The Geriatric Air Force - Slightly Used

[Logan Hartke]

Just a thought: if other nations are still using eligible hardware, can we "bribe" them to retire it early so we can use it? That is to say, if Jordan doesn't want to part with it's newly-upgraded Chally Is, can we pay them Leo IIA6 or Leclerc unit prices in order to free them up?

In this scenario, you can basically assume that countries would retire some of their stuff early or keep it around for you, then charge you exorbitant prices knowing that they can take you for more than anyone else because you have nowhere else to buy from.  Basically, don't worry if it's still in user or otherwise unavailable.  Just be aware that you're limited to the number of aircraft/vehicles actually produced and you should basically assume that at least 1/2 the service life of the equipment is already used up.

I've been thinking about some of the logistic problems involved with keeping some of the older types running.  I'm leaning toward limiting the number of airframe types (at least for the "major" roles), limiting the number of engine types and only buying types where 100+ airframes are available for spares support (apart from the operational airframes).  I'm going to try to follow similar guidelines for the Army and Navy.

I think that's basically a sound concept, but I wouldn't let that be a rule the restricts you from using limited numbers of proven, reliable types in specialized roles.  In other words, I can agree that two squadrons of MiG-25s might be more trouble than they're worth, but I don't think keeping around a dozen S-64 Skycranes for heavy lifting is a bad idea.

On a seperate topic, does anyone know why the US does not use the 75mm pack howitzer; not even for light forces, like the Rangers?  Are mortars more effective?  Do they carry around 105mm howitzers instead, even though they cant be broken down and carry by pack animals?

I think it's basically because mortars are lighter, can be broken down easier, pack a bigger punch, and are just as accurate nowadays (not to mention the special ammunition makes them more versatile).

Since, helicopters seem to be one of the harder categories of aircraft to find suitable treaty approved types; some 75mm & 105mm pack howitzers might be in order.  After all, the treaty says nothing about production of towed artillery - we'll just buy blueprints, tooling and license rights for the 75mm pack howitzer and some version of 105mm howitzer.

I imagined towed artillery and infantry ATGMs would be one way to really help out, but those are typically one-trick ponies.  They're good once and for one thing.  If your enemy has any sort of counter-battery capability, you're screwed.  Now, there's also nothing against softskins, so a CAESAR would be fine, as well.

...
UK L118: Abbot SPG ammo (NOT interchangeable with M1)
...

I know you only mentioned it in passing, but I think the Abbot would be a truly GREAT piece of kit for this scenario.  It's cheap, reliable, well-loved, and there are tons of them available.  I'd throw a Skyranger turret on it and use it like a modern Falcon AA.  You could use them for all sorts of things, but they're great as-is, too.  A great use of one's money.


Some great ideas on here, to be sure.  I think the 727 and DC-8 ideas are great.  Both are capable, efficient, reliable airframes and there's plenty of them available.

Cheers,

Logan

[blue520]

What were the first generation Harriers (GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A/C/S) originally like to maintain? Were they hardy or required a high constant maintenance program?  Also how well did they age, I can imagine V/STOL would take its toll on engine life (that can be replaced) but what was it like for the airframe.

[gral_rj]

On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle in or out?

As far as I'm aware, the Gazelle is in.

[Weaver]

What were the first generation Harriers (GR.1/GR.3 and AV-8A/C/S) originally like to maintain? Were they hardy or required a high constant maintenance program?  Also how well did they age, I can imagine V/STOL would take its toll on engine life (that can be replaced) but what was it like for the airframe.

They're not too bad on maintenance hours, but they eat engines at an alarming rate: IIRC most harriers go through three or four in their airframe life. The airframe is generally okay for normal stresses, but the rear fuselage suffers badly from accoustic resonance-induced fatigue due to the efflux from the rear nozzles scrubbing past it. Again, most airframes have at least one complete new rear fuselage during their life. This is why most advanced Harrier-successor proposals concern themselves with divorcing the jet efflux from the airframe.

What this all means is that it's hard to maintain a Harrier fleet without a factory somewhere in the world making engines and rear fuselages. There was a proposal to fit the later, big fan Pegasus into 1st Gen Sea Harrier airframes, but it was expensive, incredibly fiddly (new fuselage frames...) and very slow to complete each conversion, which is why it was dropped and the Sea Harriers retired. I don't know how long RR are going to keep the earlier Pegasus in production, given that only the Indian and Thai navies use the aircraft now. Mind you, if Geriatria bought a large number of old airframes, that might change the equation in itself. I don't see why you couldn't buy/copy the jigs to make new rear fuselages in-house: they're not complicated.

