transport or a helicopter won't do it. Guns let you show a drug smuggler who's boss without escalating straight to shooting him down. Speed lets you run someone down even if it took 30 min to get the call out from air traffic control.
The Tucano is usually sold as CAS, but here it's A2A. Like the Rooikats, you only buy a couple and don't usually use them... but when you need one a Cessna won't suffice.
Cripplingly difficult. Virtually impossible. There's a reason it hasn't happened. It has nothing to do with economics or military hardware. It's entirely sociocultural and political. Short of implanting a foreign colony, you're swimming up the waterfall against entrenched ethnic/tribal/religious/political loyalties that simply aren't going away.
Whether or not western academics are jizzing over your politics is the least of your worries.
Depends. Are we talking about Puerto Rico if it gets independence from the USA? If so, it depends on how that separation happened and who moved in in the aftermath.
IMO, PR gets a very sweet deal as a territory. They'd be nuts to seceed. The only reasons for it are cultural pride or fuckheads who are hoping to establish a (usually socialist) regime with them in charge. Like venezuela but worse because PR has no oil.
Of course, if they are still part of the USA, then puerto rico has the full force of the most powerful military in the world backing it up. Anyone who messes with them, right or wrong, gets their skulls fucked.
>>27783043 Yep >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War#U.S._aid_to_Israel >During the night of October 8–9, an alarmed Dayan told Meir that "this is the end of the third temple." >He was warning of Israel's impending total defeat, but "Temple" was also the code word for nuclear weapons. >Dayan again raised the nuclear topic in a cabinet meeting, warning that the country was approaching a point of "last resort". >That night Meir authorized the assembly of thirteen 20-kiloton-of-TNT (84 TJ) tactical atomic weapons for Jericho missiles at Sdot Micha Airbase, and F-4 aircraft at Tel Nof Airbase, for use against Syrian and Egyptian targets. >They would be used if absolutely necessary to prevent total defeat, but the preparation was done in an easily detectable way, likely as a signal to the United States. >Kissinger learned of the nuclear alert on the morning of October 9. That day, President Nixon ordered the commencement of Operation Nickel Grass, an American airlift to replace all of Israel's material losses. >>27782340 >>27782389 nukes or btfo >>27782350
I'm thinking fast private or semi-militarized aircraft operated by smugglers, organized crime, or terrorist groups. Or thinly disguised foreign false flag operations designed to look like one of the above.
In those cases, you need something that even though it got into the air 30min late and the other guy has a head start, can still run him down. It can stay on-station, inspect the intruder, threaten it with its guns, and then force it to land.
Even a very fast attack helicopter can't do that. A transport like those COIN cessnas can't either. The trick is not worrying about having a large formation or a standing air patrol. Just maybe four; you buy one every couple years and don't splurge on options.
Who's going to conquer jamaica? Who's going to bother trying?
That's the other problem with the "rhodesia" plan that that other anon was asking about. Jamaica is in a pretty safe neighborhood. Central Africa means you're surrounded by potential invaders who will fuck with you just because you're marginally less screwed up than they are. THey'll do it even if it does them more harm than good because that's how things around that part of the world roll. Plus: island vs more or less flat country with no natural borders. Totally different national security picture.
In that situation, I'd see defense spending and military personnel climb up to as much as 3-4% of GDP, maybe 5%+ in time of war.
NUkes are a very dangerous escalation. Plus, you're risking some fuckhead sending in special forces to steal them.
Really, you use them when you face an existential threat to either the government (eg Norks), the country as an independent national entity (eg pakistan), or the people themselves face extermination (eg israel).
Jamaica doesn't need that. They have two of the strongest countries in the world happily guaranteeing their security, are in a neighborhood where the malicious ones are too weak to threaten them seriously, and the big countries are not interested in a war of aggression.
Nukes poison that relationship, and to no gain. Not everyone needs or wants nukes.
And with a GDP of 15 billion (fun fact, America's is about that... in TRILLIONs) they don't have the infrastructure for it.
Iran doesn't need nukes, either. They want them to give them a security umbrella under which they can attack their neighbors (conquer the shiite arabs, control the sunni arabs, and destroy Israel).
>>27785424 Pretty sure Iran wants nukes because they are surrounded by US bases and all the countries around them keep on getting invaded. Also, why is it ok for Israel to have nukes but everyone else in the region is prohibited?
They've had an active nuclear program since before the Iraq or Afghanistan wars. Before that US troops were in Saudi Arabia but that's it and they were pointed at Iraq (Iran's main enemy) not them.
If their strategic posture was defensive, then why support Syria? Why get involved in the lebanese civil war, and why essentially take that country over via Hezbollah? Why support terrorism against the US even before we had troops anywhere in the region?
The Iranian's have an essentially aggressive strategic concept. That's both a function of shiite doctrine and the general persian longing for empire. For the most part, they've played a smart game... but they're playing offense, not defense. They're wary but not scared of America or Israel.
>>27782340 desu only thing you need is is a buttload of militia in caves and a ludicrous amount of mines and IED's. Throw in some mortars, light artillery and manpads and no one is getting that landmass fully secured.
Damn... I could stare at that all day. If you want more pithy commentary, though, you'll need to put out a little more.
BTW, one tip if you're thinking about this is benchmarking. That is, if you're wondering about the right policy, look at how other nations solve the same problem.
The military spending as a % of GDP can be reconstructed right out of a google search. Yes, there are measurement issues and a few outliers, but most nations budget one to five percent of GDP to military, typical being on the low end of that (~2%). Then adjust for cultural aggressiveness (or intention to conduct an activist foreign policy), or the strategic environment (spending more or less depending on whether you're in an especially dangerous or peaceful environment), or your internal security picture (if you use your army to control the populace).
Governments like big budgets, including for the military, but every time you raise that budget you're moving wealth out of the productive part of the economy and into the unproductive part. By productive I mean the portion that powers economic growth. If you want a big military budget, it's often smarter to leave the budget small, loosen restrictions on the economy, and within 10-20 years you'll have that bigger budget essentially for free. Of course, the military's retort (justifiable sometimes) is that you have to survive long enough to reap those rewards, and not everyone is in a position to do this.
In this case, we have a $150 million military budget, about $40 million for equipment per year. But since tanks, ships, and aircraft last several years, you buy and replace gradually. Operating costs come from the other 50% you spent on personnel and "etc", which includes parts and consumables.
It's all very rough, but that back of the cocktail napkin calculation can get you surprisingly far in your force and budget estimates.
Well... fuck. Nice. Ok you got me hooked, what else do you want to know?
I supposed personnel is another question. I mostly like the old Soviet model for staffing positions and formations. Each commander has total operational authority at least in theory once he has his mission laid out. And so his formation has everything he might need to accomplish things. The Soviets don't call up for artillery; they have to use what's organic to their unit which usually includes artillery.
It makes things neat and tidy, and NATO's system always struck me (from the outside) as needlessly bureaucratic and complicated.
Where the soviets fucked up was threefold. First, their political/economic system was crap and that lead to lots of problems both directly and indirectly for their military.
Second, one thing the US does very very well is the notion of a joint staff. That is, if you're an officer, to be promoted beyond a certain point you need to do a "joint" tour on the general staff. So the idea is that you don't have rear-echelon "officers" who are really glorified paper-pushers. Everyone in staff is an operational officer on loan. At least, in theory. In practice not so much but to me it's brilliant for all kinds of reasons. Russia, like most countries, ended up with a bloated and largely self-destructive general staff by not doing this. BTW even the US has this problem to a point. To me, a colonel should be able to lead a regiment or captain a ship or do SOMETHING related to war-fighting, or he shouldn't be a colonel.
Third, pay, maintenane, and training budgets were terrible. Hence why I recommend salaries close to double the pay for an average worker. Countries underpay their militaries because it's easy to do and feels thrifty. In practice, you get substandard people, corruption in the ranks, poor adherence to procedure, and discipline problems. Paying your people what they're worth is IMO in the long run cheaper.
>>27786733 Well you talked about the guys on the tip of the spear but how about their support elements? Let's discuss the C4I a small country should aspire to have and properly make use of, especially collection assets.
Two more problems in the soviet system, stemming from those above. Conscription is IMO a dumb idea unless you're like Israel and in mortal danger at all times. Even then it might not be as good as they think. You get people who don't want to be there, who will fuck around at any excuse, and a big load of make-work jobs. Professional army is IMO better.
Plus the Soviets didn't have a good core of professional NCOs. Those guys are the heart and soul of any army. They're your institutional wisdom, the guys who get shit done.
Good pay and volunteer army goes a long way to building that institutional wisdom that lets you buy good gear and use it well, especially expensive/complex stuff like aviation. So many armies cut their NCO pay so they can afford shiny new fighters that fall apart in the hangar for lack of good maintenance and proper operation. Or treat their men like shit and then wonder why they act like cowardly incompetents on the battlefield.
One area where you kind of have to have professional staff is military intelligence. You need a staff that's good at recon, overhead imaging, ELINT, HUMINT, and operational analysis. There aren't any real shortcuts for this, and it requires people who dedicate their lives to doing it well.
>>27786816 If you really want to make /k/'s day, when you're done talking intelligence and collection assets/platforms/personnel (which I hope you discuss thoroughly because it's as interesting or more so than the tip of the spear stuff), you should tell us how this sort of organizational structure/planning ought to be applied to PMCs.
>>27785676 Kebab detected. Because war you stupid mother fucker. Who's side are you on mofo? Glad kebab is denied and Israel can nuke the piss out of Iran. Not to mention USA can destroy anything it fucking wants. Bitch.
OK, so let's talk military intelligence. First, fuck "central" in central intelligence agency. There's still plenty we don't know about the cold war, but a clear picture has emerged, at least based on what's available in the open record.
