Brazil could make Russian new-generation fighters

[SuAside]

in a bit late, but:

Not things that would help the military much? There is more to the army than force projection, and off course that equipment helps the army A LOT. I don't see how that is debatable really.

euhm, i think you're heavily misinterpreting what i said.

spending stupid amounts of money on fighters = force projection, and of lower benefit to the military than spending on useful things?

i never said that those more useful expenses, such as APCs would not help the military?

Im sorry? This is an infantry war and tanks still lose? Did you miss WW2 or something? Tanks were vital in providing close support to infantry and vice versa. Each complements the other and each functions better because of that - eliminate one and you reduce the overall effectiveness of the other one.

and yet, all developed nations are moving away from MBTs and into IFV LMV territory. sure, this has largely to do with the kind of wars they fight, but still. heavy and sluggish high maintenance tanks are no longer the mainstay of any defensive... (as it's not Brazil's goal to go on the offensive, i think)
lightly armored, fast moving and armed APCs coupled with air support (plane & helicopter) and artillery support are whats hot today.

I don't see how your comment that tanks are out of place is at all valid. Since helicopters were invented many predicted the demise of the tank and time and time again they have proven themselves useful in the battlefield in one role or another.

tanks have a place, but heavy MBTs have not the spotlight as you seem to believe. comparison with the Iran-Iraq & India/Pakistant conflicts are pretty off. and need i remind you that russian tank convoys got clobbered in afghanistan?
you youself just also stated that russians are moving to heavily armored APCs, not MBTs?
as for the british, Challengers were in support, but it's the infantry that did the cleaning.

at best an enhanced concept Merkava style MBT could offer some gains in all areas, but still...

I think you are mistaking R & D money with money for purchases. These missiles are still in development state and it would be nice if the government released money when they are done for the armed forces to buy them. Since they are not ready and there are more urgent needs to be adressed, I think the money is being spent where it should, for now.

i'm not mistaking anything. it's you that brought in the subject of unfinished weapons in this discussion. i'm talking about purchases and you told us that Brazil had their own stuff (in development).
which is why i said that if you invest the money now, i'm sure they'll gladly give you the stuff for free (sarcasm...)

I think you are mistaken or misread what I wrote.

i just said that -i- had made the mistake in interpreting it as a blanket term, due to a translation error on my part.

AFAIK, they are pretty small, and the high attrition rate means they stay that way. Its not like they are trying to train their entire Army that way.

the point was that if you wanted to increase the number of special forces in a country, you should create multiple seperate branches, rather than enlarging the existing one(s).

 

[Makenshi]

Just a piece of info: we bought 12 of those Russian Mi-35 attack helicopters. IIRC, more will be bought in the following years, as well as the tech and authorization to make them here.

I heard the Mi-35 is not the newest kid around, but is it still a buttkicker, or just an old bastard? Looks pretty powerfull to me.

AFAIK, they are pretty small, and the high attrition rate means they stay that way. Its not like they are trying to train their entire Army that way.

the point was that if you wanted to increase the number of special forces in a country, you should create multiple seperate branches, rather than enlarging the existing one(s).

You could say that the CIGS works like the Space Marines of Warhammer 40.000: each chapter is independant, but all follow the Codex Astartes. In our case, the chapters are the various platoons of the BR army stationed in Amazon, and the Codex is the Jungle Warfare doctrine of the CIGS.

It works like you say it should, and it's needed because BR's part of Amazon Rainforest is BIG (3.300.000 km²). Just a few squads won't do.

 

[UniversalWolf]

I heard the Mi-35 is not the newest kid around, but is it still a buttkicker, or just an old bastard?

It all depends on how you use 'em.

The U.S. Marine Corps is still using upgraded Cobras, and those were new during the Vietnam war.

Nice windshield wipers, by the way.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

I am aware that one has to consider the difference between south american, north america and europe. And there are really many facests about South America I just dont know. But I assume, for any nation that has a large military or want any military may it be South America or Europe economical and logistical questions are always important. So no matter if you have high technology or low, you want to make sure that the equipment you have is in either good condition, gets the needed maintenance and the troops ammunition. Not to mention payment or anything else a huge military needs. This are always things that have to be considered as well.

Of yes, definitely. I mean, with all these investments in equipment, one also has to invest in the infrastructure to maintain them, such as workshops, factories for replacement parts, ammo storage and repair bays spread around the country. This is the kind of infrastructure Brazil is lacking at the moment, even with its own antiquated fleet.

Which you have as well in South America, last I heard. So it might not be far fetched to assume that at one point Brazil would face those situations in one way or another. If it doesnt already in their own nation when I think about coruption, drugs and what else plagues South America. Asymmetrical warefare is the war of the future. And to counter this will become more and more important. Particularly since the military even with low technology becomes more expensive.

I think whats at stake here, and mostly what I am debating with SuAside is that tanks have not been completely replaced by infantry or vice versa. I don't think its stupid for example for a nation the size of Brazil to have a handful of MBT's available, for whatever purpose, and 500 is hardly a large number compared to many of today's countries, which have larger numbers despite being minuscule in size when compared to Brazil.

