Polish Armoured Vehicles And Their Modernizations.

[Mighty_Zuk]

7 hours ago, txtree99 said:

Any comments?

I won't pretend to have studied South Korean doctrine, but from what I gather, it seems the development of South Korean long range artillery is itself focused on the task of short response counter-battery fire against North Korea's large artillery arsenal threatening South Korea's cities.

It benefits from reducing response time significantly by allowing near instantaneous launch compared to aircraft that need prep time. 
The associated cost is of course that ground launched long range munitions are substantially more expensive than aerial ones, typically by at least one order of magnitude. This is of course mitigated entirely by the fact that continued impacts in a city would cost even more.
Another cost is that it lacks real time intelligence capability on moving targets and BDA capability.

 

I don't think this necessarily fits Poland's needs. 

Here's Poland's population density map. We can see that most of the population is in cities located in the center-north (Gdansk), center-center-east (Warsaw), and various other cities spanning west to south. There is only one that is close to Belarus - Bialystok. It's Poland's 10th largest city with a population slightly below 300k. So while it is important to protect it, cross-border artillery strikes are not the strategic threat they pose to South Korea whose capital Seoul is within cannon artillery range from the Korean border.

Poland's capital Warsaw is almost 140km from the border with Belarus. 

Consequently, it seems to me that Poland does not necessarily need this instant strike capability, at least not to the same capacity. This is further reinforced by the fact that Russian deep strike is typically performed by air launched systems, drones, and SRBMs, which are beyond the range of munitions South Korea seems to offer to Poland.

As a rule of thumb, any munition beyond 40km range, is probably going to be more expensive than an air launched one, substantially more so when we measure by tonnage.

Therefore I can understand why Poland may choose to buy many launchers for short range munitions and insist on a local 122mm munition, but not CRBMs. These can easily eat into the budget necessary for aerial platforms.

A good substitute can be large MALE drones carrying cheaper variants of said BMs with the same or greater range, if that munition type is really necessary. 

[urbanoid]

Air force is a gigantic investment, overall costs of air delivered munitions are going to be almost certainly higher plus you risk the very expensive aircraft with it. You don't just have to buy it and maintain it, you spend a lot of money for training and... well, flying itself too, the cost of an hour of flight is in tens of thousands of dollars. 'Smart' munitions themselves aren't that cheap either.

At this time Polish air force is effectively 48 F-16 C/Ds and we're waiting for 32 F-35s, the first has arrived but the complete delivery and reaching IOC is years away.

Gigantic investment in MLRS systems is to compensate for the weakness of the air force AND free it for other tasks in the event of conflict. That's why we want GMLRS + Korean equivalent AND longer ranged (300/500 or more km range) missiles too. 122 mm rockets will be integrated with Kimchimars because we produce them and it may also allow us to retire WR-40 Langusta (basically an upgraded Grad) after enough systems are operation.

The air force will likely be delegated for air defense role and deep strikes with JASSM and JASSM-ER.

[RETAC21]

5 minutes ago, urbanoid said:

Air force is a gigantic investment, overall costs of air delivered munitions are going to be almost certainly higher plus you risk the very expensive aircraft with it. You don't just have to buy it and maintain it, you spend a lot of money for training and... well, flying itself too, the cost of an hour of flight is in tens of thousands of dollars. 'Smart' munitions themselves aren't that cheap either.

At this time Polish air force is effectively 48 F-16 C/Ds and we're waiting for 32 F-35s, the first has arrived but the complete delivery and reaching IOC is years away.

Gigantic investment in MLRS systems is to compensate for the weakness of the air force AND free it for other tasks in the event of conflict. That's why we want GMLRS + Korean equivalent AND longer ranged (300/500 or more km range) missiles too. 122 mm rockets will be integrated with Kimchimars because we produce them and it may also allow us to retire WR-40 Langusta (basically an upgraded Grad) after enough systems are operation.

The air force will likely be delegated for air defense role and deep strikes with JASSM and JASSM-ER.

And, if you take a lesson from Ukraine, tube artillery should be replaced by SRBMs rather than aircraft.

[txtree99]

Interesting, Poland seems to be serious in rearming

 

 

[TrustMe]

Going off topic.

But this amount of military buildup reminds me of the Shah of Iran's massive military build up in the 1970's. 

[urbanoid]

2 hours ago, txtree99 said:

Interesting, Poland seems to be serious in rearming

 

 

That would mean 3 types of fighter aircraft for a rather small air force - 48 F-16s, 32 F-35s, 32 F-15s.