[Weaver]

I know you only mentioned it in passing, but I think the Abbot would be a truly GREAT piece of kit for this scenario.  It's cheap, reliable, well-loved, and there are tons of them available.  I'd throw a Skyranger turret on it and use it like a modern Falcon AA.  You could use them for all sorts of things, but they're great as-is, too.  A great use of one's money.

Oh yeah - it's on my list. Another point in it's favour is that it has many common components with the FV432 APC.
Will Skyranger fit though? It was intended for MBT hulls and the Abbot hull is much lighter than that. It might end up being top-heavy.


Speaking of the FV432, it's a good option in all sorts of ways: BAe upgraded a load as "Bulldogs" for use in Iraq which puts new engines, suspension and armour on the table as official upgrades (and Israeli-style "lighthouse" turrets if you want them). The Berlin Brigade had FV432s with Fox turrets, and since the British Army retired the Fox, there "must" be a warehouse full of turrets lying around (IIRC there were fewer Sabres (Fox turret on Scorpion hull) built than donor Foxes). Speaking of Sabres, the same process "must" have generated a pile of spare Scorpion turrets which could be fitted on FV432 hulls if allowed, creating a Fire Support vehicle similar to the Australian M113-based  version. Would it be acceptable to upgrade them to 90mm?

Staying British, Alvis offer a complete rebuild for the Ferret scout car, with a diesel engine and an FVT900 turret with 12.7mm and 7.62mm MGs. There are also engine upgrades for the Saladin and Saracen.

[blue520]

Thanks gral_rj.

Thanks Weaver that helps clarify my thoughts, I was planing to use the Harrier in a forward stationed close ground attack and anti-air (helicopter) role. A number of old Harriers may be more trouble than they are worth for this role. Think I will drop it and move to a combination of helicopters and light attack (and observation) prop aircraft, with support from a advanced trainer and attack jet aircraft. It will help me reduce the number of different engine types.
     

[Weaver]

There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

[Mossie]

Caddilac Gage/Textron did a number of armoured vehicles that would be useful.  The V-100 Commando would fit, the V-150 & V-200 were different enough to prevent this from being disqualified?  The Cadillac Gage Scout (I've always liked the little wedge of cheese) should be okay too, both are available in significant numbers.  The Stingray light tank is another, they were only supplied to Thailand & deliveries stopped in 1990.

[Logan Hartke]

On related helicopters, is the Aerospatiale Gazelle in or out?

As far as I'm aware, the Gazelle is in.

The question is, was SOKO still building them after 1990?  If so, how many, and were they new-builds or assembled from existing parts (my guess)?

There's a peculiar effect with all of this:

If you have a tiny number of old aircraft, then the total cost of lavishing extravagent maintenance on them is still worth it (if there's no other way of getting the capability), because it's still a drop-in-the-ocean of the total defence budget. Example: RAF Shackeltons in the '70s/early '80s.

If you have a huge number of old aircraft in service, then it becomes worthwhile to build up the infrastructure to support/re-manufacture them in-house, thereby reducing the cost/MMH per flying hour. Example: the PAF's Shenyang F6s and their Kamra facility.

The problem lies in the middle ground: too expensive to ignore but not enough in service to make it worth changing the game.......


So if you've got ten squadrons of Harriers and you can therefore persuade RR to keep making engines for them and BAE to set you up with your own jigs to make new rear fuselages, then you're okay. On the hand, if you've got one squadron of Harriers, you can live off 2nd hand spares holdings and cannibalisation for the next ten years, so you're also okay. Three squadrons of Harriers is probably unsustainable though... wierd but true.

It's 100% true.  It's also one of the things that I think is very interesting about this scenario.  Shows the upsides and downsides of using the oldies.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

Now, there's also nothing against softskins, so a CAESAR would be fine, as well.

There are some examples of what you can mount on HMMWV and other smaller tactical trucks.

Speaking of which, where does a vehicle cease to be a softskin?  For example, are shrapnel-protected variants of tactical trucks considered softskins like the rest of their families or armored vehicles?