Tanks can still play an important support role (and indeed still do) in asymetrical warfare, something which, as you pointed out, can and does happen in Brazil.

snip

I agree tanks have a bigger role when the enemy itself has tanks, the terrain is favourable for them, and neither side has a significant advantage in air superiority. Brazil and its neighbours meet that criteria, which is why I don't think investing in at least some tanks is a bad idea.

The fighting on the ground would prove a hard situation for the Soviets thinking about the ecnomical situation inside the warsaw pact nations. Remember the Sovietunion was not just Russia. And most of the nations inside the Warsaw pact had already issues to keep their own economy runing in times of "peace" not to mention a war. At first Soviet units would overrun large parts of Germany and eventualy beyond in a very short time but soon come to a halt. The Soviets just do not have the same kind of experience aound logistic compared to some of the NATO members most important the US. And the Russians would not have been able to supply all of the east europe nations in the Sovietunion and the Warsaw Pact alone particularly when you have to imagine that some equipment has to be moved more then 2000 killomters. I can only mention here east Germany and Hungary, which would have colapsed in very short time they would not had any chance to keep all of their forces in runing condition. It was said even that East Germany would already loose more then 50% of its armored force do to technical falures in the first month since the economy was just to weak.

Like I said, thats an interesting theory, but I think it may be a bit overblown. Perhaps I am biased here because most of the reading I've come across agress on the exact opposite, but I will at least try and explain why I think this is so, at least according to them.

From the theories I've seen, it was agreed before the use of nukes, or widespread use of them, that the Red Army would have overrun Europe on a matter of weeks, which means the economy plays little if any role. The whole of the USSR was already in a war footing for much of the cold war, so if anything it would be NATO and Europe that would strugle to adapt to warfare conditions.

Secondly, to say Russian does not have the logistic experience of nations in NATO is a bit far fetched to me. Russia got all the experience they needed during World War II, from 1941 all the way to 1945, with heavy tank usage and all the logistical challenges that brings with it. If anything, I would say the Russians are probably THE most experienced nation with logistics followed by Germany and the U.S.

As for technical failures, again, I think that is wishful thinking. Russian tanks have a reputation for sturdyness and reliability (not necessarily survivability) and that is again one of the reasons the Red Army was able to defeat the Wehrmacht. German tanks were expensive, of high quality, hard to maintain, and very difficult to repair. So again, this coment seems to overlook the facts about Russian tank production and maintanence.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Sorry for the double post, but this is turning into quite a longwinded discussion and walls of text usually put people off reading. Not to mention the individual replies are veering off into two separate directions.

euhm, i think you're heavily misinterpreting what i said.

spending stupid amounts of money on fighters = force projection, and of lower benefit to the military than spending on useful things?

I think I have, now I'm completely lost as to what you are saying.

This is how its looking from my side. Please correct me if im wrong:

I suggest investing in roughly 500 MBT's, to which you disagree because you think they are outdated and there are better things to invest in. You suggest air power and aircraft and helicopters and missiles which are tank-busters.

Now you are saying spending stupid ammount of money on fighters is of lower benefit to the military when you can spend money on useful things?

Huh? I've I got that wrong I think you need to make your points clearer. Oy maybe I should just ask you outright what you consider ''useful'' bor the army, navy and airforce, instead of trying to assume what you mean.

Sorry for any misunderstandings.

and yet, all developed nations are moving away from MBTs and into IFV LMV territory. sure, this has largely to do with the kind of wars they fight, but still. heavy and sluggish high maintenance tanks are no longer the mainstay of any defensive... (as it's not Brazil's goal to go on the offensive, i think)
lightly armored, fast moving and armed APCs coupled with air support (plane & helicopter) and artillery support are whats hot today.

Yeah, that was said 60 years ago also, and nothing has changed since then. The fact is what you say may be true, but at the same time, developed nations are still finicky to completely replace their MBT fleet with APC's/IFV's. That and the fact countries like the U.S have roughly 1000 M1Abrams, and Germany with 2500 Leopard II's. Germany is a country the size of a state in Brazil, and they have 5 times the number of tanks I am proposing for a nation the size of Brazil to have.

Sincerely, tanks may be losing importance, but 500 is still a small number of a country the size of Brazil. Show this argument and those figures to any Brazilian and they will tell you in your face it smacks of an attempt by developed nations to holdback the Brazilian armed forces with less than pursuasive arguments.

Brazil doesn't have very good experience when it comes to tanks and foreign countries. Look up OSORIO MBT.

tanks have a place, but heavy MBTs have not the spotlight as you seem to believe. comparison with the Iran-Iraq & India/Pakistant conflicts are pretty off. and need i remind you that russian tank convoys got clobbered in afghanistan?
you youself just also stated that russians are moving to heavily armored APCs, not MBTs?
as for the british, Challengers were in support, but it's the infantry that did the cleaning.

Again, im not putting them into the spotlight. You seem to think 500 is a large number of a country the size of Brazil, I don't think it is. This ties in with my above argument, look at Germany, France, the U.K, which are insignificant in size and yet have much larger tank forces.

Instead of labelling my arguments 'off' can you please elaborate on why you think they are off? They seem to prove my point tank warfare has a place where combatants are roughly at the same level of development, have mediocre air forces, and terrain is favourable for their operations.

