SDF equipment if you worked for Rosoboronexport

anyone got a price for MI-35 yet? also are MI-35 newly built or just upgraded old MI-24.

d_taddei2 wrote:anyone got a price for MI-35 yet? also are MI-35 newly built or just upgraded old MI-24.

Newly build Mi-35 cost about 12.5 million $ (Brasil contract of 12 Mi-35 for 150 million $)

Upgraded Mi-24 should cost less because newly build Mi-35 has many technologies from Mi-28 development integrated in it.

I have received a copy of a MOD Whitehall report about defending an independant Scotland, it however doesnt cover everything such as potentional procurement after Independence. But does state that it would most likely need to purchase off the shelf equipment. Could Scotland purchase from Russia? I think this would be a great idea, it would also improve both countries relationships as westminister currently doesnt have a good relationship with Russia, but being independent doesnt mean Scotland has to continue the frosty relationship with Russia, i think it would be in Scotlands best interests to change the frosty relationship for the better.

It also suggests that Scotland would get BAE Hawks T1's from the rest of the UK as part of its share of defence assets, these are used as trainers and getting old, an independant Scotland wouldnt get or want the tornado or typhoon, the T1 hawks have no targeting systems and conventional dials etc. I personally think this would be a crap deal, and Scotland should reject these in favour of a cash settlement, I personally think the YAK 130 would be ideal, it would be cheap enough for an Idependant Scotland to buy and maintain, it can be used in all the roles a defence force would need, trainer, light attack, recce, anti air, anti ship/sub, aswell as being able to operate from unpaved and grass strips, ideal for some of the remote islands and small air fields in Scotland.

Although Mig-29SMT or SU 30 would be great its highly unlikely they would operate such aircraft due to cost, being a defence force but un the future in never know.

Another point i like to raise is Helicopters, i think MI-17 would fufill transport/medivac/anti sub role, and MI-35 for anti tank/recce/anti ship aswell as deploying of Special forces onto oil rigs etc. To me i think its versatile piece of kit which is what a defence force needs,(versatility that is). another option although not as versatile would be Ka-52 ideal for scouting off the coast and around islands, and could still deal some damage to boats.

please let me know what you think,

Ka-52 is very expensive, and while capable I would think a light fixed wing plane would be better suited to what is basically a maritime patrol role.

Helicopters would be useful... especially in mountains and the Mi-17 family is tried and trusted and reliable.

The Russians are currently investing a lot of money in UAVs... if Scotland was to invest too then when the investment bears fruit then Scotland and Russia could benefit... of course after a long period of using unmanned aircraft armed with a range of weapons and used to kill people in foreign countries without trial or even responsibility when Russia develops an equivalent armed UAV of course the US is going to demand international laws restricting their use etc etc... so I suspect as a weapon that can be used internationally in peacetime that the era of the UCAV is almost up.

Of course they will be used in wars and in countries the US could care less about... which is plenty.

Scotland would need:

-MPA aircraft
-SAR helicopters
-Transport aircraft
-100 or so MBTs
-400 or so APCs (mix of track and wheeled)
-Maybe 1-2 squadrons of fighter interceptors
-ground based air defence system
-A navy with some corvettes, frigates and maybe some diesel electric subs.

Its defence needs are somewhat similar to a country like Norway IMHO, but being a smaller state and not in NATO means it can get away with less defence spend.

Most Scots are trained to operate UK/NATO hardware, so I see the potential for russian supply mainly in the areas where the old UK origin stuff is either getting old itself or would be overkill. I would say MPA aircraft and SAMs would be an area where they could get Russian kit... for fighters, I think the British will lumber them with a load of excess Typhoons though.

hi all and thanks for the replies, i agree the KA-52 is expensive it would be a nice to have helicopter, but the MI-17 the so versatile like the MI-35 hind, that these would be more suited for a defence being able to be used in a variety of roles.


I think the comment that Scotland needs 100 MBT and 400 APC etc, is alittle excessive you have to remmber this will be a defence force and wont be made up of huge umber of troops, also the ground threat to scotland has been access as very low, the only time ground forces would likely be needed is any operations abroad which will be minimal and probably UN based. Scotland and westminister has already stated scotland wont get Typhoons or tornados, and a defence force with its small budget wouldnt really be able to maintain such aircraft like the typhoon nor would it need such overkill aircraft.

many thanks for the comments.