[Weaver]

I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

That's still a controversial subject in military circles and can generate fierce debate! Personally, I'd go for the dedicated fire-support vehicle, since my arguments against MICVs have always been that APCs, light tanks and ATGW-carriers have different maneuver requirements, which they can't satisfy if they're all combined into one vehicle, and that the more you make the infantry's vehicle look like a tank, the more they'll tend to use it like a tank until they come a cropper because, at the end of the day, it isn't. You won't have to go far to find somebody to disagree with me, however.

[Logan Hartke]

Speaking of which, where does a vehicle cease to be a softskin?  For example, are shrapnel-protected variants of tactical trucks considered softskins like the rest of their families or armored vehicles?

If it was built with armor, it's out.  Also, no standardized armor kits allowed fitted to softskin vehicles.  In short, if it has armor, it better be a chassis from before 1990.

I don't know if I can communicate the idea of this question properly, but I'll try asking anyway: say, if I want to give a platoon of APCs/IFVs some anti-armour capability, but carrying ATGM reloads would cut further into the number of troops an infantry carrier can carry, which would be a better course of action: 1) designate a single vehicle as the platoon's fire support with the launcher and sacrifice its troop capacity in favour of extra reloads, or 2) give every vehicle a loaded launcher but no reloads?

That's still a controversial subject in military circles and can generate fierce debate! Personally, I'd go for the dedicated fire-support vehicle, since my arguments against MICVs have always been that APCs, light tanks and ATGW-carriers have different maneuver requirements, which they can't satisfy if they're all combined into one vehicle, and that the more you make the infantry's vehicle look like a tank, the more they'll tend to use it like a tank until they come a cropper because, at the end of the day, it isn't. You won't have to go far to find somebody to disagree with me, however.

Hah!  You're right.  I disagree.  I was just reading Zaloga's latest book on tank vs tank combat in Gulf War #1 and one of my main takeaways was, "boy, we sure were lucky our Bradleys had those TOWs, they got some use out of them".  There were many times that the Brads got TOW kills on Iraqi tanks.  The RARDEN--good as it is--is not going to cut it against a T-55, let alone a T-72.  A TOW?  That'll do.

I think it's also the reason you see most of the new IFVs either mounting a real serious gun (35/50mm, 40mm, 100mm) instead of the smaller calibers (20mm, 25mm, and 30mm all used to be considered sufficient main armament) or combining a smaller gun with a couple of missiles.

As Anthony G. Williams explains so well:

Several drivers are pushing up the gun calibre of new LAFVs. One of them is that the armour protection of such vehicles is improving, as can clearly be seen as a result of operations in Iraq. The weight of existing LAFVs has been steadily increasing, mainly to add protection: over their lifetime, the M2 Bradley has increased from 23 to 30 tonnes, the Warrior from 25 to 32, the CV90 from 21 (prototype) to 35, the German Marder from 27.5 to 37.5, while the new German Puma weighs in at a massive 43 tonnes. This will require more powerful AP ammunition to achieve reliable penetration in the future.

So, you basically have 3 options:

1) go with a smaller gun only--30mm and under--and risk not being able to destroy even enemy IFVs, let alone tanks
2) go with a much larger caliber and round (and consequently much larger turret and internal volume), but still risk not being able to handle emerging threats ten years from now
or
3) go with a smaller gun for use against soft & lightly armored targets AND a couple of ATGMs for when you really need them

There are a few disadvantages with the ATGM.  You have a separate targeting method, they're bulky and tough to reload, they can be jammed/confused, not all are fire and forget, and sometimes IFV crews get to thinking that they'd rather be tankers and they end up dead.

The advantages are many, however, and I think they're worth it.  They don't need a big, expensive, bulky turret to mount them on.  They have better penetration and overall lethality.  They can target enemy vehicles behind obstructions.

Most importantly to me, however, they can be upgraded and replaced as needed.  When the British Army wisely determined that the RARDEN just didn't cut it anymore when it came to lethality, they had to start a major program (WLIP, then WFLIP), choose between a bunch of new different guns out there, now they're finally to a stage where they can pick a new turret because the new gun is too big for the old one.  It's only been more than six years since the program began.  Assuming there are no budget cuts, program delays, selection protests, unexpected complications, or changes to the program (when could that happen?), then the new gun will START being available to squaddies in about 4 years.  By comparison, the US Bradley went from TOW-1 to TOW-2 in four years for the whole fleet.  When the new TOW-2A/Bs came out, we just put them where the TOW-2s had been.  Simple way to seriously increase the lethality in a second.