The CIA and FBI were deeply penetrated by the KGB and GRU. Many of their great successes boiled down to ELINT and enemy defectors arriving with briefcases worth of secrets.
The KGB and GRU had problems, especially the aforementioned defectors, but they had agent intelligence down cold.
So let's borrow America's electronic intelligence capability and marry it to communist brilliance at agent recruitment.
A bit of nomenclature: "agent" is a foreigner recruited (bribed, blackmailed, etc) into providing you with secrets and assistance. An officer is someone from your country hired to work for intelligence. Legals are officers who work under their real nationality and identity, usually with diplomatic cover. Illegals use false identities and nationalities to operate secretly overseas.
In the soviet system, every staff on regiment level and above has an intelligence officer ("second officer"). He and his team are in charge of reconnaissance formations, electronic intelligence, and analysis. At division level and above add spetsnaz, and armies and higher add agent recruitment.
Figure on agent recruitment in each nearby country, plus further away powers that are more aggressive, plus the US and UK. Hell yeah-- much of my defense doctrine rests on my friendship with those two countries, and good intelligence helps you manage that critical relationship. Yes people bitch when your agents or officers are caught; I promise you they're doing the same to you.
I'd keep all this separate from the civilian intelligence agency. Why? Duplication and competition help give you a fuller, less biased picture of the world. The idea of "central" intelligence coordinating everything is naive and foolish.
First, recon. Americans have had problems with this lately. Not because they aren't excellent at it. But because it requires putting small groups of people in harm's way, and Americans have a political allergy to casualties of any kind. In practice, you end up with either bloated recon formations or they're left in the rear echelon and not used. Or both. In practice, nothing beats actually sending someone to go look for themselves.
Second, you have ELINT Americans rock at this. Jamaica doesn't have the culture, tech base, size, or wealth to pull this off. At best, you'll have guys trained on the American model in exchange programs. Vs likely enemies (criminals and tin pot dictatorships) this might be enough.
Operational analysis, which includes overhead imagery for Jamaica. Jamaica doesn't have a space program, so really you just need a guy to look up or buy quality satelllite images commercially from other countries. Operational analysis consists of monitoring open media and reports from other branches of intel, then using data mining techniques to discover what the enemy is up to and to some extent predict their actions. VERY powerful, and pretty cheap to do if you can train someone up enough in it.
Spetsnaz is just a russian contraction meaning special forces. Spetsnaz GRU is part of the army; other formations are not. Pretty self-explanatory. American special ops is a patchwork of many highly specialized groups. The Russians basically focus on making their guys generic badasses. Both work; just remember that a small country like Jamaica's "special operators" are going to be good but not brilliant. Have them cross train with Brits and Americans in counterterrorism and law enforcement. Both countries are happy to help and your units learn skills they can use for all kinds of things. Russian spetsnaz has its own officers who recruit local agents to assist operators covertly; I'd absolutely do this.
>>27787200 >Operational analysis, which includes overhead imagery for Jamaica. Jamaica doesn't have a space program, so really you just need a guy to look up or buy quality satelllite images commercially from other countries. Operational analysis consists of monitoring open media and reports from other branches of intel, then using data mining techniques to discover what the enemy is up to and to some extent predict their actions. VERY powerful, and pretty cheap to do if you can train someone up enough in it.
Open source intel can be a easy as having an internet connection and subscribing to the right commercial satellite imagery. The problem I've seen in the intel community is that while you can train people in all the collection techniques, I haven't seen any structured training to develop an analyst into someone who can do worthwhile predictive analysis. From what I've seen, either they've got it or they don't.
Finally, you have agent recruitment. Agents are seduced according to MICE. I learned it as "Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego" but I've heard americans like saying "Money, Ideology, Conscience, Ego". Either way, once recruited, agents can either support other agents (as couriers, maintaining safe houses, etc), as "executive" agents (ie people who do things for you like sabotage, assassination, disinformation, etc. Most importantly, people who provide documents and secrets. That's by far the most important peacetime military intelligence source IMO.
Notice I didn't mention drones? Too new to know what division it falls under or whether it should be its own department. My instinct says give it to ELINT, but it could just as easily go to recon.
I'd then take the soviet system and move most of it down a level. So every battalion gets an intelligence officer. Every regiment gets an officer with a small working group (one guy per role), and the two branches of service each get departments where each role leader gets a small staff. We don't have a ton of cash, but I prefer lavishing attention on my intelligence arms. Say about 200 officers and a budget on the order of 10 million (5% of military spending!) But note that this is already covered in my breakdown... mostly as personnel costs. So it's just clarifying how I'm spending money allocated above. Note also that you'd be surprised how small the bribes have to be, even inthe West. Let alone in the caribbean.
Remember also that most of these guys are doing something other than agent recruitment. All told, at best you have forty guys doing what you'd traditionally call "spy work".
That's a combination ballpark extrapolation and wild-ass guess. But it's not 20 and it's not 2000.
>>27787200 Overhead imagery isn't just space, in our hypothetical Jamai/k/a you'd want to tie that into airframes as well.
What are your thoughts as far as drones for the Jamai/k/a model? Either airborne or seaborne ones. I would think some of the less expensive aerial surveillance drones would be a worthwhile investment, though I'm not sure if the tech base would entirely support it.
But there IS a good training ground for this. Get some people into a graduate program in marketing research at a high-ranking business school. Plus a PhD for the data mining. They have all the skills and know all the statistical packages.
Market research isn't all that different from operational analysis. Spatial econometrics, social network analysis, panel data models, etc etc etc. Yeah the lingo is different but as a practical matter the work is very similar.
IMO iit's an easy and cheap competence to develop. Commerical drones used by news are perfectly adequate vs the kinds of enemies we have in mind, and surprisingly cheap and user-friendly.
And yeah you could lump them in with analysis.... my concern is that while the product is similar, the job tasks are very different. Ideally you want a boss who understands how you do your job so he can help.
Fine work, anon. I appreciate it. It's getting very late here, so I'll have to sign off soon. If you're on tomorrow I'd love to pick up again.
One last thing on intelligence. I strongly recommend Suvorov's Inside Soviet Military Intelligence. Readable, reasonably clear and accurate.
Anything by Christopher Andrew is good too, so long as it includes a russian sounding name as a coauthor. He's a historian at Cambridge and works with former soviet defectors. Some of it is very dry and historical, but it reveals some real details about how intelligence operations happen.
>>27783785 >>27785047 If you're worried about intercepting drug runners/smugglers/terrorists, are you sure the Super Tucano would be fast enough for the role? Its max speed is 367mph...
Something like the Soko G-4 Super Galeb would have quite a bit more speed to it, being a jet, while remaining especially budget-friendly, or you could possibly get a few heavily-discounted Hawks or F-5s from the US/UK. Or Alpha Jets, perhaps? But the Super Galeb is about 4.5mil a pop... that's half or less of the price of a Super Tucano. And with those light jets we're looking at speeds of 500+mph, some a decent amount above that.
OK yeah absolutely, an armed jet trainer would be great for the task. It frankly didn't occur to me and A2A isn't my field. I'd call minimum payload capacity a cannon and a pair of air to air missiles
Now, back to military intelligence. We've covered all the bases. The KGB had a line that was focused purely on subversion of enemy culture. Jamai/k/a (love that) isn't aggressive, so we don't need that. They had a S&T division... believe or not, we can chuck that, too. Yeah we're behind the West, but the optimum way to catch up is through industrial development and openly foreign direct investment. Industrial espionage undermines rather than supports that goal.
One thing they did have, and I think it's worth looking at, is the difference between counter-intelligence and what I'd call counter-penetration. I'm using counter-penetration to mean detecting and thwarting enemy attempts to spy on you-- the traditional CI job in America.
Counter-penetration looks for the enemy's agent network among your own people. It's a traditional law enforcement job; here we clarify that a branch of your military intelligence works with but is separate from the rest of the military intelligence.
IMO counterintelligence (reminder: this is MY personal definition) is charged with penetrating enemy intelligence agencies. You get lots of benefits from this. You know what they know about you. You can catch enemy agents in your country. You can use what you learn to evade detection for your OWN officers and agents, or even direct your agents to avoid exposing your operations. You also, by reading their intelligence reports, have essentially a whole separate intelligence agency reporting to you on your enemy's dime. It's worth pursuing aggressively.
Devoting a lot of time to counter-penetrating the enemy is worth hammering at. It requires inventiveness, discretion, ruthlessness, and is totally worth it.
In the early 90's, one of the top CIA officers turned out to be working for the KGB. One of the top FBI officials, too. Both burned numerous of our agents, exposed our operations, revealed valuable intelligence, everything. In the early 2000's, the top Cuba analyst in the defense intelligence agency turned out to be an agent for Cuban intelligence.
Which tells us a lot of things, and once again argues for duplication, competition, compartmentalization. Having your intelligence apparatus be "central" just gives your enemy one target to subvert.
BTW this is totally doable. Small countries can and often have excellent intelligence agencies. Cuba's is very, very good. Before the fall of the Soviet Union, the Israelis had a similar population and also kicked ass in the spy game.
Over and above their military intelligence, which is all I'm talking about, Jamai/k/a should have a small but well-funded and well-run political intelligence agency. Aim for about 500 employees, but that's bigger than it sounds because you're not supporting tactical reconnaissance or other military-specific functions.
You know, I didn't see this post, but I'm happy to respond. I don't know much about PMCs, actually. I know private corporations and I know political/military organization, but I've never worked with or consulted with any of them. It's worth mentioning that the vast majority of the "contractors" in Iraq were locals who were being bought into the US occupation and the elected government. The idea is that you get the people invested in the government's success and surprise surprise they support that government.