I think mobility would be an asset.... New Zealand might be a better model for Scotland... we replaced our Scorpion light tanks and M113s with LAVs, and I think that Scotland could probably do the same, perhaps with either BTR-80/90 based vehicles or perhaps Boomerang like vehicles where mobility on land and air is the priority over just very heavy armour protection.

Light, mobile, low cost... both to buy and to operate.

Perhaps introduce conscription so that every adult male knows how to use a rifle... I rather suspect more liberal gun laws would dramatically effect the flow of people south.

You could create a recreational shooting economy where sporting shooters from the UK travel to Scotland so they can shoot real guns... set up shooting complexes where people can try out a range of shooting sports in a safe comfortable environment.
Lots of gun nuts from Wales and England would travel to Scotland for the weekend just to hunt.

You could nationalise public land and make it available for members of the public to go shooting or walking or camping...

GarryB wrote:I think mobility would be an asset.... New Zealand might be a better model for Scotland... we replaced our Scorpion light tanks and M113s with LAVs, and I think that Scotland could probably do the same, perhaps with either BTR-80/90 based vehicles or perhaps Boomerang like vehicles where mobility on land and air is the priority over just very heavy armour protection.

Light, mobile, low cost... both to buy and to operate.

Perhaps introduce conscription so that every adult male knows how to use a rifle... I rather suspect more liberal gun laws would dramatically effect the flow of people south.

You could create a recreational shooting economy where sporting shooters from the UK travel to Scotland so they can shoot real guns... set up shooting complexes where people can try out a range of shooting sports in a safe comfortable environment.
Lots of gun nuts from Wales and England would travel to Scotland for the weekend just to hunt.

You could nationalise public land and make it available for members of the public to go shooting or walking or camping...

The only problem you have with opening shooting ranges/clubs is that its a very sensitive subject in Scotland, handguns are banned here in the UK because of the Dunblane school massacre in Scotland. So id imagine stiff resistence from the population. Thats why i normally go abroad and shoot.

I think your right with the BTR80, in an earlier post on another topic i suggested the BTR82A would be ideal, we have established that a ground threat to Scotland would be low, and a highly adaptable/versatile amd mobile force would be needed. But i still think BMP3 would also be needed especially if there was deployment abroad.

The BTR82A is far superior than what Scotland would get from westminister i.e. the Saxon apc or toaster on wheels as we called it when my battalion was mounted on them to form a mechanised battalion. They have now been withdrawn but were terrible, and top heavy especially when you started to use the storage basket on top of the vehicle and went over uneven ground. I remember an officer was killed when one rolled over, he was sitting in the gunner/command turret. It was only armed the GPMG 7.62 MMG. and could with stand 7.62 rounds at point blank but not too sure about 7.62 AP rounds. The only real thing that they were useful for was riot control. The BTR82A is so much more superior, it has better armamant, better off road capabillities, it a proper amphibious vehicle and it can swim, less likely to roll over, and has many variant available, (2S23 Nona being one of my fav's), not entirely sure about the armour protection but i am pretty sure its better.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_APC

Does anyone know how much the BTR82A upgrade costs? and also how much does a single unit cost?

hi all, some of the ground forces stuff has been posted on the similar topic of the SDF airforce thread.

but wonder if anyone can share there views on the following.

Even though in the whitehall report it states that Scotland wouldnt get MLRS system and wouldnt need one i still think having some sort of multiple rocket launcher system would be good and would come in handy if it was ever to be deployed as part of a joint operation abroad. I think the BM21-1 would be ideal, due the different types of rockets available and the its mobilty and speed (compared to tracked MRL systems) and Russia is in the process of phasing them out so good opportunity to by them cheap, its also cheap to maintain and effect against infantry, soft vehicles etc. I presume these must be the cheapest MRL system on the market. does anyone know how much they cost???????????

Not sure about the upgrade cost but the BTR-82 does introduce a few very useful features... many not obvious to the average enthusiast but would be of interest to the soldier in the field.