I say pick a good 30mm or larger gun and strap a couple of SPIKEs to the side of the turret for insurance.

You don't deny your soldiers a pistol because you're afraid they're going to try to act like the Secret Service or MI6, you give them a pistol then train them how to use it in a disciplined fashion.  Same thing with ATGMs on IFVs.  They might need it.  Give it to them.  Teach them how to use it the right way.

Cheers,

Logan

[dy031101]

For my choices of APCs/IFVs (AMX-VCI, Pbv 302, Marder 1, BTR-50), I've intended to use Samson RWS...... they offer different models based on guns calibers, and even the MG-armed Mini-Samson has provision for a two-round Spike ATGM launcher.

I want even infantry carrier platoons to have an ATGM capability of their own in case s**t happens (and yeah, judging from what I read about past wars and battles, it does).  I just couldn't quite make up my mind if I should give all that firepower to, say, the platoon leader (a loaded launcher and reloads) or to distribute the firepower to every vehicle in the platoon (multiple loaded launchers and no reloads- they are, at the end of the day, infantry carriers after all).

[Bryan H.]

Looking at the OV-10 again.  Just by the numbers, it appears that total production was 275 aircraft (157 to the USAF & 118 to the USMC).  81 aircraft were lost during Vietnam; so, 194 aircraft remain.  I don't know the current number remaining but I think a safe number might be in the 125 to 150 range.

The OV-10 seems to do a lot of "low-end" missions well; forward air control, light CAS, COIN, light utility transport, observation & aerial reconnaissance, and more recently civil search and rescue and forest fire protection.

Not only does the OV-10 have useful STOL capability and ability to use automobile fuel instead of Avgas but, additionally, the type seems to have some good growth potential.  IIRC, North American tested or did studies using at least three different engines including the Garrett T76 and the PT6.  The Philippines AF has recently upgraded some of their OV-10's w/ new 4 bladed Hartzell props and "zero timed" the aircraft.  (aside: what exactly does "zero time" mean in aerospace speak?)  Indonesia & Thailand appear to have replaced the four 7.62 M60's with four .50 cal Brownings.  Of course, there is also the extensive USMC OV-10D+ upgrade program.

I think the trick would be to gather up as many OV-10's, upgrade them, and have them in regular use before Boeing resumes production with the "OV-10X."    One Geriatria has bought and is using the type, I think they'd be "grandfathered" in.

I think the ideal OV-10 in this situation would be basically an upgraded OV-10D+ with PT6 engines and 4 or 5 bladed props, two .50 cal GAU-19A's in place of the 4 M60's, updated FLIR/EO/laser - maybe some sort of modified LANTIRN or SNIPER integral to the aircraft, and the ability to use Hellfire missiles, LGB/PGM's and Stinger missiles in addition to unguided rockets, dumb bombs and gun pods.   

Bryan

[Bryan H.]

Geriatria 2.0

Kingdom of Geriatria
Capitol: Auldfahrt
Population: (2000) 51,257,828
Religion: 91% Catholic, 6% Orthodox
Resources: (top 10) Agriculture, Forests, Coal, Copper, Chromium, Oil, Gas, Gold, Titanium, Phosphates
Industry: Auto manufacturing, Banking & Financial, Steel, Shipbuilding, Textiles, Electronics, Aerospace, Food production, Fishing, Bio-medical research
Climate: Temperate with moderate wet winters and drier summers, snow & extreme cold in mountainous areas
Current issues: Economic development, environmental preservation, reintegration with the international community, external political disputes  
Organizations: UN, Interpol, International Court, NATO/Partnership for Peace; bilateral economic and defense agreements with US, UK, France and Italy

Current issues: Monarchy reestablished by popular vote in 1990; King Michael VI returned after 52 years in exile due an attempted regicide, an attack that killed his brother Prince Joseph, by the former military junta.  The Catholic Church and other religions are regaining their previous position in society after being oppressed by the junta.  The Junta imprisoned over 7000 clergy of all denominations as opposition.  Rebuilding civil society and the national economy after 30 years of the fascist despotism and failed economic policies of the military junta is the primary goal of HM government and the people.  Maintaining political, economic and diplomatic stability are priorities.  