A typical combo for serious air forces around the world, like Japan, Korea or Israel, but overall they have 3-4 times as many fighter jets as we would.

[R011]

39 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

Going off topic.

But this amount of military buildup reminds me of the Shah of Iran's massive military build up in the 1970's. 

No doubt the current Polish establishment will be overthrown by the Catholic Church soon.

No one expects the Polish Inquisition.  

[Mighty_Zuk]

11 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

And, if you take a lesson from Ukraine, tube artillery should be replaced by SRBMs rather than aircraft.

Why would anyone with common sense come to such conclusion?

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Air force is a gigantic investment

Yes, but a one time investment. If you don't expect to be in combat much, then perhaps a small fleet with mostly ground based fires could be a good alternative. But if you expect to fight an enemy that may require thousands of munitions in the several-hundred-kilos class, then you can't go without an air force.

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

overall costs of air delivered munitions are going to be almost certainly higher

A PrSM is estimated to cost $3.5m (per TWZ article). An ATACMS costs about $1.5m. 

Their warheads are 90kg and 200kg respectively.

You can drop several times that amount for the low cost of $25,000. Best most pimped out JDAM-like weapon you can find on the market is probably no more than $200-300k, and you'll only really use those when you really wanna fuck.

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

plus you risk the very expensive aircraft with it.

Assume one SRBM costs just $1 mil (rounded down).

Assume a jet costs $100 mil (rounded up).

Look at ultra endangered Ukraine. Do you see them losing 1 jet per 100 SRBMs spent? And to be honest, Ukraine would've used far more ATACMS than they currently do if there weren't such stupid restrictions.

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

You don't just have to buy it and maintain it, you spend a lot of money for training and... well, flying itself too, the cost of an hour of flight is in tens of thousands of dollars. 'Smart' munitions themselves aren't that cheap either.

You have to train on SRBMs as well dear bro. And fire them occasionally.

But SRBMs are just SRBMs. They can't shoot down aircraft or missiles coming your way. They can't provide persistent on the spot surveillance and intelligence, or effects like EW.

Even if they were somehow comparable in cost, an air force is just a much more versatile force, while an SRBM is just a means of fire. Like comparing apples to fighter jets.

11 hours ago, urbanoid said:

At this time Polish air force is effectively 48 F-16 C/Ds and we're waiting for 32 F-35s, the first has arrived but the complete delivery and reaching IOC is years away.

Gigantic investment in MLRS systems is to compensate for the weakness of the air force AND free it for other tasks in the event of conflict. That's why we want GMLRS + Korean equivalent AND longer ranged (300/500 or more km range) missiles too. 122 mm rockets will be integrated with Kimchimars because we produce them and it may also allow us to retire WR-40 Langusta (basically an upgraded Grad) after enough systems are operation.

The air force will likely be delegated for air defense role and deep strikes with JASSM and JASSM-ER.

I think you're vastly underestimating the strike capacity of even a smaller fighter fleet.

Israel's air force is disproportionately large for a its population and size, but isn't really all that big. Yet its strike capacity is thousands of munitions per day. That is immense.

[urbanoid]

6 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Why would anyone with common sense come to such conclusion?

Yes, but a one time investment. If you don't expect to be in combat much, then perhaps a small fleet with mostly ground based fires could be a good alternative. But if you expect to fight an enemy that may require thousands of munitions in the several-hundred-kilos class, then you can't go without an air force.

A PrSM is estimated to cost $3.5m (per TWZ article). An ATACMS costs about $1.5m. 

Their warheads are 90kg and 200kg respectively.

You can drop several times that amount for the low cost of $25,000. Best most pimped out JDAM-like weapon you can find on the market is probably no more than $200-300k, and you'll only really use those when you really wanna fuck.

Assume one SRBM costs just $1 mil (rounded down).

Assume a jet costs $100 mil (rounded up).

Look at ultra endangered Ukraine. Do you see them losing 1 jet per 100 SRBMs spent? And to be honest, Ukraine would've used far more ATACMS than they currently do if there weren't such stupid restrictions.

You have to train on SRBMs as well dear bro. And fire them occasionally.

But SRBMs are just SRBMs. They can't shoot down aircraft or missiles coming your way. They can't provide persistent on the spot surveillance and intelligence, or effects like EW.

Even if they were somehow comparable in cost, an air force is just a much more versatile force, while an SRBM is just a means of fire. Like comparing apples to fighter jets.

I think you're vastly underestimating the strike capacity of even a smaller fighter fleet.

Israel's air force is disproportionately large for a its population and size, but isn't really all that big. Yet its strike capacity is thousands of munitions per day. That is immense.