As for the Russians, they were experiencing a shortage of tanks and any maintanence service whatsoever at the time. Its worthy of note that they ''Armoured APC'' they are suggesting is mounted on a T-72 chassis! And yet, they are still investing in MBT's aswell, as the T-90, T-80U and T-95 prove. As a matter of fact, there is not one developed nation that is not investing in a new design for an MBT. So I guess tanks really are a thing of the past huh?

Agree with you infantry do the job, but tanks make their job easier. I don't see how this is a problem for you to understand. Maybe you are not reading what I am writing. Each complements the other and increases their overall effectiveness.

i'm not mistaking anything. it's you that brought in the subject of unfinished weapons in this discussion. i'm talking about purchases and you told us that Brazil had their own stuff (in development).
which is why i said that if you invest the money now, i'm sure they'll gladly give you the stuff for free (sarcasm...)

Its funny, but this is the second time I've debunked your argument and the second time you accuse me of 'bringing something in' to this argument.

Lets recap. The reason I brought missiles into this discussion in the first place was because you said it would be a better area to invest money in than in tanks. I then 'brought in' the fact Brazil is already investing in missile technology, so its not like they are neglecting this area in favour of 'heavy weaponry'.

i just said that -i- had made the mistake in interpreting it as a blanket term, due to a translation error on my part.

Ah ok, sorry, I thought you were being sarcastic at first. My apologies.

the point was that if you wanted to increase the number of special forces in a country, you should create multiple seperate branches, rather than enlarging the existing one(s).

Someone answered this question above I think.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Secondly, to say Russian does not have the logistic experience of nations in NATO is a bit far fetched to me. Russia got all the experience they needed during World War II, from 1941 all the way to 1945, with heavy tank usage and all the logistical challenges that brings with it. If anything, I would say the Russians are probably THE most experienced nation with logistics followed by Germany and the U.S.

As for technical failures, again, I think that is wishful thinking. Russian tanks have a reputation for sturdyness and reliability (not necessarily survivability) and that is again one of the reasons the Red Army was able to defeat the Wehrmacht. German tanks were expensive, of high quality, hard to maintain, and very difficult to repair. So again, this coment seems to overlook the facts about Russian tank production and maintanence.

Which is the wrong thought here. The incidents around the second world war are a story for it self which could open a whole own debate. But to say that when it comes to logistic the Russians or Soviets are not that advanced as one might think or believe. From 1941 to 45 alone you have much different periods. Reliabilty of equipment and tanks was up to 1942, almost up to 43 poor in the Soviet union and in General better with the Wehrmacht, alone the Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panzer 35 (t) had a reliabilty and mechanic superior to those of the KV series and in 41 the most used tank by the Soviets has been the BT series, more then 20 000 of them though. It was not before late 42 when full production of the T34 started equiped with radios which have been provided in many cases by British and US with the lend lease contract. The change for the Soviets came with different Generals, most of the time younger officers (on average the Soviet Command had a difference of 20 years in age compared to the average German one). One should not forget that the Soviet army as whole was almost defeated 2 or 3 times in the second world War and completely rebuild in the process. Soldiers recruited in the year 43 have not been involved most of the time in the fighting of 41 which plays a role.

Situations like Berlin 1946 and the Soviet blockade proved that the Allied nations in the first place the US had a very high capacity and experience in logicistc and maintenance in General much better compared to the Soviets. It is very doubtfull the Soviets could have keeped for such a long time a airlift to keep Berlin alive.

That the Soviet union alone would have overrun by just sheer size most of the terrirtory of europe is something most people believe and might be even true for the year 45/46. But that is just going by numbers. The period during and after the war should not be mistaken with the colt war which only really got from a military point of few in a interesting situation with the 50s. During the 40s no one, not even the Sovietunion, Europe or the US would have been willing to start a new World war even if they all played with their muscles. The memory to the second one was still to present. On average every family in europe had to bemoan one dead relative either from the bombing or on the front. No one wanted a war or feelt really mentaly ready for one yet, or it simply would have come to another war if one side really feelt the urge for one.

The NATO was aware about the Soviet Size and since the 50s tried to prepare exactly for that case. We know most of the things today. But if we know it today then it is very likely that most European nations in the 50s and 60s at least had a vague idea about it. You can conquer in a short time a huge terrirtory but still looes the ground and war, if you cant hold the conquered ground, which would have been probably the case with a Soviet attack on western Europe. One should not forget that the supply route of the Soviets would have to go all the way up from the Ural to Germany/France which is extremly fragile.

Soviet equipment in General is not more reliable compard to those of the most NATO nations and in the case of armor sometimes inferior the T series of soviet tanks always needed a huge amount of maintentance and fuel. Best example would be the situation of East Germany, Hungary, Poland etc. But this is thinking about a scenario in the 90s. Things always changed during the cold war when the technology advanced as with new tank models, air crafts and technology the odds always changed slightly from one side to the other one. Always with new developments like the Royal Ordnance L7 105 mm gun in the 50s which was so succesfull that it was used by a wide range of other NATO members. Other times the Soviets changed the situation with platforms like the T-62. Tests with T-80s, Leopard 2s, Chalanger 2 and M1A4 Abram showed a clear advantage for the T-80 in individual combat except to the Abram which was on the same level. This lead later to heavy updates for the Chalanger and Leopard 2 which resulted in the updates known as A1, A2, A3 etc. with the latest version that now has the most effective gun of most tanks. But from what I have read new updates for the Abram or even a completley new tank are already in development for 2010 (or later). But this kind of tests are leaving of course other facts out like tactical decisions, economical situations or maintenance.