For instance in the older BTRs the 14.5mm HMG has belts of 50 rounds in boxes so 10 boxes are carried with a total of 500 rounds, but every 50 rounds fired you have to replace boxes and reload.

in the BTR-82 the ammo is in continuous belts and the ammo remains very powerful stuff.

New optics and fire control equipment should further improve performance of the weapons and lots of other changes make it a better vehicle, but lack of rear doors is still a problem and the side doors are not huge.

I have seen some comments that suggest that the side doors are more likely to allow the troops to get out while still being behind armour, whereas rear doors means an ambush from the rear lets the enemy shoot directly down the length of the vehicle endangering the entire troop squad and crew.

BTW we have fairly tight laws on hand guns here in NZ, which I actually approve of, but becoming an independent country Scotland will have to revisit a lot of its laws and decide what it wants to keep and what it wants to change.

Laws don't stop massacres... a common term for such idiots is a run amok killer... amok being a Malaysian word meaning to run wildly through the village with a large knife and killing people indiscriminately... but so many naive people believe it is the gun that kills. When some deranged person wants to kill a lot of people there are plenty of options including a motor vehicle... if you want a firearm you could easily steal one from a police officer.

Gun massacres are more a mental health issue than a gun issue.

[quote="GarryB"BTW we have fairly tight laws on hand guns here in NZ, which I actually approve of, but becoming an independent country Scotland will have to revisit a lot of its laws and decide what it wants to keep and what it wants to change.

Laws don't stop massacres... a common term for such idiots is a run amok killer... amok being a Malaysian word meaning to run wildly through the village with a large knife and killing people indiscriminately... but so many naive people believe it is the gun that kills. When some deranged person wants to kill a lot of people there are plenty of options including a motor vehicle... if you want a firearm you could easily steal one from a police officer.

Gun massacres are more a mental health issue than a gun issue. [/quote]

i agree, i believe its the individual thats at fault not the gun or the knive, but when they have been used in a massacre people dont forget and realise that its the person, I think to introduce handguns again would be a struggle and id imagine fierce resistance from the public. Just wish they would be more like this towards knives, knives kill more people than guns in the UK, and in Glasgow knive crime is horrendous, easily knive captial of UK.

thanks everybody for the input, some really good stuff.

It does makes sense that existing armies with Frog-7 upgrade, but if they have excess numbers they could sell to some poorer nation. I personally think it would be better to spend more money and get the Iskander E. How many do you think a nation the size of Scotland would need????? does any anyone know the cost per unit?(i know price depends on quantity and diplomatic relations).

Scotland really doesn't need an IRBM system like the Iskander, and trying to build a non-Nuclear deterrent capability (i.e. chemical or biological) will undoubtedly lead to more trouble than its worth for it.
Rather, it should focus on building powerful asymmetric capabilities that would enable it to put serious hurt on any aggressor that transgresses onto its maritime economic zones or territory.
I never did get around to finishing my replies to your threads d_taddei2; I'll get 'round to it eventually; but the basic gist of it is that it only faces a land threat from Britain; from anyone else it will face a threat from the sea; and from Britain too - it can count on a threat from the sea as well.
Which is why it makes sense to invest the most in asymmetric capabilities against sea forces; including long-range capabilities through the use of anti-ship missiles launched by Su-30MK2s and missile boats.
The threat of losing anything larger than a patrol boat would put seriously cause a re-think of anyone thinking of pushing Scotland around. A destroyer or missile cruiser lost may be felt greater than the destruction of an entire military base; and an aircraft carrier lost will amount to a national disaster for the aggressor

Those same Su-30MK2s can also be fitted with land-attack cruise missiles, for use against targets in mainland Britain. So if Scotland gets a couple squadrons of such capable aviation; it by default will already have some long-range capability. Although not much - the Su-30MK2 would be limited in number and it would be wisest to reserve their use specifically against naval and air threats.