Government agencies also often don't pay a person what he's worth. This happens everywhere. So every agency has a few patriot superstars who work for less money but basically do the work of ten people. A few ok people who are climbing the ladder and willing to miss out on civilian money to get political power. And then a huge number of employees who warm chairs and burn money but don't contribute meaningfully. Due to civil service pay rules, they all make the same salary. So if I'm an agency head and want to hang onto a real rock star who's ready to go into civilian life, then I let him quit, then hire him back at double or more the salary as a contractor.
>>27791088 From what I'm seeing, these days the contractors also typically aren't paying a person what they're worth, to include paying less than the government position (for the same exact duty). I know a guy who within the past couple years was making 55k as an intelligence contractor, who flipped over to govt employee in the exact same position, doing the exact same work, making 60k.
(and btw the fact that gov't agencies skimp on salaries is another reason why they're easy to recruit as agents.)
With a PMC, it all depends on income statement factors that I don't really understand in enough detail to really comment on in any meaningful way. The core tenets are understanding two core financial reports: the income statement and the balance sheet.
The income statement indicates your revenue (what you're paid) and your costs (what you have to pay out). Costs consist of capital equipment (tanks, guns, etc), your personnel (salaries, insurance), training and recruitment costs, operating costs like fuel, parts, ammo, food, etc. A merc group burns money more slowly when it's not deployed, but gets no revenue. When deployed, you're making money but also burning it much faster.
Another concept to understand is Total Cost of Ownership. This is the cost to keep a piece of kit in your inventory and the cost to operate it. That means consumables, personnel, maintenance, etc. It's often way higher than the sticker price for the vehicle or device itself.
Finally, there's the balance sheet. That's a list of assets (things of value you own) and liabilities (what you owe). The two issues there to pay attention to is that military equipment costs a lot just to have in inventory, and the fact that debt is something you have to be able to pay down plus interest... over and above your other costs.
That's all generic business school stuff. If you want to understand PMCs, maybe some other kind anon can lend his experience. This chicks-for-/k/nowledge deal is pretty sweet for all concerned.
>>27790987 Since we're now talking jets instead of turboprops, which means additional training is going to be required, what are your thoughts as to the pros/cons of offering the intercept aircraft flying positions to foreign pilots? Something like in the Sierra Leone where they gave Neall Ellis, a South African, citizenship and a stipend in exchange for piloting their Mi-24. Would let you dodge all the training costs to get the pilots initial jet fighter qualified, though obviously there could be problems from having non-natives come in and fly for you. Your thoughts?
Weird fun fact: it's so hard to get a raise or promotion in some fields that people play the revolving door game.
So a guy working in a congressional office in a correspondence unit gets noticed. He's young and bright and hard-working, so they promote him into doing legislative work.
Within six months he quits.
Why? Because at THAT office, he's still the mail room guy made good. Why give him a raise or promotion, if you've already done him a gigantic fucking favor promoting him once? If he takes another job at another office doing the same thing, then he's a legislative aide. Someone who won't ever be sent back to the mail room, someone who, if he's young and bright and hard-working, might get a promotion.
Congressmen aren't dumb. They know what'll happen if they promote someone, so they'll only promote the very best and only when absolutely necessary. Which just reinforces the dynamic.
So get a job, get promoted, get a new job doing the same thing. Leave any job where you feel you've hit a ceiling. You're being paid peanuts anyway, so title is all-important. If your career stalls out, go to grad school and get a masters degree, then use that as resume padding to get a higher job. Sometimes you jump from politician to politician, other times you take jobs in lobbying. There's a whole game to this.
This applies to all kinds of jobs, especially in government. So this >>27791141 doesn't surprise me at all. It's called the revolving door. It's dangerous because of course the idea is that people are totally disloyal to their employers, but it's fostered because their employers are totally disloyal to them. Hence my comments about paying people what they're worth. There's a whole hidden tax that you pay for being penny wise pound foolish.
I'd do that initially if I'd just staged a coup and needed pilots fast. It's not well known, but many of the "Syrian" and "Vietnamese" pilots of the last century were actually Soviet trainers.
But long run, it's dumb. You might leverage an ally's military academies, because training requires a lot of infrastructure and you're not building an air force big enough to be worth it. But the pilots should be your own country's nationals. Same with the maintenance and service crews, which are invariably treated like shit and is yet another case of self-destructive HR.
Notice how my Jamai/k/an military has 30,000 troops? The country has more than that reach military service age every year, and 20x that as fit-for-service manpower to draft. So why not use that resource? Yet another reason I'm keeping numbers so low is to pay them what they're worth and hire the best. Including the ground crews for the fighters.
Jamaica is politically stable. They don't need foreign pilots to fill a desperate need. Better to train and get that institutional wisdom built into your own system. You have enough civil aviation that you have people you can recruit from. IMO this is a case of where it's way more expensive to train your own air force, but you should do it anyway.
Plus, these highly skilled, disciplined, hard-working technicians will eventually leave the service... at which point they're generating growth and tax revenue by working for local businesses and industries.
Look at a map of jamaica in the caribbean. It's surrounded by cuba, haiti, the dominican republic, puerto rico, and then on the mainland you have Venezuela, Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Panama, Guatamala, and Belize. Pretty wide variety of standards of living, don't you think? It's all about institutional knowledge, political/economic system, and culture. Having strong institutions is why Jamaica can be so strong and successful despite the problems its neighbors have.
>>27791505 This is where we'd actually want to do long-term price projections for all of our options. Assuming Jamai/k/a is using its own citizens as pilots I think a major consideration should be something easy to fly. Along with: >cheap to buy >cheap to fly >easy to fly (as mentioned) >fairly easy to maintain >does well in hot/humid weather
I think almost all the trainer jets mentioned along with the F-7 would be reasonable contenders as far as basic performance is concerned--they're easily fast enough to run down anything in Jamai/k/a's airspace that isn't something from a major power military, they all have cannons and at least a pair of sidewinders or other A2A missiles, they all can be configured for ground/sea attack if needed.
>>27783078 corvettes are fast and nice for attack, but we are talking about defense, so with a small multirole frigate we can have space for and antisubmarine helicopter, anti-air system and a couple of exocet
It's not that I'm into one-pieces, btw, it's just that the ones you posted up thread looked fantastic.
I can't type right now, just checking in. The fighter debate is lively and frankly I'm not going to add a lot to it. Everyone seems clear on the requirements. The main thing is to remember that a cheap up-front price is sometimes at the expense of long-term total cost. "Cheap" can be expensive indeed if it's too expensive to maintain and operate.
>>27791505 >Or will this ruin any military support from the US/UK/France league?
To me, chinese military aviation is a perfect example of cheap up-front but a pain in the ass to operate. With that said, I don't think there'd be diplomatic reprecussions to buying chinese if it genuinely is better. The main external benefit to buying american or british is that you become familiar with their equipment, including some stuff that has civilian applications. But I'd go for the lowest TCO that fits the mission.
This. A cheap multirole destroyer or frigate is what you want. Something you can buy used. With corvettes you lose the helicopter, don't you? That's the whole point. Most of the navy is cutters and speedboats. Your 1-3 top vessels should at least be able to deploy choppers and launch missiles.
Yeah I intentionally didn't look at this because I didn't want it to prejudice my thinking, and latin america isn't my area.
With that said, it's interesting. Overall military spending is just under 1% of GDP (nice). As with our suggestions, it's mostly infantry in trucks, with some combat helicopters. I don't see the strength of their navy, but the coast guard page shows three frigates/destroyers(?)
Infantry personnel are two regiments; one infantry and one engineer. I suggested a division strength; depending on their TO&E it might not be that far different. I suspect that those combat engineers spend a lot of time doing public works and civilian projects. Which is smart. Organization matches the british model?
I recommended a very small number of armored vehicles for emergencies-- lo and behold there they are. No attack helicopters (I suggested 4, but the cargo copters might do the job). They use a canadian turboprop for their air force, a big step down from a jet trainer or the super tucano we suggested.
So the navy appears to be as big or bigger than our recommendation. Infantry are much smaller but similarly equipped. Air force much weaker. As we suggested, heavy cooperation with their national police, especially on drug smuggling and gang violence.
Overall not all that different, but you're right that the differences are interesting.
Not my professional area. I ought to stress that while I do work in an econ-related field and have a past in policy-making, I have no professional experience in national security at all. Your mileage may vary, and probably will. Everything I know is open source literature.
>>27794937 Works for me. That they'd actually need to do procurement from basically scratch and would have a very interesting geographic/geopolitical situation (along with not a terribly high amount of cash to spend on things iirc), seems appealing to me.
OK, then Kurdistan it is! I'll admit it right up front: I like and respect the hell out of the Kurds, and that's knowing and recognizing their internal divisions and political problems.
A lot of this will depend on what shape an independent Kurdistan takes. If we're talking just Iraq, then we have about 6 million people. The contiguous area occupied by the Kurds that you'd call a "greater Kurdistan" is somewhere around 30 million. And then there's a diaspora of kurds living in Germany, Israel, and the USA, plus a dozen other countries.
GDP is another ball of wax. Depending on the source you look at, I've seen GDP numbers as low as $4000 and as high as $12,000. Yep. The CIA world factbook doesn't report numbers for the Kurdish region in Iraq. I'll do some digging tomorrow in the political ecconomy journals.
Kurdistan is landlocked, at least in theory, but pretty much right between the Black Sea, Caspian Sea, Mediterranean, and the Arabian Gulf, not QUITE reaching any. Rugged, mountainous, but fertile terrain. Lots of forest, except where Saddam Hussein's deforestation program took hold.
