NATO Military News

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
I am ignorant.But i knew,that AS missiles are much cheaper then frigate,and Baltic is not place where frigate could be out of enemy missiles range.
In theory, yes, missiles are cheaper than a frigate. The problem lies, as always, with economics.
The anti-aircraft defenses of modern ships will only be broken by a huge number of them. That's one thing, and yet we're talking about just one ship! Add to this that frigates are pack ships, they will never sail alone. It is safe to assume that it will be a situation of two at sea + one in port. This way there will be a constant rotation of units.
What does this give? Well, if we assume that to penetrate the ship's defenses we need at least three times as many anti-ship missiles as a given ship has anti-aircraft missiles, then in the case of a team of ships this cost increases massively.

As for the second, you know in theory yes in practice no.
First of all, you have to find such a ship and that won't be so easy. Secondly, you have to prepare a suitable mission to destroy such a ship. It's not like an infantry position on land that you see a target then you shoot. It takes time, first to plan your actions, then to fire missiles and then to get the missiles to the target and only then to try to break through the defenses. The best fleets are able to do this in 15 minutes.
The joke is that the Russian Navy is able to carry out this process but in... 4 hours. To underscore the patheticness, know that this is enough time for the Mieczniks to sail from Gdansk to Szczecin.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
And in return, you have the firepower of a dozen such batteries in one place and far greater mobility than land-based counterparts. More importantly, they are immediately on the water, so they give you much greater response time than tethered SAMs on land.
Is it greater mobility? Most of our country is not within ~100km of sea.
Being in one place as i said is not a good thing. If for a strange reason you need to concentrate truck based SAMs, no problem to deploy them in one place. But again, why would you want to. You can have it spread over few kilometers or more, it covers more terrain and is harder to destroy, with good preparations, decoys, prepared positions, it could take dozens, even hundreds of missiles to take it out. A ship though, needs just one hit to be at minimum out for weeks, or with a good hit, be good only for scrap.
Admittedly, but it's in my reckoning, the gains are worth the risk of losing such a unit. And, against all odds, it will be very hard to lose such a one.

Akurat is no disadvantage, the seas, even such as the Baltic, are quite large bodies of water. It's quite easy to hide ships on such and hard to find them. Even the best fleets (and let's not kid ourselves Russia doesn't have one) have problems finding vessels on them. Let alone the Russians will have! So I wouldn't exaggerate the problems with stealth.
Baltic is not Pacific. It's not that easy to hide something there, and if we are having them for coastal air defense, that's a hint for where they will be, they won't be hanging out off the coast of Sweden, they couldn't do their job from there.
We also don't have the kind of fjord and island filled coastline Sweden or Finland do.
Take a ruler to the Baltic, even 1k miles is crossing the whole thing with a lot to spare.
To give you an idea of the scale, the sea distance from Gdansk to Palermo, Italy, going around whole Europe, is just 3.5k nautical miles.
On the other hand, such a single battery carries far fewer missiles at once than any ship. What would break through a land-based defense, for a ship, would pose no challenge. So something for something, either large firepower but time-consuming reloading or small but quick reloading.
No, battery doesn't mean one launcher truck.
Battery means radars, command vehicle, launcher vehicles, and supply vehicles.
A US Patriot battery is 5-8 launchers with 4 or 16 missiles each, plus spares.
Going by some purchases they may get 126 missiles with a battery, some can be transported on trucks, but spare number is customizable.
Where are the flaws?
This makes the units a powerful political asset, while at the same time giving them a fair amount of independence from allies if the need ever arises to send ships on a long voyage.
Politically, yeah, it is an asset. But we have to treat it as that in strategy, for coastal air defense alone, it's not great bang for the buck compared to optimized land based options.
 

Batrix2070

RON/PLC was a wonderful country.
Is it greater mobility? Most of our country is not within ~100km of sea.
Being in one place as i said is not a good thing. If for a strange reason you need to concentrate truck based SAMs, no problem to deploy them in one place. But again, why would you want to. You can have it spread over few kilometers or more, it covers more terrain and is harder to destroy, with good preparations, decoys, prepared positions, it could take dozens, even hundreds of missiles to take it out. A ship though, needs just one hit to be at minimum out for weeks, or with a good hit, be good only for scrap.
Only you are incapable of understanding that in order for one such missile to hit and damage a ship, you need to consume hundreds of them beforehand on one target, which will not be alone at all! That's first of all, secondly, Frigates will not stand still! They don't have to, because they are not land units, they can fight on the move. One such Swordfish is able to travel from Gdansk to Szczecin in four hours and yet it will not be constantly sailing along this route. Only farther into the Baltic Sea to shorten the time to intercept their targets!