I don't expect us to get more than several hundred PrSM/ATACMS/Korean equivalents, maybe a thousand or so total tops. I'd like to be positively surprised though.

GMLRS + Korean equivalents? Well, sky is the limit here, especially when local production is established, so quite a bit of the money spent will stay in the country. 

Russian Air Force may not be worth that much, but their air defense is one of the most sophisticated in the world. That doesn't mean that in case of conflict our air force won't do A2G, but the plan seems to be 'very stand-off', like with JASSM/JASSM-ER. We have 70 of the former, the sale of up to ~800 of the latter has been approved by the US. 

As for the sizes... You have a fourth of our population with an air force ~3 times our projected strength and faaar more advanced when it comes to 'support' like tankers, AEW, SIGINT etc. So, choices...

[RETAC21]

13 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

Why would anyone with common sense come to such conclusion?

Urbanoid has already answered, it comes to choices, if you cannot invest in an air force that has all the capabilities to penetrate a well developed IADS, and you don't have the ability to deny your airspace to your opponent recon drones up to 50 Km beyond the FEBA, then artillery becomes extremely vulnerable to counterbattery (SP less, towed, way more) and unable to perform counterbattery itself, so missiles offer the cheapest solution compared to aircraft.

[Mighty_Zuk]

@urbanoid @RETAC21

Counter-battery with CRBM and SRBMs?

Against what? Other BMs? If so, good luck. You put yourself in a range contest. Otherwise the one with better recon wins.

Conventional artillery? Your missile probably costs more than whatever it is you destroyed.

A force of BMs may be more cost effective if you're aiming for a couple hundred missiles in total. But in an actual war you'll burn through all that, in the absence of an air force, within one afternoon.

Even Russia understood that their BM arsenal was a stupid idea and later opted to establish a dedicated air force with ground attack munitions. Took them over 2 years.

[RETAC21]

2 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

@urbanoid @RETAC21

Counter-battery with CRBM and SRBMs?

Against what? Other BMs? If so, good luck. You put yourself in a range contest. Otherwise the one with better recon wins.

Conventional artillery? Your missile probably costs more than whatever it is you destroyed.

A force of BMs may be more cost effective if you're aiming for a couple hundred missiles in total. But in an actual war you'll burn through all that, in the absence of an air force, within one afternoon.

Even Russia understood that their BM arsenal was a stupid idea and later opted to establish a dedicated air force with ground attack munitions. Took them over 2 years.

Or an enemy with more tubes or longer ranged ones. Or enemy AD. Expensive? yes. More expensive than a full spectrum AF? no way. In contrast to conventional artillery, it's survivable when the enemy CB is measured in seconds rather than minutes. 

As for the Russians, they are using Iskanders against individual tanks, so no, they haven't opted to have a dedicated air force to the detriment of missiles, they now use missiles for tactical targets and they use their air force with extreme circumspection. 

[RETAC21]

BTW, this cost comparison of what a weapon costs is a fallacy, a cheap gun that is not destroyed keeps destroying expensive stuff if your cheap weapon is unable to destroy it.

[Damian]

And I have some info about our M1 Abrams tank fleet.

1. GDLS signed another agreement with PGZ, which means that PGZ will receive technology transfer not only to service M1 tanks, but also modernize/upgrade them, and this is next step for possible co-production. Also PGZ facilities will gain capability to service/upgrade GDLS vehicles like M1 tanks and other types, used by US Army in Europe and other users in Europe.

2. I had a conversation with GDLS employees, and they confirmed to me that 116 M1A1FEP's used by Polish Army will be modernized to M1A2SEPv3 standard in Poland, in near future.

3. First batch of 250 new build M1A2SEPv3's for Poland is ready to be shipped to Poland, when it happens is however a secret for obvious reasons.

4. There might be more orders for M1A2SEPv3's. This is not certain, but both Poland and US are very happy about cooperation in tank programme. Polish Army as I witnessed myself, is extremely happy cooperating with US Army and GDLS.

Edited September 6 by Damian

[bojan]

2 hours ago, RETAC21 said:

...As for the Russians, they are using Iskanders against individual tanks...

Individual long range MRLS and AD systems, which was kinda one of the Iskander missions (strike against long artillery and SAM sites, hence varied payload options). Since Ukrainians are not stupid they don't form HIMARS into batteries/bns in the field, so strikes have to be against individual vehicles.

PS. Iskander is supposedly about 600k $.