Kurdistan consists of lands currently owned by Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Syria. Iraqi kurds enjoy semiautonomy, tactitly protected by the USA between the 1991 genocides and the pullout under Obama. Now they have to fend for themselves. Iranian Kurds are tolerated and treated well, and don't really want independence. Turkish kurds have been oppressed for years, on and off. Syrian Kurds are treated just like Syrian Arabs, which is to say Assad and Son treated them like shit; post-ISIS they've been fleeing into Iraq.
In addition, you have Russia, Georgia, Azerbijan, Armenia, and whatever's happening in the arab world this week. The Kurds miss their jews (who Saddam kicked out) and the Israelis like the Kurds-- this is basically the only country that resembles a consistent ally.
Politically, the kurds are tribal and even the language isn't consistent across the whole region. The KRG in Iraq is a parliamentary democracy but has been dragging its feet about elections. Ideology spans the gamut from full-bore communists (especially in Turkey) to the group in Iraq who are doing their damnedest to try to recreate Texas-style american suburbia. Most of kurdistan appears to be in between, people just trying to survive and build independence. This is a people who have basically never had their own nation-state*.
Religiously, Kurds have it all. The vast majority are Muslims, mostly sunni. But there are a lot of shiites, too, plus atheists, christians, Jews (no, seriously), and a few faiths unique to kurdistan. A small number of sunnis have even joined ISIS, even they admit they're shitting on their people in doing so.
Oh and they're sitting on quite a bit of oil. How much depends on how much of Iraq they get in the divorce.
Defending all this is the Peshmerga, a well-regulated militia in the classic "infantry in toyotas with slavshit" tradition. If they were fighting anyone but Arabs they'd be stomped flat, but since they're fighting Arabs and have on-again, off-again allied air support, they're doing pretty well all things considered.
So we have a very, very complicated defense problem. Formidable, aggressive, powerful enemies surrounding them completely. Rugged terrain. Internal divisions. No access to a sea road for exports. Few allies; their most powerful ally is the fickle USA. Essentially starting from scratch in terms of infrastructure, institutional knowledge, and economics.
OK, so the first step will be to nail down the borders of the new country and its parameters. Population depends on that. We'll also need to estimate current per-capita GDP.
I'd love some suggestions and ideas on this one. The most ambitious is all 30 million under one flag. The least is to assume that it's just the KRG's 6 million.
>>27797379 No. They are historically more of a warrior culture than the Arabs. Their cultural values are more honor based and they tend to share training and information better than Arabs do. These factors cause their nco's and officers to be less paranoid and more likely to build competency in the units under their command.
The US would deploy a carrier battle group and a screen of submarines to defend Jamaica from external aggression.
The nation itself has a modest fleet of helicopters and patrol boats, for defense and search and rescue work, along with a pretty good infantry force for the islands, with officers trained in the UK or Canada.
So after thinking this through carefully, I think we should start from the assumption that /k/urdistan will consist of the KRG in Iraq, south to Kirkuk, plus the Kurdish areas of Syria. But NOT south to the Arabian Gulf.
That gives us some oil, most of their historical lands, but not over-reaching into claims that might lead to a fight. Iran's Kurds are mostly opposed to independence because they've been treated comparatively well and have a degree of autonomy (a tradition that goes back to ancient Persia and still works). Turkey's Kurds are mostly in favor of independence because they've been treated badly and have been oppressed by the regime in Ankara (a tradition that goes back to the Ottoman empire and still doesn't work). OTOH, Turkey is a formidable military power and NATO partner.
I don't think an initial version of Kurdistan will include that area unless the Turks invade the KRG and get thrown all the way into their borders and beyond. If we were talking Iraq and Syria, or even Iran to a degree, I'd believe it, but Turkey legitimately has its shit together militarily.
So now the strategic picture. I'd architect a military with the following missions: 1) Be able to handle terrorists or separatists. Kurdistan's never been a free country before and civil insurrection is a legitimate possibility. 2) Defeat arab sunni radicals or an invasion from the west or south (arabs). 3) hold off an invasion from Turkey. 4) stop an invasion, or more likely forestall an insurrection from infiltrators operating from Iran. 5) forestall an insurrection from infiltrators operating from Turkey but sponsored by Russia. 6) keep at least one* clear trade route over for trade.
That's one fucking serious mission. 5-6% GDP on military, easily. I'd love to spend less, but I can't see how eight million people will hold off a serious NATO partner plus several of the most dangerous regimes in the world all at once. Israel manages it, so it's doable, but if this is going to work the Kurds have to think like Israelis.
Which could be good for them. Nothing concentrates the mind like impending annihilation. You can put away a lot of "cultural pride" nonsense and get down to fucking business when the alternative is being destroyed.
Let's do it out of order, because I want to get #3 out of the way first. There's no fucking way a free Kurdistan will beat Turkey in a war. It's simply not going to happen. Turks are ludicrously well equipped, well trained, and getting sucked into a war you might or might not alienate Israel, but you'll sure as hell alienate the USA. At best you'll win neutrality from them.
So your only way out is a political/diplomatic solution. Present yourself not as a threat to their internal stability, but as a safety valve for Kurdish separatism. If a Kurd in Turkey really wants to live in a kurdish homeland, then get in a car and fucking drive there. And the Kurdish government will crack down on separatists like the PKK even harder than the Turks.
Call it "the Druze solution". Druze in Syria (and Golan) hate Israel and support Syria. Druze in Israel are fanatically pro-Israel, to the point that they're subject to conscription just like Jewish israelis. And Druze in Lebanon are geniuses at switching alliances to always be in bed with whichever faction has the upper hand. It's about pragmatism and survival; everyone gets that.
Like I said, impending doom gives you a marvelous clarity of thought. Do you want national pride or an actual fucking nation?
That means cozy relations, trade (the KRG's biggest trading partner is already Turkey), and intelligence sharing. It also probably requires Ergodan being out but if it gets this far that we're declaring independence, it's probably because Ergodan's initiatives have failed already.
We need something like a second amendment. You want Turkey to understand that if they accept a free Kurdistan, you'll stay the fuck out of their kurd problems, but if they invade then you'll be an insurgency nightmare. To me, what >>27786048 suggests is your LAST line of defense, not the first line. I'm all for my people being so steadfast that they still resist even after they've watched their wives and daughters being ass-raped by conquerers, but I'd rather not let them invade so I can find out. "Never surrender" is a great slogan for someone who's losing, but why let it get that far?
So /k/urdistan is pro-funz with a vengeance, for the same reason as the Swiss. Similar problem, similar terrain, similar solution.
I've got room so I'll knock #6 out of the way, too. What I want is a clear route for my oil to take to sea. The Black Sea and Caspian Sea are not good, but better than nothing. A pipe through Turkey to the Mediterranean and Europe is ideal.
A second conduit leading to the Persian Gulf will be useful, too. Wait, *Persian* Gulf? WTF? Friendly relations with Iran are desirable. Never mind the Great Satan and the Little Satan are your two best friends, this is business. The Arabs can't close off your route to the Indian Ocean and the Asian oil markets, but a nuclear Iran can. No more sanctions, either, so it's perfectly legal. We can argue about whether this was a good deal for America, but for the Kurds it's a fact that they have to adapt to.
If ISIS is destroyed and the Saudis or Jordanians come out on top, then great. Third pipeline. Why not? But that depends on how the Arab Spring plays out.
OK so why multiple pipelines? Game theoretic at work here. If it was JUST turkey, then they could always threaten to shut down the pipeline if they don't get concessions. This is called holdout power. Multiple pipelines denies your partners leverage, which means they won't confront you like this in the first place.
Armed, trained and motivated - note this last part, as it is the most important one - riflemen. And women, I suppose. Cover the nation with a density of roughly 10 per square mile of them, armed with at least rifles, LAWs, Stingers, Claymores and AT mines. Most takers will give up before the job's done, proven by the Afghans.
Now, if Jamaica wasn't a thoroughly demolished colony state, and had a military corresponding to their population, they'd have two dozen BMP-2's, about as many Buk platforms, 50-some T-72's of varying origin, a number of old but functional howitzers, AT guns and flak guns, and with mines, RPG's, Iglas, mortars, MT-LB's, and varying types of fitting and unfitting ammunition outta the wazoo. That would be enough to deter average invaders, such as the Soviet Union, but in face of their neighboring powers, is all down to the motivation of her people.
The problem with this defense strategy is that it's not just last ditch-- it actually assumes you'll be successfully conquered. It's like, "yeah you'll kill me and the rest of our government, and yeah you'll destroy our infrastructure and massacre our population, but you'll lose lots of troops, too."
It's better than nothing, but not much better. Countries that do that can brag about all the invaders who came and went, but at the end of the day they'll still be dirt poor and miserable. And the US proved you could occupy even a country like Afghanistan and keep casualties down. The Taliban were saved by the US's lack of political will and internal divisions, but next time a less squeamish country tries, it will have the template.
>>27802628 And you can fuck right off back to la la land, where fighting for independence after occupation doesn't count when it's the Good Team invading. Just fuck right off. The concept of war without homeland casualties is a purely American one, born out of a sheltered past. Your concept of defense relies entirely on being an outlier to conflicts your country is party to.
Thank god for widespread nuclear weapons, though. The day you johnny-come-latelies die screaming in nuclear fire to the last of you will be the happiest day of my life. You'll never get the idea that total war is a fun adventure for the whole family ever again. I can't wait for the Chinese and the Russian to maneuver themselves into the inevitable dead-end that will lead to their, and your, mutual extinction, because by God I hate all of you equally, you squelching human refuse.
Just to review: we're talking an independent Kurdistan made up of the Iraqi and Syrian kurdish regions. Turkey can't be defeated, so it has to be charmed. Iran can be beaten, and we'll talk about how, but better to keep things peaceful if at all possible. USA is a tepid, fickle, sometimes-ally. Israel is a very close friend, but not so close that they'd fight a war for them. Certainly not vs Turkey (nato).