Which makes the whole game very difficult for the Russians because they have to catch a target that is difficult to destroy, in a body of water that is the enemy's inland sea in the absence of air dominance on their side.

Third, you don't seem to realize the resilience of modern ships to attacks. I'll hint, you need something more than one good hit to turn it into scrap. You need a couple to a dozen of them. In short, a tremendous use of anti-ship missiles to make small gains in impact.
Baltic is not Pacific.
And it doesn't have to be, contrary to your notions it's not that easy to find a ship even in the Baltic. In fact, it is a difficult art, and after all, to find is not to destroy the ship. To destroy a target at sea, you need to plan a mission after finding it. This stage takes its own time, the best fleets are able to do this in 15 minutes, Russia is not among them so of course it will take them much longer. Why is it so important? Simple, during this time you can break contact and force the enemy once again to play cat and mouse.
No, battery doesn't mean one launcher truck.
Thanks for explaining what an Artillery Fire Battery is, I really didn't know it was more than that. /sarcasm
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Only you are incapable of understanding that in order for one such missile to hit and damage a ship, you need to consume hundreds of them beforehand on one target, which will not be alone at all!
Perhaps in the 70's. But now the cool new thing is using drones to force enemy ships to deplete their VLS cells. 200 attack drones is pennies compared to a ship. Even some cheaper AShMs would be worth less than that kind of ship.
The problem is that after some attacks these ships need a breather, because they deplete their VLS and need to go to a port or else they won't be able to defend themselves well again, and more distant targets, not at all.
That's first of all, secondly, Frigates will not stand still! They don't have to, because they are not land units, they can fight on the move. One such Swordfish is able to travel from Gdansk to Szczecin in four hours and yet it will not be constantly sailing along this route. Only farther into the Baltic Sea to shorten the time to intercept their targets!
And AShMs have tracking radars, they are not GPS pre-targeted.
Which makes the whole game very difficult for the Russians because they have to catch a target that is difficult to destroy, in a body of water that is the enemy's inland sea in the absence of air dominance on their side.
Ukrainians did it in a slightly bigger sea with less means multiple times.
Third, you don't seem to realize the resilience of modern ships to attacks. I'll hint, you need something more than one good hit to turn it into scrap. You need a couple to a dozen of them. In short, a tremendous use of anti-ship missiles to make small gains in impact.
As i said, modern ships are not made equal.
We are talking few frigates, not DDGs (those have 2-3 times more VLS cells and better radars), and not a whole CVBG, manage your expectations. With good damage control a ship can take a missile or few, but it will be mission killed by all chance until it goes to port and all the delicate sensors splattered by fragments or burned up get fixed up.
And it doesn't have to be, contrary to your notions it's not that easy to find a ship even in the Baltic. In fact, it is a difficult art, and after all, to find is not to destroy the ship. To destroy a target at sea, you need to plan a mission after finding it. This stage takes its own time, the best fleets are able to do this in 15 minutes, Russia is not among them so of course it will take them much longer. Why is it so important? Simple, during this time you can break contact and force the enemy once again to play cat and mouse.

Thanks for explaining what an Artillery Fire Battery is, I really didn't know it was more than that. /sarcasm
It's not easy, but it is very doable. Especially when it has to radiate a lot when working in air defense mode.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Dutch Choose French Designed Submarines to replace their Walrus-class types. These ones will be able to reach out and touch people... with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles!


These three Barracuda variant conventional submarines beat out competing offers from Germany and Sweden.

The War Zone said:
In a press release, the Dutch Ministry of Defense highlighted the dual-role nature of the Black Sword design, which it says is uniquely capable of operating both in shallow waters, as found around the Dutch coast, and for worldwide missions in deeper waters, operating independently for extended periods. While still, like their Walrus predecessors, "relatively small," the new boats are also larger than typical designs optimized for coastal operations.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Perun did a video on the Baltic Nations militaries and defense policies, so specifically regarding Estonia, Latvia, Gallia and Lithuania.



Deals with some history as per usual, the threats that the Baltic countries face, their current military analysis and why they are the way they are as well as the struggles in dealing with both how small scale the countries are in budget and manpower as well as strategic depth along with what future acquisitions they are planning on pursuing.

Pretty interesting video, especially since it's more focused on the smaller scale thing.
 

