please stop bashing France

U¿ytkownik "phil hunt" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
I agree that Polish armed forces (including the air forces) are
substandard compared to the major NATO members.. Poland is on par with
Spain, I would think. It cannot be compared with DE, US, UK, FR or IT.

Hmm. I'm not sure this is true? What fighter does Poland currently
use? I'm guessing it's the MiG-29, which is better than anything the
RAF has (until Typhoon becomes operational) or the elderly
Starfighters italy uses.
Well.. the Kosovo war had proven that the type of the plane is secondary in
importance as long as it carries the AMRAAM. BVR sets the standard in todays
airtoair. MiG29 (as is su27/30/35) is as everybody knows a very capable
dogfigter but that is exactly why NATO developed BVR weapons and tactics. I
think I can prove a point that it is easier to exploit the technological
advance (avionics, radar, datalinking) in BVR then in dogfight. I may call
BVR the fight of the avionics whereas dogfight is the fight of the airframe.
Currently both the RAF's F3 as well as Luftwaffe's F-4 ICE have the AMRAAM
capability albeit I am not sure about the mid-course guidance. I am pretty
sure F3 got this sort of upgrade before Iraqi Freedom, but the Phantoms have
not. Mid-course guidance is essential in exploiting the capabilities of
AMRAAM to the full (range, precision, "kill zone"). Secondly for instance
the Phantoms have no sqawk IFF. That is they can be identified as friendlies
but they cannot identify others as friendlies. The AWACS/Ground Controler
must do that for them. I don't really need to explain how important that is
in BVR?
In comparsion MiG29 has only a limited BVR capability. The Radar is crap,
the RWR and ECM are poor or not existent. It has no R77 capablity (at least
the Polish MiGs don't have it; MiG29M, MiG29 SMT of course have R77 in their
armoury) Western figters are able to attack better (radar, AMRAAM) and
defend better (active built-in ECM). In dogfight it is a class for itself
with IRST and helmet cueing. But F3 and F-4 would kill it much earlier in
the engagement with an AMRAAM. This scenario proved right with F16MLU/F15
and MiG29 over Serbia.

As for attack planes Poland has Su22M4, RAF gas Tornado GR4 and Luftwaffe
just simple Tornado IDS, that it plans to upgrade to a standard similar to
GR4. GR4 is probably the best attack plane in Europe (maybe Mirage 2000N
might be a contender). I don't even want to talk about the aircrew training
(RAF again the best in Europe, war experience wise). Armoury, again, is in
different class. GPS aided Paveway II and III, Storm Shadow, Brimstone..
Poland as yet has nothing like this.

Hence in both air-to-air as air-to-ground Poland is gigantly inferior in
comparsion to RAF and Luftwaffe.

Yet
in comparsion to the Eastern Europe there is nothing except Russia (of
course...) Ukraine and maybe Belarus that can match Poland. The Polish
army
is changing fast. We have 48 F16bl52+ on order, which will be quite a
capable plane (with Pantera XR pod, Aim-9X, JSOW, JDAM to name the more
novel systems). Army has around 700 Patria AMV on order, which are the
most
up to date wheeled infantry carriers on the market.

That's similar to what Finland, Sweden and Norway use, IIRC. There's
also a 6x6 vehicle in the same family, the XA. It seems a capable
family of vehicles. I particularly like the idea of a dual 120 mm
mortar, shown he
Not exactly. AMV is a completely different vehicle then Patria X-Series. As
for now there are a few dozens of AMVs on order for Finland as AMOS mortar
system carriers...

http://members.surfeu.fi/stefan.allen/amv8x8.html

.... as can be seen on the photo you provided )) Poland will have an IFV
version with 30mm cannon (ATK MK44, which is a vvvvery good cannon) and
Spike missiles. All Polish AMVs par a few dozens 6x6 recce platforms will be
a 8x8 version (c130 airportable, albeit nobody knows in which C130 version
;P)

The UK did have a program for an 8x8 vehicle, the Boxer. They spent
large amounts of money together with Germany and the netherlands
developing this vehicle (why? there's plenty of wheeled armoured
vehicles on the market -- the patria series, the MOWAG Piranha, the
BTR-80 and -90, etc. A new one is unlikely to be much better since
automotive technology is mature).
I think one can divide the wheeled carriers in 8x8 configuration in two
categories: one is light and can be represented for instance by Pandour II
and Piranha III and a heavy one like Piranha IV, Boxer and the
French-project-I-dont-remember-monicker-for. AMV seets exactly between those
two categories. We in Poland basically love everything scandinavian (IKEA,
SAAB and VOLVO especially . I had sit in the Patria AMV and I can say that
in comparsion to Piranha III it is in different class. Ergonomics are great
(typicaly scandinavian), quality is superb (scandinavia again) and the price
is adequate (scandinavia again).

Then Britain decided it didn't want the Boxer, it wanted something
lighter that could be easily transported. So it's now paying over
the odds (GBP 400k per vehicle IIRC) for something that's likely to
be little better than the land rovers ans Saxons the British army
already uses (and are cheaper) or the Humvees the USA uses (and are
also cheaper).
those are different systems. UK is in big mess because:
1) TRACER program got cancelled in the US, and the future british scout
vehicle was to be based on this
2) BOXER is really crap - to heavy, to expensive, built for future with
todays technology
3) for liason vehicle they have chosen an italian vehicle!!!!! (an Iveco)
Anybody here ever drove a Fiat (bad and ugly) or Alfa Romeo (bad and
beautiful)?
We have just taken over
128 Leopard 2 A4 MTBs from Germany, and now there are talks of upgrading
them to the A5 or A6 standard.