Assume six million people. Per-capita GDP numbers are all over the place, so we'll be conservative and say $5000 (similar to Jamaica), for a total GDP of $30,000,000,000 (30 billion dollars).
5% of that is our military budget: $1.5 billion per year. That's stupidly high due to the incredibly high threat level; I'd lower it to 2% if it were at all possible, but it isn't. We're starting with essentially nothing. A quarter of that ($375 million) goes to each of Equipment, Personnel, Facilities, and "misc" (especially consumables) per year. Sounds like a lot, but this shit's expensive.
This intelligent, emotionally stable individual illustrates two points. First, war is about our side winning, not the other side losing. Ask the Vietnamese how much is sucks that they accomplished their objectives without defeating us in the field. So strategies like "allow them to conquer us and then we'll make them PAY!" are non-starters unless there's absolutely no alternative.
But second, especially in the developing world, you get anons like that guy running the show. All revenge and pride and hurt and anger. You get the emotional maturity of a 16yr old girl with borderline personality disorder setting national policy. (Which I have to admit >>27791422 figured out faster than I.) But it's absolutely a consideration, because whatever your government system, there's a huge constituency of guys like this in a new nation that have to be appeased but whose plan is to pre-emptively lose on purpose and then get dubious revenge after the fact.
The highest aspiration of a defensive military is to avoid situations where they'll ever have anything to get revenge for.
There are four possible sources for insurgency for the Kurds to worry about. Perhaps unfortunately, they're experienced with all of them.
First you have efforts at recruitment by ISIS. The Kurds are Sunnis, but are comfortable with their more traditional faith than the saudi-derived virulent version that's been making the rounds lately. Out of thirty million Kurds, a hundred or two were seduced by it and work for ISIS (abu al kurdi's group). It's enough for PR but not a serious threat at this point.
Second, you have a communist insurgency. These guys are much stronger and better organized and, sadly, better armed. Probably being sponsored covertly by Russia. Lately the PKK has distanced itself from communist ideology, probably because the american-style conservatives in the KRG in Iraq have made more progress in ten years than a century of PKK terrorism and communism. Nevertheless, if you're a country that wants chaos in the middle east, if you have the contacts, and if you want to fuck with NATO (like, say, Russia), then sponsoring a wave of PKK terror is a certainty.
Iran can do something like this on a much smaller scale. The Iranian Kurds are for staying with Iran, but won't shed blood stopping their brothers in Iraq and Syria from having a homeland. Nevertheless, the Iranians are bound to find *someone* who's willing to make trouble. They're diligent to find some kernel they can snowball into something. It's a minor threat compared to the commies or snackbars, but it's something.
Finally, there's the purely internal insurgency caused by ideological/tribal/personal rivalries. The Kurds fought a nasty civil war 20 years ago over this. The problem here is that it's a genuine conflict within the kurdish nation, and the way you choose to fight things out can make things worse than the rebellion itself. Yeah you crush them, but you ruin your own nation's stability doing it.
Fighting insurgencies requires a combination of intelligence and well-trained infantry, and a degree of political sophistication. (David Patraeus's field manual on COIN is very worth reading. It's based on a book about the french fighting in Algeria written by one of the officers there.)
You need a strong CI effort to find and squash the foreign intelligence officers sponsoring the insurgents, where applicable. Again, complicated, this time by the fact that Russia and Iran are much stronger than Kurdistan. You need a degree of deviousness and ruthlessness, tempered by political sensitivity, that you simply don't find in the United States.
The infantry can be seconded from other tasks, so I won't get into the size or composition of the formations.
A big part of this is ensuring that each of the family groups ("tribes") have a degree of autonomy and are invested in the economy. With arab groups this is virtually impossible, but the Kurds seem to like decentralized authority and local governance. Do that, and half the battle is won. The closer the cops are socially to the insurgents, the easier the insurgents are to find.
OK so all we have left is winning against invasions from the east (Iran) and South/West (Arab). We'll defend as best as we can against Turkey, but that's not a fight we can win. At best we can make them pay dearly for it and then suffer afterwards. Against the Persians and Arabs, I think /k/urdistan has a fighting chance of winning, so the real question is how we do this at the lowest risk and at the lowest cost in money, lives, and infrastructure.
>>27805566 /k/'s favorite country, Rhodesia, also did quite well overall with the COIN effort--if /k/urdistan was able to avoid Rhodesia's problem of sanctions and better manage the international propaganda efforts (not letting superbly successful strikes on enemy forces get portrayed as massacres, for instance), the Rhodesian model of anti-terrorism/anti-insurgency could be splendid one to scoop ideas from.
>>27803922 And this is where we enter the deep end of smug, modern Americanism. There's no point in arguing that guerilla warfare in this case is a question of "allow them to conquer us so we can make them pay", when we're discussing a subject of how a population of roughly 3 million can defend itself in an enviroment where offensive military campaigns by a nation with a population in excess of 300 million are commonplace. There is no "defending" in a situation such as that, only resisting.
Secondly, namecalling people for them being angry at an unstoppable foreign invader? Great show. This individual would thumb his nose at the Finns and the Balts for being invaded by the Soviets, the Korean for being overrun by the Japanese, or the Taiwanese for getting invaded by the PRC, because it appears that being angry over being invaded and occupied is such an immature sentiment that it deserves mocking. Used to be the principles of the United States stood for the cause of the oppressed, and against their oppressors, but I suppose after Vietnam, a number of South-American states, Afghanistan and Iraq, freedom fighters have become such a passê that the efforts of non-Americans aiming for emancipation and right to self-determination are a matter of scorn and ridicule.
>>27782340 Jamaican here. Officially we can ask for assistance from the British Government if I dunno Colombia decides to invade us but realistically, they are too far so I think the US would defend us if we appealed to them for the sake of Caribbean stability. If we are talking the West themselves invading us then it will have to be shitloads of missiles, landmines and guerrilla troops because our military is just a small defence force. We actually have good land for guerrilla action, the Maroons who were escaped slaves successfully beat off the British from their inland strongholds for centuries. My dad was in the JDF, all the equipment was British, he went on exchange student-style training in Britain, so our military is basically Western trained if that counts for anything
>>27782340 So... this ass doesn't really arouse me, but I just can't seem to stop looking at it. I'm enthralled by it but I'm not even getting a half chub. What's the deal here? Do I need to stop jerking off to Japanese cartoons?
There are six million kurds in the KRG, not three (actually five, but remember we're integrating Syria). They were thrilled when the Americans showed up, and not a single American soldier was killed in ten years in Kurdistan. An independent Kurdistan doesn't face invasion from America; invasion by Russia is a pretty remote possibility as well.
Against Turkey, /k/urdistan probably would lose, and invasion is a serious possibility. Hence the need for diplomacy... and preparation for a guerrilla phase as a deterrent.
Now we get to the two key conventional military threats that Kurdistan faces and for which its military will be armed and organized: Iran and whatever emerges from the Arab world.
Iran's per-capita GDP is similar to Kurdistan's ($5000), but the have close to 80 million citizens. The "arab world" depending on how you define it, ranges into the hundreds of millions, some with much higher per-capita GDPs. There's your 300 million-man juggernaut, and yet they're eminently beatable. A few million Israelis did it, and in 1948 they did it with farmers, rifles, and no outside support from the West. The high tech came later.
The military design I'm proposing can handle the Arabs, all 300 million of them, and probably can hold off the Iranians. Without resorting to after-the-fact guerrilla insurgencies. This has everything to do with the fact that its people and leaders think like this >>27806386. Read "Why Arabs Lose Wars". The secret is building a national and especially military culture that focuses on effectiveness, inventiveness, discipline, and training.
Notice how all that anon's posts spend most of their time going on about how much he hates Americans personally and all the historical injustices inflicted against ISIS or whoever. Who cares? We're talking about arming a free Kurdistan here. That's the mission. You're judged according to how well you accomplish the mission, not the quality of your blather about politics.
How's /k/urdistan working out? So far I've seen a good point about Rhodesia and some good questions early on, but mostly bitching from that ISIS guy so I was starting to wonder if anyone important's still reading.
OK so we're starting with Peshmerga and other militia-grade forces. They're very tough and highly motivated, if not terribly well trained from what I read. Essentially light infantry. Plus some militias loyal to other groups.
This isn't that different from Israel pre-1948. It's really interesting to read the story of that war, because the Israelis didn't have any of the advantages they have now. And yet they still won. So I think there's a lot of hope despite the terrible odds on paper.
$375 million available for vehicles purchasing per year. Figure you'll end up with an inventory worth ten times that... in ten years. But we'll need that force from day one. Hell, the kurds need that force *today*, and they're not even a country yet.
So some big differences with Jamai/k/a despite the similar standards of living. No need for a navy since we're land-locked. So really we're just talking army and air forces. Assume 3% of the population is under arms. That's 180,000 troops. Many of those will be support troops as before. But whereas I glossed over it in the last problem, facilities are a big deal in /k/urdistan because we've got those mountains, and that presents the potential for fortifications.
>>27785424 Iran wants nukes to real ancestors power in the middle east instead of it all being concentrated in Israel. Tbh this would lead to a mellowing out of the region only a retard would think that they would spend billions of dollars building nukes just to use them offensively and get btfo
Let's talk air power first. This is tricky, because as useful as it is, we're surrounded by countries with far larger and better-equipped air forces.
We've already given up on beating Turkey in a flat-out fight, but it's worth talking about their air force. Hundreds of F-16s supported with AWACS. Hell, they build their own F-16s. They are equipped to massacre Russians, and that's a job they can do.
Iran, on the other hand, still uses mostly the aircraft it inherited from the Shah. Which is to say, the flower of 70's technology. Plus two dozen Mig-29, which are modern 4th gen but slavshit. If Iran goes raiding, we'll be fighting those for air superiority.