Yeah, that was said 60 years ago also, and nothing has changed since then. The fact is what you say may be true, but at the same time, developed nations are still finicky to completely replace their MBT fleet with APC's/IFV's. That and the fact countries like the U.S have roughly 1000 M1Abrams, and Germany with 2500 Leopard II's. Germany is a country the size of a state in Brazil, and they have 5 times the number of tanks I am proposing for a nation the size of Brazil to have

Most of the huge numbers still result from times of the 70s and 80s. From the 2500 Leopards for example are only 1000 (aprox) operational while the rest are either outdated models waiting for updates or discharge. And the situation is similar for the US most of their Abram tanks got during the 90s a large update. At least Germany would be very happy if they could remove 3/4 of their tanks emidiately, but that is not possible cause you just cant laid off so many personal in a short time without issues.

As said no one here disputes the usefullness of tanks in a combat situation if used within the right circumstances. But how it seems tanks will have in future more use from the deterrence then actual combat. Particularly since more and more nations dont engange in direct confrontations anymore.

Again, im not putting them into the spotlight. You seem to think 500 is a large number of a country the size of Brazil, I don't think it is. This ties in with my above argument, look at Germany, France, the U.K, which are insignificant in size and yet have much larger tank forces.

For a nation that has issues with their economy even a number like 500 can be already quite large.

...And yet, they are still investing in MBT's aswell, as the T-90, T-80U and T-95 prove. As a matter of fact, there is not one developed nation that is not investing in a new design for an MBT. So I guess tanks really are a thing of the past huh?

But not with the same preasure as in past. Quite a lot of programms got with the end of the Soviet union canceled in both US and Germany (for example the Leopard III programm with the idea of a long 150mm anti tank gun) and a few other nations. Quite a few very revolutionary designs play with the idea to go away from (re)active armor to systems that avoide penetration or impact completely in relation with sensors and computer systems. Swedish or Norwegian tank designs aim for example for a tank that has not more weight then a usual APC but (in relation) much more armor then a Main battle tank. The idea is to destroy the shell while its in flight with computer sensors that track the flying object and aim with a gun (or something similar) on it, comparable to the defence against laser guided missiles. But that is all at the moment in a very early stage.

 

[SuAside]

Hinds are fine. but they're not Apaches with a crew compartment. at best they're Blackhawks with a small cargo hold and more weapons.

the helicopter has quite a bit of drawbacks, but it also has quite a few advantages as it is quite diverse.
your picture isn't one of the purchased ones, obviously (see the distinct lion logo on the side), so i'm wondering what exact version did they go with? (things differ in the motor, the kind of gun, armoring, etc)

anyhow, if you use proper tactics, it's a very useful tool. if you try to use it as something that it isn't, you'll obviously fail.

I think I have, now I'm completely lost as to what you are saying.

statement 1: fighters = force projection.
statement 2: force projection is not what Brazil needs, and a such the money should be spent better.
statement 3: the relative weight of the purchase of MBTs in the modernisation as proposed by you is disproportionate to what i believe the use of MBTs to be.

Sincerely, tanks may be losing importance, but 500 is still a small number of a country the size of Brazil. Show this argument and those figures to any Brazilian and they will tell you in your face it smacks of an attempt by developed nations to holdback the Brazilian armed forces with less than pursuasive arguments.

no doubt, but are they the best investment? will they be the most useful?

Again, im not putting them into the spotlight. You seem to think 500 is a large number of a country the size of Brazil, I don't think it is. This ties in with my above argument, look at Germany, France, the U.K, which are insignificant in size and yet have much larger tank forces.

France, UK & US also have a ton of aircraft carriers, does that mean the Brazilian Navy also needs new aircraft carriers? you wouldn't suggest such a thing, unless you had a fuckton of money to waste.

and no, i don't think 500 is much for Brazil, i just think the proportion of the money spent on MBTs is off.

Instead of labelling my arguments 'off' can you please elaborate on why you think they are off? They seem to prove my point tank warfare has a place where combatants are roughly at the same level of development, have mediocre air forces, and terrain is favourable for their operations.

your arguments mainly focus on offensive capabilities and open warfare. i doubt Brazil will invade Venezuela for lulz.

mechanised infantry (antitank capable LMVs), artillery, antitank guns,... are all valid alternatives for defense & far less expensive.

Hitler greatly focused on the Tigers and such. they were expensive and high maintenance. the german army however also had simple tanks which were less mobile but very well suited for infantry support in assault and for ambushes. one Tiger costed roughly more than twice the cost of the other tanks. some historians suggest that he might have won the blitzkrieg on the eastern front if he had spent less on expensive & high profile weapons.

the same might apply here.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...
Hitler greatly focused on the Tigers and such. they were expensive and high maintenance. the german army however also had simple tanks which were less mobile but very well suited for infantry support in assault and for ambushes. one Tiger costed roughly more than twice the cost of the other tanks. some historians suggest that he might have won the blitzkrieg on the eastern front if he had spent less on expensive & high profile weapons.

the same might apply here.