For what concerns your interest in the Iskander - I suspect that this was a system that was always geared for the export market as well as Russia's own needs.
Hence the name (Iskander is Arabic for Alexander), and of course the fact that an export version exists with reduced range and probably a few other downgrades.
But that doesn't mean that the Russians will sell even the Iskander-E to just anyone. Occasionally there is talk about exporting it to friendly states in the Middle East; such as Syria. I'd imagine that Iran, Vietnam and India would fall under that bracket too; because Russia can trust them not to show this technology to the United States on demand.
I don't think such trust will exist with an independent Scotland for quite some time; whatever it's foreign relations and diplomacy may be; like GarryB says - change could be just an election away.

What Russia might sell though is something like the Tochka-U, or the cruise missile version of the Iskander; the Iskander-K.
Both of these would be a better fit for Scotland.
The Tochka-U launches a ballistic missile; which while not manuevarable in flight, does reach a speed of over Mach 5 and would be troublesome to interecept.
The Iskander-K fires subsonic cruise missiles; but as the Russians are using or planning to use such systems to target American ABM elements in Eastern Europe; the Russians clearly feel confident enough in the capabilities of these missiles to make it through anti-air defenses.

Or Scotland could just forgo just long-range land-attack capability completely. No great loss. Scotland's military should have other priorities. If really needed for a specific task, the Scots would still have the Sukhois to work with.

your probably right about Russia selling the Iskander E to Scotland, i think p-800/yakhont would be a better option to tackle the naval threat, of course BrahMos would be better but likely face the same situation with the Iskander being sold to Scotland.

SU-30's would be great but very unlikely to be purchased.

I have received a copy of a MOD Whitehall report about defending an independant Scotland, it however doesnt cover everything such as potentional procurement after Independence. But does state that it would most likely need to purchase off the shelf equipment. Could Scotland purchase from Russia? I think this would be a great idea, it would also improve both countries relationships as westminister currently doesnt have a good relationship with Russia, but being independent doesnt mean Scotland has to continue the frosty relationship with Russia, i think it would be in Scotlands best interests to change the frosty relationship for the better.

It also suggests that Scotland would get BAE Hawks T1's from the rest of the UK as part of its share of defence assets, these are used as trainers and getting old, an independant Scotland wouldnt get or want the tornado or typhoon, the T1 hawks have no targeting systems and conventional dials etc. I personally think this would be a crap deal, and Scotland should reject these in favour of a cash settlement, I personally think the YAK 130 would be ideal, it would be cheap enough for an Idependant Scotland to buy and maintain, it can be used in all the roles a defence force would need, trainer, light attack, recce, anti air, anti ship/sub, aswell as being able to operate from unpaved and grass strips, ideal for some of the remote islands and small air fields in Scotland.

Although Mig-29SMT or SU 30 would be great its highly unlikely they would operate such aircraft due to cost, being a defence force but in the future in never know.

Another point i like to raise is Helicopters, i think MI-17 would fufill transport/medivac/anti sub role, and MI-35 for anti tank/recce/anti ship aswell as deploying of Special forces onto oil rigs etc. To me i think its versatile piece of kit which is what a defence force needs,(versatility that is). another option although not as versatile would be Ka-52 ideal for scouting off the coast and around islands, and could still deal some damage to boats, but this will be too expensive for the defence force, so more likely to get MI-35's. KA-27PL's would be ideal for anti submarine, but the MI-17 could probably be kitted out to do the same role.

please let me know what you think,

I think New Zealand should try to achieve a better relationship with Russia... but it is up to the New Zealand people, and it is the same with an independent Scotland.

At the end of the day Scotland is pretty safe... I would think perhaps small arms, a few helicopters, UAVs, and some ships would probably be the extent of purchases if they are politically possible at all.

London would threaten and cajoal and try all sorts of things to stop good relations with the Russians no doubt... you might be able to use that in your favour to get stuff they wouldn't want you to have otherwise, but you don't want to saddle yourself with old junk that costs more than it is worth.

Equally as there is no history I can't see them selling you their latest and greatest either... at least initially.

I think some of their conventional Amur designs might actually be very capable and useful for Scotland for patrolling and intel in your area, and with a few patrol vessels and aircraft I would focus on covering your oil wells and EEZ first. Next I would probably look at the UN and what sort of ground force you could contribute to peace keeping rather than peace making operations and what sort of kit would suit that role.