With the Arabs, you have a wide variety. Hordes of slavshit, poorly maintained and incompetently flown. Plus Russian helicopters, which are excellent. But let's remember that if ISIS overthrows the Saudis, the whole complexion of the war changes. At that point you have large numbers of F-15s, Tornadoes, and Typhoons in snackbar hands. Yeah, the maintenance clock starts ticking. Yeah, America or Israel would destroy a lot of them, but we're talking about a potential of up to 400 4th gen fighters.
Plus you can't really build a solid air force overnight even if you had the cash, which we don't. Even if we blew our whole budget on nothing but the "cheap" Mig 29s, we'd still only be able to afford a dozen. Air superiority simply can't be established, and couldn't be exploited even if it could be. So we skip having an air force altogether. Maybe a couple token (cheap) planes for show. Maybe the Israelis would sell/loan an F-16 or two. Certainly we want helicopter transports, which are useful for all kinds of things even in peacetime. But that's it.
Which means that for air defense, we follow the soviet model and load up on manpads and self-propelled AA systems. Sorry, just being practical.
Is English your second language? I'm saying roughly the same thing as you, I think, if I understand you correctly.
Nukes are a security umbrella under which they can launch a conventional attack or openly support insurgent shiite proxies without fear of reprisal or American meddling. An intimidation tactic.
Though IMO this would NOT mellow the region, though. It would enable them to do what they did in Lebanon on the whole arabian peninsula.
Using a nuke on Israel is perfectly believable. In addition to being incredibly demoralizing, Israel is a tiny country with a high population density. A single nuke would cripple the nation. They'd have to do a deniable strike: give a weapon to a terrorist group or infiltrators posing as one. In the first days after the attack, they'd protest their innocence and call for a UN investigation and maybe even peace talks. The trick is to play for time. The calculation is that if months later the evidence shows that Iran *probably* sponsored the attack, that it would be too late for Israel to retaliate in kind and there'd be incredible pressure on them from their allies not to "escalate". And at that point they'd need those allies because they'd be in deep shit due to the direct and indirect damage from the attack.
The risk is that Israel might retaliate in kind immediately and to hell with the West. In which case Iran would indeed get btfo... but Iran's political and military leaders have stated publicly many times that they consider it worth it if they can destroy Israel. You may think it's stupid, or that it's all a pose, but that's what they say they believe.
>>27807763 Nothing wrong with the Soviet model per say, it's cheap and it works. Too bad the chances of the Kurds getting sold something like the S-300 or S-400 from Russia are probably about as good as the odds of me getting sold the same.
This is actually a major problem, because the Russians are a great source for cheap equipment that gets the job done. Yeah maybe they'll sell to all comers, but the Kurds are hardly a natural ally. It's not just "will they sell the platforms" but will they also provide service, support, and training in the future?
Before I go further, I want to look over what the Chinese are making, because that might be a way to get non-Russian Russian gear. Otherwise, we'll be cobbling together motor-rifle divisions from all over the world. I plan on borrowing liberally from their doctrine, but the diplomatic factor may rule out buying from their inventory.
>>27807925 Though America is such a fickle ally in this situation I would still suggest getting US style equipment. Old F-5s would be as cheap as the MiGs but they are are US made and so long as ISIS exists there is a good chance of America sending in trainers for those planes.
Also in this hypothetical situation what is preventing us from shifting forces and taking Latakia as a deep water port?
>>27807925 The typical problem with the MANPADS answer to enemy air, even in mountainous terrain, is of course them just flying over you. Even some of the smaller/cheaper vehicle-based SAM systems have this problem--denying air from 15k ft and below is great and all and does work better when parked on a 5k ft mountain, but remotely modern fighter-bombers can fly higher than that without sweating. If you want to properly deny enemy air you're going to need something like an SA-6 or better, or some stationary emplacements--and if the latter just count your lucky stars that you aren't trying to hold off a first-world military.
Now you're just shitposting. Israel doesn't even admit they have nuclear weapons. They've never threatened Europe; what you have are speculations of what might happen if and when.
Nuking Europe makes no sense. If Israel is nuked, it is doomed anyway, regardless of who enters a war on their side. Does Israel have some pressing need for conventional troops and weapons? Israel's wars are over in days, and the arabs have never managed to touch them conventionally. So what's the scenario where NATO jumping in after the fact makes any difference at all?
And nuking Europe would probably lead to them being nuked back, PLUS diplomatically isolated from whatever allies remain.
It's an arab fantasy that Israel has some secret plan to nuke London and Paris. What Israel almost certainly will do if they're nuked is to destroy Mecca, Medina, Damascus, and Tehran. Possibly more depending on which side other arab countries fall in on. 80% of Iran's population is concentrated in urban areas, for example.
>>27807763 Upgraded 3rd Gen fighters would be your best bet. F-5s, Mirage 2000s, MiG-23s, and their Sukhoi era equivalents would give you the most bang for your buck at first. This assumes /k/urdistan would be fighting only on the defensive in an air war at first. Later with borders more secure priority could shift to acquiring 4.5 gen aircraft for preemptive strikes and better air superiority over the country.
Small twin engine prop planes for transport would be required. Along with at least two medium sized cargo planes. C-130s or the Russian equivalent. Perhaps something bigger like an Il-76. Use these to easy logistics and eventually as a transport for airborne infantry.
Trainers and support staff would be required.
I cannot guess the numbers this would require but it would eat up a large portion of the budget and would be better after a solid ground force was established.
You would if you controlled the terrorists. Or if they were your special forces disguised as terrorists operating independently.
I don't think there's a serious worry that Hezbollah will nuke Tehran. But your point is well taken... they'd be VERY careful about who got the bomb.
The problem is the nuke itself. Bomb debris can be profiled to identify the origins of the nuclear material used to make it. Iran isn't sophisticated enough to fake this; it's not clear that even the US or Russia could.
Finally, there's the nightmare scenario. What if Iranian agents, even under the flag of a terrorist group, try to smuggle a bomb into Israel and are caught? Then you suffer almost all the problems of having used it, without actually managing to do any damage.
Absolutely right. What I'm counting on is that none of the countries involved are very good at high-altitude targeting. They can't fly high and drop precision ordnance the way we can. Well, Iran might. Maybe. Even if the arab world gets the hardware (from a coup in saudi, for example), their ability to use it is limited. And my understanding is that none of them have the inventory of precision bombs to conduct a sustained campaign.
That implies they fly low to identify targets, which opens the door to the smaller SAM systems.
But if you have a better idea, I'm all ears. The challenge is that we're trying to secure our airspace with virtually no budget. I'd love it if figuring out these puzzles became a collaborative exercise.
>>27808067 read the goddamn thread, we've already concluded that the kurds have a snowball's chance in hell of beating a country with a large modern air force like Turkey. In this scenario, we're only facing the Iranian Air Force, which consists mostly of old attack aircraft and fighters.
>>27808159 That's why I said be thankful that you aren't trying to hold off a first world country. Turkey is included in that.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_of_the_Iranian_Air_Force Take a look here though. Plenty of aircraft that don't mind getting up high, and they have a significant number available.
>>27808154 This is true. Hardened aircraft shelters are useful against countries that can't effectively employ PGMs.
Something to consider to nullify the Saud/UAE/Jordan/etc/etc/etc PGM threat--and degrade the aircraft's ability in general--are just acquiring some cost-effective GPS jammers. They don't have to be the techy sort that do electronic-jitsu, but can just be the loud kind that make all GPS in a large area shit-tastic. But as you said, a greater threat is of aircraft making runs with unguided GP bombs, and/or swatting any helos /k/urdistan might acquire. Good MANPADs (better than the SA-7) and mobile SAMs would significantly assist in making their life more difficult.
I'm assuming that they have consolidated into something, but not what that something is. Maybe an ISIS state or resurgent Syria. I'm trying to assume a free Kurdistan plus the picture more or less as it is now. With as few assumptions about what else might change as possible.
>>27801640 >Give them the benefit of the doubt. I am. In fact, I am stating my belief that they would be quite capable of creating a competent military force, and that their experience in warfare going back to Salah Ad 'Din should indicate that they would accomplish just that.
>>27808233 >Plenty of aircraft that don't mind getting up high, and they have a significant number available. and how many of those aircraft can drop bombs accurately from high alttitudes? Are you suggesting that Iran use giant groups of ground attack aircraft to carpet bomb areas? Because on that list I don't see any heavy bombers like the B-52
>>27808154 I suggest the approach the Japanese had in WW2
an underground series of bunkers/caves that are essentially impossible to kill from the air. It also serves as a defense against ground forces because the bunkers can serve as strongpoints against any advances made by enemy units. Since air attacks can't destroy the strongpoints, it means that the airspace in those areas does not have to be as heavily defended
This method won't work for all of the territory, but having to secure less airspace means that the kurds can save some cash
>>27808256 Then can we assume a no fly zone enforced by the US (at least) until the situation is more stable? That seems a likely outcome. This would allow /k/urdistan to focus on MANPADS and other anti-helicopter systems in the short run. Once those are in place an effort can be made for some sort of long range SAM. Counter SEAD can be accomplished by (1) good training (2) jerry rigging things to give off huge radar signatures. A couple hundred microwaves in a field would do the trick.
>>27808102 With the huge cost of fighters and the threat picture we're looking at I am of the opinion that buying NO fighters is the better choice. Or similar to Jamai/k/a, not even a proper handful of trainer/light fighters so that you can intercept non-combat aircraft. If you are going with the Soviet model you are unlikely to have the cash to train both your pilots and SAM crews to work in a contested airspace. The Iranians have shot down some of their own pilots--high ranking ones even--thanks to this sort of thing. The SAM network is likely to be a lot cheaper for overall costs, so focus on that and keep a few fighters for things like terrorist/smuggler/asshole interception without risking them against jets that outclass them. The Iranians seem to have a good use so far of their F-5s. The nice thing is that this frees up a lot of money for the rest of the air force, and you'll be needing that.