Roughly the time and resources needed for the construction of a single Tiger had the value of 2 Panthers and 4 Panzer IV (in its most modern variant the ausf. G and H). Heinz Guderian, famous for his knowledge about tanks and tactics always fighted for the Panzer IV and its use in the Wehrmacht. He knew that at no point the Germany economy would had enough recources to replace during the war all tanks with Panthers and Tigers. Till the end of the war the panzer IV was the backbone of the German Tankforce. It was also important to note that crews knew the Panzer IV blindly. The Panther was between 44/45 the best tank of its class, compared to the Sherman and T34/85. The Tiger loost much of its reputation in late 44 with the apperance of better anti tank weapons and tanks in the east, with beasts like the ISU-152 assault gun or the IS-2 (late war model). The long 75mm gun of the Panther was in the long run more effective in penetration to the 88mm of the Tiger (if used with the right shell). There have also been much more Panthers present then Tigers. In normandy alone 1/4 of the tanks have been Panthers (including all tanks from assault guns to usual battle tanks) much to the surprise of the US/Allied forces in the west which did not expected so many Panthers their armor proved to be a more serious issue compared to Tigers which they knew from the fighting in Tunis as they captured there in 42 a single Tiger and tested it in Brittain, it was expected that they would face Panzer IV (with long guns) and single Tigers which they would just avoid. Well hence the surprise when they faced a hell lot of Panthers as well, but luckily they had the absolute air superiority during that time.

There are many reasons why the Germans loost even if the ratio in tank looses was often enough 2:10 or 3:10 in favour for Germans (not for every battle though and looses for the Infantry was many times different). Part of it was for sure the many different tank models thrown on the field between 41 and 43 before Albert Speer decided for more standardisation and as well canceled a lot of projects like the so called "super tanks" (with sometimes a weight more then 150 tons) which just used many needed resources though to lidle to late in 43 the situation was already decided. Without the return of Guderian in 43 and the modernisation of the German panzertrupe (tank force) they would have already started to fall much earlier. The supply was many times extremly horrorible. They had tank crews on the front but it could take up to 3 months till either the needed parts or the replace for the tank it self arrived. It was a common thing to see extremly well trained and skilled tank crews in cases like Stalingrad to act like usual infantry (and beeing wasted that way) cause they just had no armor present that could be issued to them. It was not possible for Germany to keep enough men and material training of the crews took a lot of time and many times even the trained crews have been wasted [ training was done close to the front, those divisions had many times the best equipment high training and good motiviation but also most of the time the heaviest looses in the east and west ].

 

[Slaughter Manslaught]

i doubt Brazil will invade Venezuela for lulz.

But man, look at that sexy petroleum! All the cool kids are invading oil-rich countries, why can't we?


I don't like that Hugo Chavez bastard, but I hate Evo Morales. The fucker nationalized a lot of gas refinaries that belonged to Petrobrás by invading them with the Bolivian army. And our president acted like a fucking commie wuss. It that happened during the Military Governament times, Evo Morales would've NEVER done something like that. I would't mind seeing the broken remants of the Bolivian army being destroyed by our tanks.

Also, someone spoke something about nuclear power. We have two nuclear reactors that gave the North Americans quite a scare once. Brazil signed one of those anti-nuke pacts, but we could build a nuke the moment we wanted to.

 

[Makenshi]

I don't like that Hugo Chavez bastard, but I hate Evo Morales. The fucker nationalized a lot of gas refinaries that belonged to Petrobrás by invading them with the Bolivian army. And our president acted like a fucking commie wuss. It that happened during the Military Governament times, Evo Morales would've NEVER done something like that. I would't mind seeing the broken remants of the Bolivian army being destroyed by our tanks.

I don't like that sneaky, thiefy and oportunist Morales. But starting a war over a fucking refinery is over the top, isn't it? I agree our government should have acted with a more agressive stance, like asking UN for sanctions and stuff. But not military action, we really don't need that, or can do it in a sustainable way. And war is always bad for economy - except when you're the arms dealer seeling for both sides, or for the winner.

Besides, the civilians are never responsible enough to be shot, bombed and smashed nder the wheels of tanks. The vote, yeah, but almost never they do it knowing their trust will be used to start such attritions and eventually war - the average Jose may have voted Morales for the coca and nationalism and stuff, but I doubted anyone there wanted to steal refineries (thought I suspect everyone there liked the bonus refineries that they ilegally got along with THEIR petroleum) or go to war for them.

Also, someone spoke something about nuclear power. We have two nuclear reactors that gave the North Americans quite a scare once. Brazil signed one of those anti-nuke pacts, but we could build a nuke the moment we wanted to.

Quit dreaming; we have a lot, yes... except the main thing: the tech for the warheads and what goes inside them. Besides, our rocket are decades (maybe a century) far from what it needs to become an ICBM.

Also, being able to produced the best uranium ever for the cheapest price there is , doesn't mean that we can suddenly start a controlled chain reaction - even the tech for pacific nukular energy in our 2 reactors is german, not ours. We operate them by the manuals, not by the know-how.