Rebuilding the military with democratic principles within the constraints of the "peace treaty" is also a priority.  With the agreement of the people, as indicated by a freely held, 73% majority vote in 1993; universal military training and conscription are a part of military policy along the lines of the Swiss or Israeli militaries.  Every adult male, upon reaching 18½, serve in active duty for 3 years.  This active duty service is followed by 9 years of National Guard Reserve service and then 9 years of local National Militia service.  As with the Swiss, marksmanship is a source of pride for every citizen and is encouraged by government policy.  As they are not prohibited by treaty, Geriatria produces most of its own small arms, towed artillery and ammunition.  Geriatria produces as much of its armament as is economically practical and is allowed by treaty.  Geriatria is currently in negotiation with the US to allow the US to build a combined Naval base, military airfield and training and logistics base.  Geriatria has been sending some of its officers to various academies and schools, including West Point, Sandhurst and Annapolis, in the US, UK and France for advanced training and education.  Geriatria also participates in Red Flag exercises and other international training exercises.  Geriatria is planning on re-establishing its own military service academies.  Geriatria is an active member in the Partnership for Peace and hopes to gain full NATO and EC membership by 2020.  Geriatria has sent members of its Gendarmerie and more recently military on NATO and UN peacekeeping missions.

Royal Geriatria Air Force – order of battle, squadron = 16 aircraft (please note: lots of reserve sqdns. In keeping w/ the citizen militia concept)

Type:                                             Number:
A-4x/TA-4x Super Skyhawks               160/16 (5 reserve sqdns.)
Super Mirage F.1E/F.1Bs                     160/16 (5 reserve sqdns.)
A-7x/TA-7x Super Corsair II's              64/16 (2 reserve sqdns.)
F-4x/RF-4x Super Phantom 2000's        64/16 (2 reserve sqdns.)
F-111x/EF-111x                                56/8 (2 reserve sqdns.)
MB.326                                            56
Cessna M150                                    56
SP-2x Super Neptune                         32
DHC-5 Buffalo                                   32
OV-10x Super Bronco                         64 (2 reserve sqdns.)
CH-46                                             32
Alouette II                                       56
Alouette III                             80
Gazelle                                           56

First of all I want to maximize the airframes with the best engines and electronics.  Since we're servicing older airframes, I'd want a limited number of different types of modern engines to simplify logistics and reduce engine maintenance.  I'll try to compensate for possibly excessive maintenance on the older airframes by using "low" maintenance modern engines.  Geriatria's military planners and buyers endeavor to procure the maximum number of airframes possible.  Many will be upgraded, some of the upgraded aircraft will be stored after re-manufacture, other upgraded aircraft will be sent straight to regular use and other aircraft will be kept for spares recovery.  Geriatria's ground crews are highly adept in making the most of limited resources and "less than optimal" (from a maintenance standpoint) airframes.

Engines (for the bulk of the force) I'll settle on are the GE F404, SNECMA M53, PW1120 and GE F110.  When the next decade rolls over we will be ready for F-14D's & A-10's.

A-4's: buy up all A-4M's, A-4N's, OA-4M's, a few score A-4F's and many TA-4J's as soon as the USMC, USN & Israelis retire them.  This should yield about 300+ single seat, late production A-4's and 50+ two seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on F404 engines & APG-66s and other Kahu/A-4SU upgrades.  These upgraded A-4 Super Skyhawks would be the backbone of the Air Forces.  They will primarily tasked of light fighter/attack, precision strike and CAS missions.  This would be an analog of the Gripen  

Mirage F.1: buy up 300+ late production Mirage F.1's.  250 single seat and 50 two-seaters.  Run them through an upgrade program centered on SNECMA M53 engines & RDY400 and other Mirage F.1 & Mirage F.1CT upgrades proposed (and done) for French, Moroccan and Spanish aircraft.  They will primarily tasked of light multi-role fighter, and fighter interceptor missions.  After upgrades this would be a "poor-man's Mirage 2000."

A-7's: buy up 200+ A-7D's and 50+ TA-7K's.  Run them through an A-7F type upgrade program centered on F110 engines & other A-7F upgrades proposed.  They will primarily tasked of medium multi-role fighter/bomber, precision strike and interdiction missions.  This would be an analog of the F-16

F-4E's: buy up 200+ late production F-4E's & RF-4E's. Run 100 of them through a hybrid Kurnass 2000/Boeing Super Phantom/Terminator 2020 upgrade program using PW1120 engines, updated radar and electronics.  They will primarily tasked of heavy multi-role fighter/bomber, precision strike, strategic reconnaissance and fighter interceptor missions.