For aircraft, the categories I'd expect a better return on investment would be transport (troops, supplies, VIPs), recon, and air to ground attack. Less exciting sorts of aircraft than sleek fighters: some small to medium transports, light recon props, helos of whatever sort you can get your hands on (a lot of Mi-17s in this area of the world), and maybe some Super Tucanos or Su-25s, though even some of the helos or light recon jets with rocket pods could do well enough here.
>>27808305 You won't be saving as much cash as you think, if any at all--manmade underground structures are expensive, in money, time, materials, and expertise. There's a reason the Afghanis tended to have any fortified locations in natural-formed caves. The Kurds aren't bristling with earthmoving equipment either. You can look at the North Koreans (and the Chinese) to see countries that are digging in, literally, and you'll see that they've put enormous amounts of effort and resources into the enterprise. (Shit, the North Koreans are practically the mole people nowadays--shrinking from malnutrition and digging tunnels/complexes everywhere.)
Oh no we aren't buying fighters. That is a waste of money. I am just guessing that like after the Gulf War (maybe others?) the US enforced a pretty serious no fly zone over the areas. That prevents an immediate Iranian air attack.
>>27808305 I do like the Japanese tunnel idea if there are natural cave systems like >>27808361 notes. Take it to a Swiss level and prep how ever little infrastructure we have for destruction wouldn't be a bad idea either.
>>27808379 1-4 light fighters (in this case probably just letting some retired Western expats fly them as it's more of a shortgap thing... I know it's a penny wise maneuver but we really don't have the infrastructure or funds otherwise in this scenario--that said, other aircraft should be Kurds flying them, for the reasons stated earlier in the thread) could provide quite a few options though. Namely, swatting down/chasing off/escorting away any helos, transports, or recon craft that are in your airspace either to piss you off or to cause actual problems. Likewise for making sure yours isn't a place for terrorist/smuggler aircraft to set down in or pass through. Something like an F-5 can also be pressed into ground attack if the situation calls for it (in this case, if things were dire), or do fast-response recon. I think even just a pair of fighters for a single captain+wingman setup really opens up your options for controlling the airspace though and grants you a lot of flexibility; there are things that a lower-tech SAM network has trouble with, such as properly forcing down unauthorized flights with a minimum of international fuss or covering all parts of a country for various altitudes of aircraft.
This is something to expand your capability to handle low-threat scenarios, not something for an Iranian invasion or the like. It shouldn't take more than a small fraction of the total air force's budget, and the air force itself is surely going to have a lower proportion of funds than Jamai/k/a would allow it, since /k/urdistan really needs to be able to meet its foes on the ground to survive.
>>27808499 Absolutely. There would be a lot of questions regarding who's willing to sell what to the Kurds. Anti-air and anti-tank missiles, lots of them, and the best types I could get, would be right at the top of my acquisitions list if I were drawing up a recommended table of equipment and order of battle; along with enough training in their use to ensure they weren't wasted. Nullify the enemy technical advantage and make it about the infantry, and make sure the infantrymen are given sufficient training, pay, and equipment/vehicles to make the thought of them fighting defensively stick in the neighbors' craws.
>>27808550 Personally I think any aircraft for the kurds is throwing away money because Iran has surprisingly good air superiority aircraft. Your light fighters just don't have a chance against Iranian F-14s and Fulcrums.
Not to mention the weakness that airfields present and the costs of finding and maintaining equipment for your fighters
>>27808658 >>27808650 You're focusing to narrowly on a single threat. ISIS, AQ, and other non-nation actors are definitely something you'd find aircraft to be highly useful against, whether that's to quickly maneuver ground forces, supplies, do airborne ISR, or direct attack. Responses to terrorist incidents might well be supported by aircraft (see Algeria in 2012 or 2013 with the oil rig).
Even against other nation-states like Iran, aircraft can be very useful. Recon before a war actually kicks off can give you useful intelligence for martialling your own forces, and transport helps there again with troop movement and supply. Even once hostilities have commenced, that doesn't mean a grounding of all aircraft; coordinate with radar installations to fly when the Iranians won't be able to intercept easily; better still, train your SAM operators well so that you can have transports pass through SAM-defended airspace at low level, while any F-4s that poke their nose near will have something chasing their exhaust. (I wouldn't recommend having friendly fighter ops in SAM-defended areas but obvious transports or helos, sure.)
>my azn pics are the higher quality collection of mine but sadly for the purposes of this thread so few of them are blue board
>>27808748 sure, aircraft can be useful, but are they cost effective?
In a perfect world, the Kurdish forces would get all the tanks, aircraft, artillery, rifles, etc that they needed. However, we have a low budget and we are trying to make an army from scratch in a country that has just recently been created and is in a very perilous diplomatic situation. Sure, adding aircraft gives you additional capabilities, but it involves a lot of resources. You mention several tactics that most first world militaries could easily pull off, (coordinating with ground based radar, not shooting friendly aircraft) but you have to realize that the military initially will have the bare minimum of training to operate their equipment. First world militaries take months to train their radar operators, I expect that in order to have their men ready ASAP, the kurds will cut corners.
Am I saying that the kurdish military shouldn't invest in aircraft at all? No. At a later point, the development of a Kurdish Air Force will become a necessity in order to boost the military capability of the hypotheical Kurdish nation. However, initially, an air force would be a significant expense without a reasonable return.
>>27785202 >>27789662 >>27791505 Back to Jamaica/Whatever I really think you're looking at the Air Force all wrong. Your concerns are >Search and rescue >Smugglers in Boats >Smugglers in planes Really that's it, but it's more trouble than you think. Smugglers are serious shit, with Fast boats, Dive boats, planes ranging from piston engine General Aviation stuff to high-subsonic business jets. So what you need is two separate planes >Something that can do SAR/Patrol/Ghetto ASW >Something that can mount AA missiles and run down say, a Challenger 600 In the "Infinite money" you'd run a mix P8 Poseidon, helicopters and supersonic interceptors but of course that's way out of our budget here, the poor man's version would be. >Some commercial helicopter Some solid workhorse, like a bell 206 >Some cheap naval patrol aircraft There are a few options here but I'd lean to something like the navalised Dash-8 or the navalised CN-235 on the high end or the navalised Twin Otter on the low end >Something that can run down a business jet You've already covered this part, a half-squadron of Jet Trainers should do the trick
Just to be clear, I didn't include any maritime patrol aircraft, but we did have copious marine helicopters, including a couple deployed from the decks of our frigates/destroyers. We're pretty much on the same page about threats; I was replying in detail to a particular anon's concerns. Fixed wing threats are something we need SOME answer to, but it's not really a focus of our air force. The helicopters are really all about surface threats. For our geographic footprint, they're perfect for a long list of jobs, including interdicting smugglers.
Plus of course patrol boats. That puts paid to any threat on or under the water that a drug cartel can muster. If something more serious appears, you call in your allies. Who would love to practice ASW for real.
You might be right about the volume of fast fixed-wing traffic through the airspace. If it's really that high, then maybe we spring for a few more patrol aircraft at the expense of some helicopters. That's a change you can make later as part of your normal procurement cycle.
Some excellent posts raising important issues and my dick. Well done anons!
I agree about the light jet trainers. Just a couple. You're right about four fighters vs dozens of fulcrums. Against Iran I wouldn't even bother using them, but vs arab threats like ISIS they'd come in mighty handy. Hell, what's a used, old-model F-16 go for? Either way, it's a couple years to train up the pilots and maintenance crews, so it's something on our to-buy list for later. My feeling about procurement is that we buy it from the Israelis, who also provide training to our pilots and maintenance techs. They have a large Kurd population there already, so it's a natural fit.
This whole argument applies to helicopters, btw. Shitty 3rd gen fighters are perfectly adequate for eliminating our helicopters. Whereas with Jamai/k/a we lean heavily on them, with /k/urdistan we'll want to use them sparingly. Which means artillery becomes more important. (This line of thought is part of why I favor a soviet org chart.)
Unnaground is a smart move... something to think about for the future. Keep in mind, a bunker proof against the high explosives in a bomb are ALSO a pain in the ass to excavate even with high explosives used by your engineers.
GPS jamming can't be that easy, can it? Eliminate the enemy's precision strike capability, prevent them from flying low (via SAMs), and yeah they'll have air superiority but you'll have mostly denied them the benefits of it.
Let's figure out the land force budget, then fill in the gaps with air power where possible. We'll want to start with a solid MBT, IFV, APC, and SP mortar and howitzer. Something cheap that we can procure on the open market or from the non-NATO west. We don't want a supply chain that Turkey can fuck with diplomatically if we can avoid it, but obviously this is limiting our options.
Yeah, I was echoing your sentiments. That's yet another reason to follow the soviet model, because they append a small air arm to their land forces. Also, an american style separation of roles requires coordination we can't depend on a new army immediately having, and we won't have enough air power to form its own arm of service in any event.
Because the requesting anon has good sense and excellent taste. Because people are chiming in with pics if they have them, ideas if they have those, and critiques if they can think of them. People are contributing the best of what they have and don't feel obligated to jump in with whatever they can think of.
And because for the last 20 years, people have been snowed under with porn. I'm a click away from every possible grossly biological act I can think of, without even leaving this site. And yet after all this time, what I really like seeing are pretty girls dressed attractively. If this were /s/, there'd be some obligation for it to be Porn.
Finally, because the pretty girls are just the incentive. We're talking reasonably about pretty dry and complicated issues. The girls just lighten the mood and keep us happy and productive.