[spoiler:5e7b384681]Talking about uranium refinement, I may be wrong but... I believe that the reason everyone bitches about Iran is not really because of nuclear weapons. Of course, being anti-west and such no one in Europe/US likes the idea of them having such weapons, and they may indeed produce a few, leading to a shift in regional balance and political stuff, blah blah.

But my thought is, they are mastering uranium refinement, producing a LOT with great quality and nice speed. That could make them into a strong exporter, and they would bother not only in the market, but as a suplier for other islamic countries as well. In the end, I think it's all geopolitics and economics, not nukes and ideology...[/spoiler:5e7b384681]

 

[Crni Vuk]

In the case of Iran. There is never only one reason. So as you say, the idea of Iran as distibutor for weapons-usable plutonium and/or uranium is sure one fear in the US gouvernement and the NATO and one reason to impose a sanction on the Iran.

But as with many things like a war for example the Iraq, it all depends how many see a benefit in the situation in the case of the Iraq many had one, not just politicans. As said you never have only "the" reason for something. Even the lobby for art had a interest in the "liberation" of the Iraq as that gave them access to many old kind of archaeologically ruins and thus material either for sale or museums. Now they alone of course can not start a war obviously, but someone somewhere has relations in either politics or to the military and eventualy would express willingly a support for the war. And if you have no many people who would support a war its for people like Bush of course easier to decide it and do it.


But to stay a bit on topic. Is it true that Brazil has in its military a mix between weapons from the west and east ?

 

[cronicler]

Makenshi:
Actually making a nuclear bomb is not hard. Any idiot with enough fissionable materials and his watchmaker friend can make one.
The bitch is making it a focused blast. Your average chain reaction is likely to go petering off in all directions (360x360 think 3d). The closely guarded secret is the other materials/chains that are also going off at the same moment and creating a funnel (so to speak) for the main reaction.

If you build a basic Nuke like the WW2 plans, you are going to need a shit load of materials and you are going to irradiate the whole place in an uncontrolled manner.

Just for comparison; WW2 nukes were puny little popguns. Just google for the huge mess they left behind and their small effects. Your average tactical modern nuke has roughly about the same amounts of fissionable materials. They can generate about 100 times more destruction with 1/10th of uncontrolled fallout.

 

[Makenshi]

Is it true that Brazil has in its military a mix between weapons from the west and east ?

Yes. We got stuff from US, France, Russia, India and other countries. And a lot of national stuff, like the Super Tucano trainer/light bomber.

 

[Crni Vuk]

And now Brazil even plans to build a nuclear powered submarine together with France.

Though the question that pops in my mind is just, that with so much military equipment from "different" nations, alone the one above are quite a lot, how to keep track of it? I mean ammunition, maintenance etc.?

 

[cronicler]

Crni: Actually "IF" you managed to get a good deal which includes permissions and blueprints to produce your spare parts locally, where your equipment is from doesn't really matter. (Unless you are talking about systems with interchangeable parts like different gun platforms using same chasis or rifle/lmg/hmg families)

Russian equipment is a bit better on the local logistic side as you can usually get those permissions and even some skilled teachers for your workforce for the same amount of cash you would pay for a western weapon system alone.
The other fact that Russian equipment is generally more primitive/bare bones has its upsides and downsides. More rugged and economical but less efficient is usually the case.
Eu weapon dealers usually try to put you into real tight corners with their demands on after sale transactions...

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Soviet tanks - reliability - NATO and all that

Well they didn't have the equipment for airlifting if thats what you mean, but as far as tanks and their logistics go, Russia has a good track record.

As for Germany and the USSR during WWII, well, Germany was renown for the quality or their tanks, which were generally expensive, requiring many resources and raw materials, and some plagued with mechanical problems, especially the larger varieties.

Russia simply mass produced medium tanks which were to eventualy win the war. As powerful as the Tiger II was, it was tanks like the Panzer IV (as you mentioned), Sherman and T-34's that did most of the fighting.

Most of the huge numbers still result from times of the 70s and 80s. From the 2500 Leopards for example are only 1000 (aprox) operational while the rest are either outdated models waiting for updates or discharge. And the situation is similar for the US most of their Abram tanks got during the 90s a large update. At least Germany would be very happy if they could remove 3/4 of their tanks emidiately, but that is not possible cause you just cant laid off so many personal in a short time without issues.

Still, 1000 is still quite a large number for a nation the size of Germany, whereas 500 is a very small number for a nation the size of Brazil.

As said no one here disputes the usefullness of tanks in a combat situation if used within the right circumstances. But how it seems tanks will have in future more use from the deterrence then actual combat. Particularly since more and more nations dont engange in direct confrontations anymore.

Whether for deterrence or other uses, tanks are stil a useful tool in any battlefield. Modern warfare hasn't changed enough to make them completely outdated. Especially if these new active defense systems prove sucessful.

For a nation that has issues with their economy even a number like 500 can be already quite large.

True, but 2 billion is still a small sum, and the need for Brazil to remodernise is quite urgent. Its equipment is laughable at the moment and its neighbours have superior technology in quite a lot of areas.