Gotta insist on em Su-30MK2s
They would single-handedly give Scotland anti-ship, air superiority/defense, ELINT, EW and land-attack capabilities - they are extremely versatile and would be able to cover any one of these roles in a limited scenario.
What this means is - is that Scotland will actually save money by not having to invest into dedicated anti-ship missile systems, cruise missile systems, fighter jets and EW/ELINT aircraft.
Of course in a full-out war they will get taken out sharpish; so Scotland has to invest into asymmetric yet cheaper capabilities that would last longer too; such as missile boats and coastal artillery that can weave and hide between the islands, mobile & independent air defense vehicles and so on.

Anyway, this is more of a fantasy force - because in actuality, an independent Scotland would not try to go for true independence; but would simply become dependent albeit this time not on Britain - but on the wider Western empire i.e. NATO, EU, IMF, etc...
In which case it will be more like GarryB says - just some small arms, light armoured vehicles, helicopters and perhaps some strategic airlifters, so that they will not be an extra burden on NATO transport capacity and would be able to get their contingents over by themselves over to where the next big imperial mis-adventure might be.

d_taddei2, what do you think are actually the realistic chances of Scotland chosing to purchase some Russian gear? I have a feeling that it would be like any British Commonwealth country - completely adverse to and repulsed by that inferior russkie tech.
But I wouldn't mind getting proved wrong. Have you come by any sources, official or otherwise, on this possibility?

thanks to both of you for the input. Many questions have been asked but not so many concrete answer have been given for defence. After the reading the whitehall reports, and what military generals have said(majority of the generals say a defence force is useless but this is only scare mongering the people to vote no) that Scotland wouldnt get any fixed wing fighter jets, and it might get some hawks which arent even kitted out with targeting etc. the Yak 130 is much better.

But what it has said which was interesting is that it did identify that Scotland would need to source military equipment and would most likely be off the shelf stuff. Now this can go either way, either they try and support the defence firms based in Scotland which would be seen to be helping the defence sector, however the equipment is either too expensive, not needed, or doesnt cover all the requirements.

The other option which i think is more likely and better economically, as well as building relations with other countries is to source from another country. I think that an independent Scotland having independence for the first time and wanting to show the rest of the UK that it can stand on its own two feet, and without the UK influencing, dictating or interfering with Scotlands decisions. Also with any new country they are going to look to save money as no doubt it will be tight with all the new money is going to have to throw around at various aspects of getting a country on its feet. So Russian equipment being cheap, reliable, fit for purpose, and at the same time make better relations with a big/powerful country like Russia, and to heal any ill relations the UK has made. Also Russia stocks/supplies everything that it would need so it could purchase big order (still would be massive quantity being a defence force), rather than small orders with various countries. Also another point to note is that some UK MP have stated Russia could be a threat to scotland(but these are just old MP's still thinking the cold war is on and that TU-95 will abusing scottish airspace). Of course theres also China, France, USA, but it has been mentioned that the UK would no doubt influence French and American relations, to the point that the UK has already stated that France opposes Scottish independence, and America woouldnt be happy with then for booting the UK nuclear trident missles and subs out of Scotland. China is on the other side of the world, and the equipment isnt hugely different to Russian stuff (considering most stuff is copied), and chinese build quality isnt the greatest.

As for EU/NATO/UN, Scotland has expressed that it will join the UN, and likely support small scale to peace keeping missions and disaster relief, and maybe a possibility to other security missions. The EU it would most likely join however there has been some debate,espeically with the UK wanting to vote whether to stay in or not (vote is likey to take place in the next 2-3yrs). Some people have seen what it has done to other small countries i.e. Cyprus, Republic of Ireland, and other bigger countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal. Scotland has been looking to base its self on Norway which arent in the EU and have a defence force, they seem to manage fine without it. Obviously it could still join such treaties as council of europe/ european free trade association/ european economic area/ european defence agency/ and common security and defence policy, on the same or similar terms as Norway has.
On the NATO subject, then this has also been tricky as Scotland mixed feelings, majority of Scottish people dont want to get dragged into conflicts around the world acting as the world policemen and starting pointless wars. But the flipside is that it would gain NATO protection. But the other sticking point is it has been hinted at that if Scotland wants to join NATO it would have to let UK keep the nuclear subs and missles in Scotland, which the Scottish government and Scottish people have said they want the nukes out. To this end and also my personal opinion is that we shouldnt join NATO, for the last two reasons also joining NATO means stockign what they want you to have and increasing defence spending which a newly formed country might not have the luxuary of doing. As well as most likely make relations towards Russia and China aswell as other countries strained. And you can kiss good by to any chance of buying equipment from Russia. We would of course join the partnership for peace, which i think is a good idea.