>>27808550 >/k/urdistan really needs to be able to meet its foes on the ground to survive.
>>27808499 >Another problem I can see the kurds having is facing armor. I imagine that Iran has plenty of russian monkey models lying around, so the kurds can expect to face significant armored assaults.
>>27810133 >We'll want to start with a solid MBT, IFV, APC, and SP mortar and howitzer. Something cheap that we can procure on the open market or from the non-NATO west. We don't want a supply chain that Turkey can fuck with diplomatically if we can avoid it, but obviously this is limiting our options.
My vision is that we already are knee-deep in light infantry. Eventually, we'll revisit the issue, but for a first pass we can rely on Peshmerga to do those jobs and let's concentrate on doing the jobs they can't.
That means a mechanized force. Soviet forces follow a simple 3+1+1 organizational style at almost every level. Three units of infantry supported by one unit of armor and one of artillery. A major general's job is bigger than a colonel's, but not all that different. Armor formations come in groups of three, with one of artillery and one of supporting infantry. The formations then add a laundry list of supporting assets plus staff.
I'd then move everything down a level, since we don't have the vast formations that the Russians used to have. We can afford to control them more finely. So combined arms appears at the battalion level, rather than at the regimental level as you have with the old soviets. It's not as striking a change as you'd think: Russia switched from a divisional to a brigade system several years ago, and the US did much the same. For a smaller force that you want more precise control over, it seems like the way to go.
This gives each unit a nice mix of tanks, mech infantry, and artillery. Now all we have to do is drill down to (comparative) specifics.
We're an even smaller island with extremely limited land to store equipment, train conscripts and transport AFVs. We're also surrounded by kebab who want to ensure a status quo with our military might and theirs.
So what do we do? Maintain ties with NATO in order to do cross training, co-develop technology and buy weapons from each other without being overtly suspicious. Being a tiny ass country with little land to defend, our entire plan is to make sure we get the first strike, and strike so hard the enemy have to call off their attack or divert their forces, exposing themselves to a counterattack.
This involves a complex sequence of combined ops to sabotage enemy supply lines/communications with an elite commando force, followed by a combined strike from armor, infantry and air force backed up by artillery and supply lines.
Air defense wise we rely on detecting threats early such that our own aircraft can intercept them or else have ground based air defenses do it. To my knowledge we don't have MANPADs since we have little land so GBADs are enough to maintain the local airspace, and the air force would handle air superiority over longer distances
In this case you could start with basic infantry regiments, create an elite spec ops group trained in subterfuge and sabotage, create an armor division with old ass NATO/soviet tanks (we started with ex israeli AMX-13 light tanks) with 3 tonners for transportation and also an aviation corp for helicopters. If you got more cash you can have an air force from old F-16s and better tanks, and a navy if you're really commiting a fuckton of GDP to defence.
>>27812230 >Now all we have to do is drill down to (comparative) specifics.
Well let's get to it.
>Guy who posted the majority of pics here >Got a warning about posting non-/k/ related pics in this thread and as you can see some got deleted >So any further pics will be girls with guns >inb4 'just ban evade'
For at least our core formations, it pretty much has to be tracks IMO. My understanding is that you simply can't armor a wheeled vehicle enough for the mission.
But where the Soviets use APCs, I think there's an argument for a LAV-type vehicle. The idea is that you save on price, maintenance, and reliability. That would have been a very hard sell a decade ago, but the stryker kind of sold Americans on the LAV concept (and that's even with the stryker's flaws).
I'm curious what the soldiers on the board think of that. Basically, you'd have a regiment with five battalions: 1x IFV, 2x wheeled APCs, 1x tanks, and 1x artillery. Plus support units and the formations aren't quite so cut and dried, but you get the point.
As we established above (>>27807618), we worked out that the Army of kurdistan will have a strength of roughly 180,000 troops. I just looked up the peshmerga's current strength and the current estimate is 200,000. Heh, that wasn't on purpose but it was right on the money.
A motor-rifle division will require about 15,000 troops, about 300 tanks, 150 IFVs, 250 APCs, about 250 SP artillery vehicles of various kinds, and about 70 AA vehicles of various kinds. Plus support vehicles, plus the gear the infantry carry. It consists of a tank regiment, an IFV infantry regiment, two infantry regiments in APCs, and an artillery regiment.
Figure about a thousand combat vehicles total, plus support vehicles. Here's the point where we have to start talking specifics, because depending on what we buy, it might actually be possible to fit this into one year's budget.
The Iranian army, the gold standard of what we need to be able to defeat, has a strength of roughly ten divisions, and 300,000 soldiers. Globalsecurity.org says the open literature on Iran's strength and unit organization is vague and contradictory, so grain of salt here.
I think (again depending on what shit we buy), we might well be able to outfit /k/urdistan's MR divisions as fast as we can train them. Probably we have enough budget to outfit a division every two years.
I'd suggest building up to two divisions as fast as possible, then working on improving their quality and getting procedures and institutional knowledge up and running. Eventually, we aim for three mechanized divisions, but before the third division comes online we go back and professionalize the peshmerga's light infantry.
Remember, eventually the war will be over and the threat will subside. You can't blow 5% of your GDP on defense forever, at least not without your likely opponents' economies outstripping yours and then outspending you anyway. So just because we can afford to buy shit at 5% doesn't mean we should do it.
How do we make 3 divisions beat 10 divisions? Several reasons, partly organization and leadership. It means a huge investment in training and professionalism.
>>27815144 >Here's the point where we have to start talking specifics, because depending on what we buy, it might actually be possible to fit this into one year's budget.
Too bad they can't pull an ISIS and just steal a shitload of arms and vehicles from their enemies. (Or maybe they can but I'm not sure how since you don't hear about ISIS leaving gobs of equipment behind like the Iraqi mil/security forces were.)
Immediately, but I'd rather get an idea of what we're buying for ground forces and how much it will cost. Then we can figure out the schedule we buy on. My rough feeling is that we get a mechanized infantry division online by the end of year 2, having trained on the earliest deliveries.
Leftover funds from our budget can go into combat engineering equipment (critical for a defensive war in mountainous terrain). Then from there we buy transport helicopters.
Yeah but you get a limited selection that way. OTOH, they're a perfect country to partner with for training the personnel. They're already allies and have good relations.
A safe zone in which to conduct exercises, world class training and competence, a large kurdish ethnic population already having lived there for two generations. Plus extremely familiar with the likely opponents and the local conditions. Germany would be another choice (also lots of expats living there) but you lose regional expertise.
So yeah second hand Israeli gear is an option, if the price is right. Some designs like the Merkava are ill-suite for Kurd requirements, not to mention the question of how you get a tank that big and heavy from israel to kurdistan. Not far to go... but that whole space in between is controlled by your enemies. Also, Israelis don't use IFVs, do they? Apparently they don't believe in the concept.
So we need to nail down selections for wheeled APC, wheeled or tracked IFV, and tank designs. Any nominations?
>>27816713 M113 or BMP are both good to go. The more important thing is training and maintenance. Pick one and run with it. Or average the cost between slavshit and u.s. surplus from 1980 and go to work.
Also, combat engineers can use infantry type APCs and civillian earth moving equipment which has been uparmored.
There is an old fashioned tactic for everything. No AVLB or Grizzly? Bailey bridges are (very) cheap. No MiCLiC? Bangalore that shit. Or go full light fighter with a grappling hook on a line. That's what engineers are for.
Mine rollers, dragon's teeth, concrete barriers, and other shit like that are pretty low tech and can be fabricated cheap in country, too.
TLDR, stand the engineer battalions up simultaneously with the infantry regiments they will support. Or have an engineer platoon in every battalion of infantry.
Egypt is at peace with them as of the 70's, and hasn't been in a war since. Jordan has been at peace with Israel since 1994, and hasn't been in a war since. Turkey has been their military ally for decades and hasn't been at war since. Iran was a military ally of Israel for decades, was doing great, and then had the revolution. Shortly after breaking ties with Israel, they were embroiled in the Iran-Iraq war.
So while arguably peace with Israel doesn't directly lead to peace anywhere else, when has any nation allied with Israel been attacked as a result. I'm not just saying this won't happen, or doesn't always happen. At least so far, it's NEVER happened.
I suppose you could say that ISIS is fighting everyone, so... but that's the thing. They're at war with the whole world at once. Israel has nothing to do with it.
More importantly, the Kurds are ALREADY allied with Israel. And already at war with the Sunni arabs in the west and facing a threat from Iran in the east. And hostility from Turkey in the North. The USA is fickle and has mostly withdrawn from the region.
Basically, Israel's the only possibly ally they have. If the arabs and Iran attack, it won't be because /k/urdistan accepts military aid and opens an embassy, it's because they were going to attack anyway.
But don't let that stop you. If you think this isn't the right geopolitical move, then propose an alternative. I'm not married to an israel alliance if there's some plausible superior other option.
My issue with the BMP is that in practice people don't seem to ride in them so much as on them. Are they actually practical for real-world use? I suppose that's the american in me talking. I'm fine w/ slavshit for this application: you want maximum bang for their shitty budget.
I forgot that Israel has a huge inventory of M113s that they're trying to get rid of. That might be the ticket. The whole point of going wheeled is that they're cheap, but cheap tracked is even better. The M113 is a proven design, and the Israelis are phasing theirs out in favor of the Eitan. So it's a buyer's market. $300,000 new (not in active production but the production lines are still open). Say $150,000 for a used A3?
OK, then M113 for APC duties it is. That chassis is so damn versatile that it also takes care of most of our utility combat vehicles (the ones we don't use uparmored civilian vehicles for).
Now for a tank and an IFV.
Thread replies: 267 Thread images: 51
Thread DB ID: 74863
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.