But not with the same preasure as in past. Quite a lot of programms got with the end of the Soviet union canceled in both US and Germany (for example the Leopard III programm with the idea of a long 150mm anti tank gun) and a few other nations

Well, yes, but they are still being developed. I suspect 150mm will follow soon within the next 10-20 years, if raiguns aren't perfected by then.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

Hinds are fine. but they're not Apaches with a crew compartment. at best they're Blackhawks with a small cargo hold and more weapons.

the helicopter has quite a bit of drawbacks, but it also has quite a few advantages as it is quite diverse.
your picture isn't one of the purchased ones, obviously (see the distinct lion logo on the side), so i'm wondering what exact version did they go with? (things differ in the motor, the kind of gun, armoring, etc)

anyhow, if you use proper tactics, it's a very useful tool. if you try to use it as something that it isn't, you'll obviously fail.

For a country like Brazil, hinds are quite a good choice. They provide a good gun platform, and the cargo hold to transport troops quickly to the battlefield, a sort of aerial APC which is what they Russians wanted when they developed it. Its a perfect mix of a 'Hip' and say and Apache. Brazil really does need more helicopters.

statement 1: fighters = force projection.
statement 2: force projection is not what Brazil needs, and a such the money should be spent better.
statement 3: the relative weight of the purchase of MBTs in the modernisation as proposed by you is disproportionate to what i believe the use of MBTs to be.

Why wouldn't Brazil wan't power projection, even if at a regional level? Countries such as Peru, Chile and Venezuela can project a lot more aerial power than Brazil can at the moment, and that needs to be adressed, especially in light of the geopolitical and economical realities of Brazil.

Like I said before, there is still a good 400 million left out of that budget that can be used to meet many of your concerns, especially anti-tank weaponry and missiles.

And even if you think MBT's are not as useful as you think, 500 is a very small number of a country the size of Brazil. Very small.

no doubt, but are they the best investment? will they be the most useful?

OK, for 1 billion, what do you propose instead then?

France, UK & US also have a ton of aircraft carriers, does that mean the Brazilian Navy also needs new aircraft carriers? you wouldn't suggest such a thing, unless you had a fuckton of money to waste.

Brazil has one aircraft carrier, I think it should have at least four. But aircraft carriers are expensive and at the moment, the navy cannot afford them.

your arguments mainly focus on offensive capabilities and open warfare. i doubt Brazil will invade Venezuela for lulz.

Yes, but like I said, you never know when any regional incidents may turn for the worse, and its better to be prepared. The geopolitical concers of a nation also have to be taken into account. There is still a fear there will be a conflict in the future in the Amazon region, so Brazil takes the necessary steps to ensure its safety from both foreign and domestic elements.

mechanised infantry (antitank capable LMVs), artillery, antitank guns,... are all valid alternatives for defense & far less expensive.

All those have been adressed in that budget I suggested. You get mechanisez infantry, APC's/IFV's, artillery, and a lot of money left to invest in light weapons and anti-tank weapons.

Also, someone spoke something about nuclear power. We have two nuclear reactors that gave the North Americans quite a scare once. Brazil signed one of those anti-nuke pacts, but we could build a nuke the moment we wanted to.

Quit dreaming; we have a lot, yes... except the main thing: the tech for the warheads and what goes inside them. Besides, our rocket are decades (maybe a century) far from what it needs to become an ICBM.

Not exactly. We have the technology for ICBM's except the guidance systems, which could be manufacted locally as Brazil is quite capable in that technologic field.

One incident in 2004 I think involving a rocket was been theorized to have been U.S sabotage for fears we could develop a rocket capable of being used for an ICBM platform.

Our nuclear reactors have parts that are actually superior to French and U.S technology, so like I said, the know how is there.

 

[SuAside]

Why wouldn't Brazil wan't power projection, even if at a regional level?

because force projection is by definition expensive.

and of lesser usefulness overall than actual needs of a military. you might want to start with providing your troops with rations, munitions and adequate training before buying expensive toys.

OK, for 1 billion, what do you propose instead then?

i'd build a Death Star.

Brazil has one aircraft carrier, I think it should have at least four. But aircraft carriers are expensive and at the moment, the navy cannot afford them.

which was my point.

 

[Makenshi]

Not exactly. We have the technology for ICBM's except the guidance systems, which could be manufacted locally as Brazil is quite capable in that technologic field.

You're brazillian WTF? Never suspected, lol. Hey... are you Tesla from the OuterSpace forum?

One incident in 2004 I think involving a rocket was been theorized to have been U.S sabotage for fears we could develop a rocket capable of being used for an ICBM platform.

I suspect that as well, but for other reason: the Alcantara base is a far better launch point than any in US, Russia, Ukraine, etc. Cheaper and competitive satellite launches from Brazil is something the countries in this market absolutely don't want.

But the investigations done by our military couldn't prove if sabotage happened or not... or so they say. Can't blame them if sabotage evidence was found and covered to avoid diplomatic trouble, it's a serious accusation and could lead to breaking diplomatic relations or even war; both very bad for our economy and international politics.

Our nuclear reactors have parts that are actually superior to French and U.S technology, so like I said, the know how is there.

Interesting... better keep a low profile, thought. We have too much to protect already, and too little defensive capacities for those, IMO.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well they didn't have the equipment for airlifting if thats what you mean, but as far as tanks and their logistics go, Russia has a good track record.

We are not only talking about air lifting and neither "only" about Russia.