On the SU-30MK2's i think they would be ideal, and maybe could have a mix of these and armed versions of the YAK 130, which would give some extra coverage, at a cheaper cost. (obviously working seperate).

Another point to note is Scotland might not get Challenger 2 tanks, this hasnt been mentioned yet but i can bet once they start to sort out who getting what, the UK will pull the, Chobham armour is a closely guarded secret and we cant have them. So would likely have to look for a tank. Even though i think the T-90 would be great to have in a realistic world(if we were to buy Russian kit of course lol ) the T-72B would be enough for a defence forces use and it could be easily be used abroad on various mission if tanks were needed. Also the following is roughly what i would go for.

MI-17 (including ASW version)
MI-35M

S300
Pantsir-S1
SA-13(MT-LB)
SA-24
ZU-23M1

BM-21
BM-30 smerch
2S1 (2S34 version)
2S23 "Nona-SVK" (BTR80)

BMP-3
MT-LBu (various uses i.e apc/command/ambulance/mineclearing/anti-tank etc)

BTR82A
GAZ-2975 Tigr M



thanks again for keeping the thread going.

Firebird wrote:MY guess is that Scotland would be either aim to be in the EU, or in the European Ec Area. OR try to be completely independent.

Militarily, I'd think it would be NATO or NATO leaning eg like Australia. And not bother with China or Russia.

Finally, I think attempts to gain independence would likely cause an economic war with the rest of the British Isles and N Ireland.

The way I see it is that Scotland took over England (lawfully and with consent) when Mary Queen of Scots travelled South. (BTW I despise monarchies).

I cant see any pt in creating immense friction between 2 countries that have been happily working together for the last few hundred years. Blair, Cameron and Brown (3 of the last 4 prime ministers) have either been Scottish or had huge links with Scotland (even Scottish names!!) For Scotland to think it has something to gain from attempting independence would court huge disaster. Constitutionally, I dont see how it can happen without consent from the rest of Britain.

I cant see Russia wanting to support Scottish independence either before or after it is declared. It has problems of its own with independence groups - in Russia and the CIS area.

well the vote for independence is taking place on the 18th of September 2014, and i hope it gets a yes vote, economically Scotland would be better even David Cameron agrees that Scotland can make it on its own. The idea of friction wouldnt be in either countries interests, they have already stated that trade, freedom of movement, intelligence sharing etc they would still co-operative, the UK is a small island and both countries would need resources from each other but the benefit of being independant would allow Scotland to make its own decisions and a fairer society currently Scotland doesnt get its fair share of the taxes or investment. There is many reasons i could go on, but this a forum about defence and dont feel the need to go into political, economical etc topics. Russia could support independence as effectively this weakens the UK economically, and military, and its one less country joining NATO. And the UK public never the mind the Scottish public hate all three PM's you mentioned. As mentioned above theres a good chance Scotland wont join NATO due to the trident issue. Scotland is country which opposed the Irag, Afghanistan, and Libya wars. Aswell as a number of westminister policies including foreign policies. There was a poll done last year and 54% of the rest of the UK were happy for Scotland to split from the UK.

hi garry whats the general view of the upgraded T-72 in terms to western modern systems, as some people have on other forums that its still an old tank and that modern western stuff would still easily destroy them, and that no matter what upgrades you give them. I argued the fact it was cheaper to upgrade T-72's than to buy newer tanks, and that the upgrades brought them upto a decent standard of a modern tank capability.