 

[urbanoid]

2 minutes ago, bojan said:

Individual long range MRLS and AD systems, which was kinda one of the Iskander missions (strike against long artillery and SAM sites, hence varied payload options). Since Ukrainians are not stupid they don't form HIMARS into batteries/bns in the field, so strikes have to be against individual vehicles.

PS. Iskander is supposedly about 600k $.

 

Wow, that seems... ridiculously cheap.

[bojan]

That is manufacturing price with zero profit for factory however. But even if commercial price is 2-3 times higher (volume of manufacture would favor it to be closer to x2), almost any target, including individual modern artillery pieces are higher than that. HIMARS launcher is what, ~3-4mil $ on the market? PzH was 5+mil $?

[Mighty_Zuk]

1 hour ago, RETAC21 said:

BTW, this cost comparison of what a weapon costs is a fallacy, a cheap gun that is not destroyed keeps destroying expensive stuff if your cheap weapon is unable to destroy it.

A country without an air force cannot conduct offensive ops or prevent certain defensive ones. If you already have an air force, enlarging it is not as expensive as setting up a brand new one.

A mission like dislodging an enemy in a large city could require above 10,000 weapons between 250lbs and 2,000lbs, with pinpoint accuracy and flexibility of AoA.

Doing that with ballistic missiles will cost you over $10 billion. Aviation bombs would do it for $250 million.

For the remaining $9.75 billion you can buy an entire air wing with all the accessories, infrastructure, and munitions.

There is no feasible way to wage war while expending only hundreds of multi-hundred kg bombs. This just doesn't happen. You can expect to drop tens of thousands such munitions per year.

[TrustMe]

Some countries especially smaller ones like in the Gulf cannot fund the massive cost in human captial required to field an airforce.

Ballistic missiles are probably the better option. Just look at Iran, who files 45 years old aircraft, they cannot compiete with the rest of the Gulf hence they rely on ballistic missiles for offensive firepower.

[RETAC21]

12 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

A country without an air force cannot conduct offensive ops or prevent certain defensive ones. If you already have an air force, enlarging it is not as expensive as setting up a brand new one.

A mission like dislodging an enemy in a large city could require above 10,000 weapons between 250lbs and 2,000lbs, with pinpoint accuracy and flexibility of AoA.

Doing that with ballistic missiles will cost you over $10 billion. Aviation bombs would do it for $250 million.

For the remaining $9.75 billion you can buy an entire air wing with all the accessories, infrastructure, and munitions.

There is no feasible way to wage war while expending only hundreds of multi-hundred kg bombs. This just doesn't happen. You can expect to drop tens of thousands such munitions per year.

This is so only if your air force can operate, if the enemy IADS denies the use of the airspace without incurring a disproportionate cost in lost airframes and there are no replacement aircraft available (which is a situation in which all European air forces find themselves nowadays), then artillery is the weapon of choice. If due to drone proliferation, conventional tube artillery cannot operate in range of the target (as it takes longer to set up than a MLRS or a SRBM), the only option are missiles and guided rockets.

Israel solutions cannot be extrapolated to Poland.

[RETAC21]

13 hours ago, bojan said:

Individual long range MRLS and AD systems, which was kinda one of the Iskander missions (strike against long artillery and SAM sites, hence varied payload options). Since Ukrainians are not stupid they don't form HIMARS into batteries/bns in the field, so strikes have to be against individual vehicles.

PS. Iskander is supposedly about 600k $.

 

If I read you right, the point is not that they are wasteful, but that missile cost and accuracy have improved so much as to make them viable options for missions previously performed by conventional artillery?

[bojan]

Yes. Iskander CEP is noticeably lower than it's area covered by payload, especially cluster ones.

[Markus Becker]

14 hours ago, urbanoid said:

Wow, that seems... ridiculously cheap.

1.2 million $ buy you a lot more in Russia than in the west I presume.  

[old_goat]

18 hours ago, Damian said:

1. GDLS signed another agreement with PGZ, which means that PGZ will receive technology transfer not only to service M1 tanks, but also modernize/upgrade them, and this is next step for possible co-production. Also PGZ facilities will gain capability to service/upgrade GDLS vehicles like M1 tanks and other types, used by US Army in Europe and other users in Europe.

Very interesting! Does this also mean that polish companies can develop and install upgraded armor packages in the future?

And btw, now that the army now has two advanced tanks in service (M1 & K2), what is the point of keeping the Leopards? What is the plan for them?

[urbanoid]

'Has in service', yes, but not in projected numbers, that will take years. 400 tanks were sent to Ukraine, we're not in a position to get rid of Leos yet and it will take a while to reach that point.