This is a pretty decent tank, comparable to the British Challenger
II.
yep. A4 version is comparable and A5 and A6 are better then Challenger2.
LeoIIA5/A6 won competitions in Spain, Sweden and Greece against Challenger2.

There are around 220 PT-91 Twardy MTBs in
line. Those are modifided T72Ms. More of the old T72 might get so called
NATO modification (including 120mm smoothbore gun).

Britain had some Challenger I tanks, not the latest thing, but
still a respectasble tank. Instead of storing them or using them for
reserve units, it stupidly gave them away (to Jordan).
well... PT-91s are crap but A tank is better then no tank.

Spike is longer-ranged than Javelin (4 km v. 2.5 km). Did Poland
consider the Russian Kornet (range 5 km)?
In contrary to the official line (Poland loves everybody... bla bla bla)
Polish forces, and especially the heavy component (MTBs, 150mm artillery,
SAMs, SPAAGs) will be tuned to face Russia. The light forces might be
deployable wherever they are needed but the heavy ones are to defend Poland
from the East. At it will stay that way. History tought as many lessons ))
Therefore it is hardly possible to buy russian equipement including the
Kornet. It is a great antitank weapon but I am pretty sure russian
Shtora/Arena systems are close to perfect in making them useless (after all
they would know all the frequencies...). If ever the antitank missiles were
used, It would be agains Russian MBTs with Shtora/Arena fitted invading
Poland... I am pretty sure all Kornets would miss their targets.

The UK is currently considering either Javelin or Spike.
go for javelin.

They aren't (AFAIK) considering Kornet, presumably because it might
offer better value for money (longer range, and probably cheaper).
AFAICT, the UK govmt isn't interested in value-for-money when buying
military equipment.
I think that you are wrong. The problem is that you cannot compare western
weapons with russian ones. For instance Su27 are simple stunning visually.
But closer you get to them the less atractive they seem. On a paper they
look powerful, but in reality they break more often then Yugo. The quality
is appaling. The spare parts management system is no existent. Those weapons
are not tested to the level the western ones are. Look at the future figters
programs. JSF/X35/YF35 is already running for around 8 years and the
inservice date is still 5 or 6 years out in the future. Russians just
started (or rather are trying to start) their own project with the same in
service date as F35. That means that the definition/testing/evaluation phase
will be 8 to 10 years shorter!!! Not to mention that what US/UK are spending
on JSF might be many times over the WHOLE Russian defence budget for a few
years combined. As a result the next russian figter will be technologically
inferior, less tested and therefore less capable then F35. In todays world
with money comes technology. If somebody disagrees please look at this year
Nobel laureates, and find somebody from outside US/UK (Peace Nobel does not
count . To sum up the russian weapons are indeed cheaper but it is not a
miracle value for money deal, it is just inferior capablity and inferior
quality. The Brits should be happy, that their country is able to provide
their soldiers with the best warfighting tools for whatever amount of money.
After all there is absolutely no chance that the 1k Yugo would be a better
car then a 150K Aston Martin DB9.

In a sensible world Poland would look to jointly developing with
other European partners a family of cheap UAVs/UCAVs/cruise
missiles.
Cheap and European does not match ) There are two ore-UCAV families in
Europe: Swedish and French (Duc series). Remember that France is just buying
Israeli UAV (of course rebranded by EADS) as it has non of its own. In
compariosn USA has Predator (A and turboprob B version) and of course Global
Hawk. It is developing numerous new UAVs as well as at least 2 serious UCAV
lines.. I wont even mention DARPA projects (Rotorcrafts and else). From the
technological point of view there are the USA then a long gap, then Israel,
then a long gap and then maybe Germany/France (KZO UAV).
(Finland would be a good partner, since like Poland it
doesn't have money to waste on over-priced development programs).
We have no money, and no technology. Moreover we would ever need maybe 10 or
15 Predators. It is a waste to put a lot of money on a high risk development
to built a dozen of airframes.
iof a guy in New Zealand can build a cruise missile in his garage
for $5000, this ought to be a sensible proposition.
it wasnt a cruise missile.. it was a "cruise" missile. weapons are not built
like this. I thin there was a good ilustration of this in one of the West
Wing episodes. Dona ask some US Navy officer why they waste 400 bucks for an
ashtray. He breaks one and shows her that US Navy glass ashtrays are design
to break exactly into 4 pieces with no sharp ends. One would not want to
have 100 pieces of a broken regular 5 bucks glass asktray during a life
saving manover during a combat. He got the point I would think.
Cruise missile cost so much because they need to perform reliably everytime.
This guy's "cruise" might have cost 5000 bucks.. but what was it range? how
reliable it was? what was the warhead? what was the fuse? what was the
navigation systems? how was it EMP shielded? How long is its shelf warranty?
What are the redundant systems? Add all of this and you get to the price of
JAASM

take care
lekomin inc