Also i believe that most forces these days are focusing on more mechanised and a force that is highly mobile rather than a seriously heavy force, times have changed since the cold war. But i do believe that its still wise to have a tank force, as war can be unpredictable.

making reference about a thread that i created some time ago about a Scottish defence force, i think for a defence force/small force or a country with a small budget, its makes sense to buy a fully upgraded T-72 than a T-90, of course a T-90 is better but we all cant have the best equipment when a budget has to be considered. I think that even a mix of T-72 and T-90 would be better if budget allowed. A defence force may only have 2-4 tank regiments at most so you could have 1 regiment of each, and when Russia finally starts to replace its tank forces(wont be for a long time) you could replace the T-72's with T-90's.

d_taddei2 wrote:hi garry whats the general view of the upgraded T-72 in terms to western modern systems, as some people have on other forums that its still an old tank and that modern western stuff would still easily destroy them, and that no matter what upgrades you give them. I argued the fact it was cheaper to upgrade T-72's than to buy newer tanks, and that the upgrades brought them upto a decent standard of a modern tank capability.

Also i believe that most forces these days are focusing on more mechanised and a force that is highly mobile rather than a seriously heavy force, times have changed since the cold war. But i do believe that its still wise to have a tank force, as war can be unpredictable.

making reference about a thread that i created some time ago about a Scottish defence force, i think for a defence force/small force or a country with a small budget, its makes sense to buy a fully upgraded T-72 than a T-90, of course a T-90 is better but we all cant have the best equipment when a budget has to be considered. I think that even a mix of T-72 and T-90 would be better if budget allowed. A defence force may only have 2-4 tank regiments at most so you could have 1 regiment of each, and when Russia finally starts to replace its tank forces(wont be for a long time) you could replace the T-72's with T-90's.

Hm, wasn't Scotland historically more connected with France? Maybe you could buy some used Mirages and surplus Leclerc tanks.

medo wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:hi garry whats the general view of the upgraded T-72 in terms to western modern systems, as some people have on other forums that its still an old tank and that modern western stuff would still easily destroy them, and that no matter what upgrades you give them. I argued the fact it was cheaper to upgrade T-72's than to buy newer tanks, and that the upgrades brought them upto a decent standard of a modern tank capability.

Also i believe that most forces these days are focusing on more mechanised and a force that is highly mobile rather than a seriously heavy force, times have changed since the cold war. But i do believe that its still wise to have a tank force, as war can be unpredictable.

making reference about a thread that i created some time ago about a Scottish defence force, i think for a defence force/small force or a country with a small budget, its makes sense to buy a fully upgraded T-72 than a T-90, of course a T-90 is better but we all cant have the best equipment when a budget has to be considered. I think that even a mix of T-72 and T-90 would be better if budget allowed. A defence force may only have 2-4 tank regiments at most so you could have 1 regiment of each, and when Russia finally starts to replace its tank forces(wont be for a long time) you could replace the T-72's with T-90's.

Hm, wasn't Scotland historically more connected with France? Maybe you could buy some used Mirages and surplus Leclerc tanks.

it was a post it did a while ago u should it. As an independent country Scotland would be able to do deals with any country willing to do so. Infact this week Putin even said if Scotland wanted to join the customs union he wouldnt say no.

Since the scots have been fed with with antirussian propaganda for centuries by the british empire I rather doubt they would ever want to have anything to do with Russia.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:Since the scots have been fed with with antirussian propaganda for centuries by the british empire I rather doubt they would ever want to have anything to do with Russia.

thats exactly one of the reasons for independence so Scotland can choose who it has relations with, Scotland has moved closer to china more so than westminister who quite often bad mouth china's human rights abuses. Scotland also has shown interest in the Scandinavian countries, and eastern europe. A Scottish defence force probably wouldnt want expensive western equipment, when they can get equipment which is cheaper to buy/maintain and fit for purpose, and if they chose russian equipment could heal relations which westminister has caused. It wouldnt be in a newly independent countries interest to have strained relations with other countries and especially ones which Scotland didnt make the choice. And in the case of Russia being hundreds of times bigger than Scotland and being not that far away i doubt they would continue to be anti russian.

I dont want the T-80 thread to be taken over by this not fair on the author.