F-111F's buy up all remaining 84? F-111F + several score F-111A's & all EF-111A's.  Run the F-111F's through a upgrade program including GE F110 engines, updated radar & electronics.  They will primarily tasked on long-range medium bombing/precision strike, strategic reconnaissance, electronic warfare, maritime strike and long-range fighter interception.

OV-10D's: buy up all remaining OV-10A's & OV-10D's (possibly 125 to 150 remaining).  Run 100 aircraft through a hybrid upgrade incorporating the OV-10D+ (NOGS) program, the PW Canada PT6 turboprops (as originally studied in the North American LARA proposal) w/ modern 4 or 5 bladed props, upgraded sensors (perhaps some integral version of the SNIPER or LANTIRN), two .50 cal GAU-19's instead of the four 7.62 M60's in the spontons and an upgraded and modernized suite of weapons (including the Hellfire, Stinger, smaller PGM's, unguided rockets, dumb bombs and gun pods).  These aircraft will be tasked with FAC, light CAS, COIN, light utility STOL transport, observation & aerial reconnaissance, and assistance of civil authorities w/ search and rescue and forest fire suppression.

Only these six will be the main force.  Other types in use are DHC-5 transports and Lockheed P-2 Neptune not sure how I'll update the last 2 but definitely new engines.

Royal Geriatria Army

Number:         Type:                                                                      
2500              BTR-60 APC (w/Israeli Saymar upgrades) & variants      
750                M60 MBT (w/ a combination of M60-2000 & M60T upgrades)
750                Leopard 1 (w/ upgrades & 120mm gun)
300                Leopard 1 w/ AUF2 155mm gun
75                  AML-90 Recon Car (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
25                  AML-60/20 Recon Car(w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
100                M3 APC (w/ a combination of Israeli Saymar & Irish upgrades)
500                Marder 1A5 (w/ a combination of E4 Kuka turret & proposed Canadian upgrades)
I'll continue to work on treaty safe SP Arty, AA Arty/missiles & other armored vehicles

Primary small arms: All manufactured in Geriatria
.22LR      Ruger 10/22 (pre-service/entry-level training rifle)
9mm Para   Browning Hi-Power (pistol)
.40S&W                Glock 22 (pistol)
.40S&W                MP5/40 (submachine gun)
6.8SPC                Galil AR/M (assault rifle) – converted in Geriatria to use the new 6.8SPC round, new primary issue rifle
7.62NATO   FN-FAL (designated marksman/battle rifle) – formerly primary issue rifle
7.62NATO   HK11E (squad automatic weapon/machine rifle)
7.62NATO   FN-MAG (general purpose machine gun)
7.62NATO   Lee Enfield No4 Mk2 (ceremonial rifle & pre-service/entry-level training rifle)
.30-06 Sprg.   Winchester Model 70 (snipers rifle)
.338Lapua   Accuracy International AWSM (medium anti-personnel snipers rifle)
.50Cal.      Barrett M82 (anti-materiel/heavy snipers rifle)
.50Cal.      M2HB (heavy machine gun)
12 Gauge                Remington 870 (combat shotgun)

Royal Geriatia Navy

Aircraft Carrier                (x1)    ex-Clemenceau class
Helicopter Cruisers    (x1)   ex-Andrea Doria class
Destroyers       (x8)    ex-Spruance class
         (x8)   ex-Type 42 class
Frigates                   (x12)   ex-Knox class
Corvettes      (x9)   ex-D'Estienne D'Orves
FAC's         (x10)   ex-Type 143 Albatros
         (x8)   ex-Type 148 Tiger
Submarines      (x12)   ex-Oberon class
         (x6)   ex-Type 206 class
I'm sure all of these will be modernized, updated & upgraded.

Royal Geriatria Naval Air Service
42 A-4's (3 sqdns.), 42 A-7's (3 sqdns.) + helicopters – the aircraft will be upgraded similarly to their AF counterparts, no need for the Navy to reinvent the Wheel!

More to follow – I'm sure a version 3.0 will be necessary...

Bryan