Look to bring it to the core, it is about the whole picture. The big context. The NATO on one side the Warsaw pact on the other, not Russia. Sovietunion, Poland, East Germany, Hungary etc. I have no doubt that Russia is quite capable of defending its own borders and has the economy to keep its "own" army runing in good to excelent conditions if needed for a war. They proved this with the second world war against Germany albeit with a lot of support in material from western Allied nations (which should never be forgoten! Russia was never completely alone since day 1! of the war in the east! But that just by the way). It is extremly doubtfull that Russia alone would be able to run in a war between the NATO and Warsaw Pact the economy of all its satellite sates that alone is not even possible by thinknig about the big variation in armor and equipment present. Comanded Economy proved to be a falue in times of peace, and it would mean a colapse in the time of war. It are realistic estamiations when certain forces say that in a NATO - Warsaw Pact war after a short time most of the Warsaw Pact armor would just stop to advance cause of heavy maintenance issues and falure in the equipment and that are Generals from EAST GERMANY which said that (later when the colt war was over). From the nations in the Pact, only the Sovietunion was issued with most modern equipment satellite states got most of the time rather older and outdated material while in the NATO most nations like France, Germany, Brittain, Spain, Italy etc. keept in many situations their army up to date not only with american equipment but as well own developed updates, of course many times enough in strong relation with US companies but that was most of the time in favour for the US, not the Europeans. More technical equipment has been copyied by US armies from Europe then Europe from the US (See smothbore guns, Anti Tank equipment, Armor protection, Laser guided systems for tank guns etc. The Abram Tank still is using a Antitank gun from produced in licence from Rheinmetall). What Europe got was many times nuclear weapons, like the Patriot system for short/medium range that has been positioned in Germany (though not controled by Germany) which almost caused the third world war in the 90s. Again it doesnt mean the NATO would have won a war against the Warsaw Pact for the case the NATO would have surprsingly attacked the Sovietunion with landforces.

Still, 1000 is still quite a large number for a nation the size of Germany, whereas 500 is a very small number for a nation the size of Brazil.

Just that Brazil is not even close to the ecnomic stability or military position of Germany. Thus why I say even a quite small number can be some stress.

Whether for deterrence or other uses, tanks are stil a useful tool in any battlefield. Modern warfare hasn't changed enough to make them completely outdated. Especially if these new active defense systems prove sucessful.

Just that reality shows a difference. When was the last time of big tanks engaging each other ? For the last aprox. 15 years tanks have been used in urban engagements against single groups and rather small attackers or in situations for peace keeping (See Kosovo, Afganistan etc.). The glory days of tanks that engage each other from 4 km with numbers to the thousands are over and its questionable if it ever will come again. The last battle with a mass of tanks was in 2003 and it was just a matter of minutes as the bigest part of the Iraq tank force has been devasted with almost virtualy no loos for the US. But of coruse that was not a really fair battle, since the US had almost all advantages not only in numbers but also training and technology and air superiority! Though what it shows is just that almost no nation will engange in sich situations cause they are way to expensive. Last time when you could loose 2500 tanks in 1 our and could get away with it was for Russia in Kurks 1943 (its a bit exagerated, not a acurate number, but you get the picture). And even that worked only cause the Germans had no chance to replace their looses.

True, but 2 billion is still a small sum, and the need for Brazil to remodernise is quite urgent. Its equipment is laughable at the moment and its neighbours have superior technology in quite a lot of areas.

Modernisation. New Technology. No doubt. But the question is, from those neighbours, how many have a "big" (in the size of 500 units) tank force?

Well, yes, but they are still being developed. I suspect 150mm will follow soon within the next 10-20 years, if raiguns aren't perfected by then.

Which nation has curent programs of 150 anti tank guns for their battle tanks? The only use is in self propeled howitzers/artillery platforms (like the Paladin or Panzerhaubitze 2000).

The truth is that tank technology in its current form similar to small arms reached their peak in eveolution and there is no ground breaking new development to be expected anymore. There will be of course still replacement and new technologies in electronics, better computers that mean new changes. But all you could really do at the moment is increase the size of guns and powder to achieve higher penetration which would be then again compensated by higher armor values and different design of vehicles (meaning larger in size to hold the weight). You see the issue? A development, for more armor and biger guns which lead to another developemnt etc. and do not more then increase the money for a single unit. It is already that way that all modern tanks can quite easily on the usual ranges (2-3 Kilometers) penetrate and destroy each other. Increasing here only the numbers will not give any satisfying result. One makes a biger shell, the other one makes a biger armor. Tank guns already reached the physical limits of the material used for the shells. A velocity of aprox 1600-1700 meters per second.

It is estimated that current tanks like the Leopard 2 and Abram will do their service at least till 2016 eventualy even 2020 cause there is just no need for huge new developments in that field. What ever now if that means that we will get tanks that have magnetic armor (magnetic waves that reduce the speed of the shell) and railguns with velocities of more then 10 000m per second has yet to be seen. Railguns are already used and a possiblity (in science and physics they are working perfectly at least for one shot to simulate the impact of asteroids) but the preasure to make weapons out of it is yet not high enough.

Our nuclear reactors have parts that are actually superior to French and U.S technology, so like I said, the know how is there.

You have actualy any source for that statement ?