ATP

Well-known member
European members of NATO have problems with ammo - becouse:
1.factory in Karlskoga/Sweden/ could not produce more
2.Factory in Hamar/Norwegia/ could produce more if they get energy,but would not - TikTok server built there eat all surplus
3.Rheinmetal tried to build factory in Saxony - but locals do not agreed,and goverment do not warrant it.So,they resigned.
4.Poland do not produce anytching - and do not even considered it....
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
European members of NATO have problems with ammo - becouse:
1.factory in Karlskoga/Sweden/ could not produce more
2.Factory in Hamar/Norwegia/ could produce more if they get energy,but would not - TikTok server built there eat all surplus
3.Rheinmetal tried to build factory in Saxony - but locals do not agreed,and goverment do not warrant it.So,they resigned.
4.Poland do not produce anytching - and do not even considered it....
Again, you have no clue, even about own country.
 

Carrot of Truth

War is Peace
Poland has been putting a lot of effort into developing its own domestic arms industry. Even though they sought out a lot of licenses they are still building factories in their own countries to build stuff there themselves. One of the advantages of getting South Korea as a partner since the US doesn't offer that itself anymore.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Again, you have no clue, even about own country.
Did they produce it from materials made in Poland? no,my uneducated friend.We do not produce powder from 2000.
Yes,we made schells - but powder come from another countries.

Poland has been putting a lot of effort into developing its own domestic arms industry. Even though they sought out a lot of licenses they are still building factories in their own countries to build stuff there themselves. One of the advantages of getting South Korea as a partner since the US doesn't offer that itself anymore.
First,we do not produce powder,second - german agent Tusk maybe keep buing from USA becouse they ordered him so,but producing in Poland Korean stuff almost for sure would be stopped.Germans could not let that.
And they rule Poland now.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Did they produce it from materials made in Poland? no,my uneducated friend.We do not produce powder from 2000.
Yes,we made schells - but powder come from another countries.


First,we do not produce powder,second - german agent Tusk maybe keep buing from USA becouse they ordered him so,but producing in Poland Korean stuff almost for sure would be stopped.Germans could not let that.
And they rule Poland now.
Artillery, mortar and rocket propellants, right fucking here, my clueless doomer friend.
 

ATP

Well-known member
Artillery, mortar and rocket propellants, right fucking here, my clueless doomer friend.
did they produce that nitroglicerine powder ,or buy it,my still uneducated friend?
Becouse general Skwarczyński recently alarmed that we do not produce powder....
Here:

basically,Poland do not produce ammo,only made it from elements made in other countries.
 
Last edited:

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
did they produce that nitroglicerine powder ,or buy it,my still uneducated friend?
Becouse general Skwarczyński recently alarmed that we do not produce powder....
Here:

basically,Poland do not produce ammo,only made it from elements made in other countries.
How does he know? He's a former general and he doesn't have access to the business deals of all our defense companies. There certainly are some imported components, but that goes for all advanced NATO stuff, including American.
For one electronic components for sure are mostly imported.
So i think general is doing a little bit of lobbying and politics.
I don't think we should aspire to copy North Korean autarkic obsessions.
 

ATP

Well-known member
How does he know? He's a former general and he doesn't have access to the business deals of all our defense companies. There certainly are some imported components, but that goes for all advanced NATO stuff, including American.
For one electronic components for sure are mostly imported.
So i think general is doing a little bit of lobbying and politics.
I don't think we should aspire to copy North Korean autarkic obsessions.
Sigh.Producing nitroglicerine powder is not big deal,like,for example,making jets.Every developed country could do that - and we failed in this.
And,without it,we could NOT produce any ammo once war start and other countries stop selling it to us,becouse they would need it for themselves.

And he is not doing lobbying,only try to save our asses in future war.Becouse if notching change,that after first two weeks we would surrender becouse lack of ammo.
Our elites - both PIS and PO - are worst then Sanacja before WW2,becouse they at least have ammo for 3 months of war.Well,lost in one,but could fight another two if they do not heroically run.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Sigh.Producing nitroglicerine powder is not big deal,like,for example,making jets.Every developed country could do that - and we failed in this.
Depends if you are trying to make WW1 shells with WW1 range and reliability, or modern ones.
In modern ones, the tolerances, additives, grain specifications and so on are indeed a very big deal.
Otherwise you get North Korea grade ammo where half the shells can't even hit an island.
And,without it,we could NOT produce any ammo once war start and other countries stop selling it to us,becouse they would need it for themselves.
Against who? Same war, same enemy, same ammo, if they had factories to use those parts you think they wouldn't be?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top