Imagnine that Norway decided to cash in its oil fund and build a fleet for the money what could we get?
EDIT: assume that we have sufficient manpower.
EDIT: assume that we have sufficient manpower.
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think it can be directly invested in Norway if I'm correct? So that means foreign purchases. Besides, with a one off payment like that, you wouldn't get very much. Ships cost more in the long run than their unit price. Your governments total annual revenue is 200 billion I think and nearly all of that is taken up.
Also, Norway has virtually no strategic requirement for any sort of blue water navy.
Last edited:
Yes but were not talking about what is wise to do were talking about what we could get. (we can actually use the oil fund, but were limited to using a max of 4% each year)
Training, support, manufacture, development. logistics and operational costs etc would all eat into that budget. I simply can't give you a concept force structure because Norway has no need for more than what it has now in my opinion and I can't think of a scenario where it needs more than a handful of small frigates.
To put this in perspective.. the us navy spends
$149.9 billion (Not counting the marines) plus another $118.7 billion in joint operations per YEAR. So good luck running a navy with your lump sum.
$149.9 billion (Not counting the marines) plus another $118.7 billion in joint operations per YEAR. So good luck running a navy with your lump sum.
You could probably still afford a formidable naval force for such a small country, if given sufficient time for the buildup required. A dozen or so submarines and a couple of dozen frigates and maybe a handful of larger ships and a serious amihibious invasion capability plus some expansion of the air force would be entirely feasible I believe, leaving the fleet running for a few decades. If you'd ignore all other costs than the mere construction costs, you'd get quite a ridiculously strong fleet on paper.
I believe a more proper question would be, how big a navy can Norway sustain with the annual revenue from the oil fund + income from the oil industry.
Guys you are seriously killing the fun here 
... SO I'm going to suggest the following.
Instead through a redistribution of oil funds etc the Norwegian government makes available $100 billion for the construction of a new fleet, including amphibious (and therefore marine), FAA and Fleet Auxilary capabilities.
Set in the context of our favourite upcoming title NW:Article Circle and hypothetically considering large oil is potentially going to be found in the artic and tensions are rising there, how would you design your fleet?
... SO I'm going to suggest the following.Instead through a redistribution of oil funds etc the Norwegian government makes available $100 billion for the construction of a new fleet, including amphibious (and therefore marine), FAA and Fleet Auxilary capabilities.
Set in the context of our favourite upcoming title NW:Article Circle and hypothetically considering large oil is potentially going to be found in the artic and tensions are rising there, how would you design your fleet?
Norway needs military for asymetric warfare.
We don't need expensive F35 jets, but something more in the direction of Harriers that don't need big airfields or Gripen that can take off and land at normal roads.
We don't need aircraft carriers, we need small and invisible submarines and mine layers: both naval, land based and air drop-able. We need stealthy corvettes with deadly missiles.
We don't need heavy artillery, we need fast and mobile one. Luckily the brand new "Archer" is going to fill that role perfectly.
Our arms manufacturers are making the right things, but our politicians are buying the wrong things.
We don't need expensive F35 jets, but something more in the direction of Harriers that don't need big airfields or Gripen that can take off and land at normal roads.
We don't need aircraft carriers, we need small and invisible submarines and mine layers: both naval, land based and air drop-able. We need stealthy corvettes with deadly missiles.
We don't need heavy artillery, we need fast and mobile one. Luckily the brand new "Archer" is going to fill that role perfectly.
Our arms manufacturers are making the right things, but our politicians are buying the wrong things.
Robert Mood, that spineless worm! Back in my army days when I was a dragoon (private rank for the cavalry, aka tanks), Robert Mood was visiting our garrison and was invited to say a few words about replacement of the equipment (switching from Leo1 to Leo2). Our captain thought he could explain why we had so many delays that left us without tanks for most of the times. That guy never showed up which even my captain called a cowardly act.
Later I met him personally at the airport while we were both pissing (nothing weird there, toilets were always full with hundreds of soldiers that all had to relieve themselves), so I asked him myself about delay. Our dear general dodged my question more skilfully than a politician, so I never got a straight answer from him even then. Why did he need to dodge my question to begin with? He is a general and I was a dragoon, as a highly ranked officer he could give any answer he wanted and I would go "yes, sir".
If that guy would be commanding the army, we wouldn't be able to protect anything, not a single building in Norway.
Later I met him personally at the airport while we were both pissing (nothing weird there, toilets were always full with hundreds of soldiers that all had to relieve themselves), so I asked him myself about delay. Our dear general dodged my question more skilfully than a politician, so I never got a straight answer from him even then. Why did he need to dodge my question to begin with? He is a general and I was a dragoon, as a highly ranked officer he could give any answer he wanted and I would go "yes, sir".
If that guy would be commanding the army, we wouldn't be able to protect anything, not a single building in Norway.
If you were smart and wanted the best bang for your buck, and you're only concerned about defending your home waters and the waters surrounding those, you'd buy 100 P-8A Poseidon aircraft and plenty of weapons for them.
Of course, that just might be all the HoI3 I've been playing. Naval bombers seem far better than navies unless you need to project power out of range of your air bases.
Of course, that just might be all the HoI3 I've been playing. Naval bombers seem far better than navies unless you need to project power out of range of your air bases.
Thats pretty insane. $268.6 billion would give you a bit over 1000 x Gotland_class_submarine
Would be my pick but perhaps I'm biased and just looking to for a defensive navy, not one that can bomb some desert far away with cool carrier-stealthplanes ^^
If it sinks a Carrier (in trials) and the US navy can't find it, thats enough for my needs
Thats pretty insane. $268.6 billion would give you a bit over 1000 x Gotland_class_submarine
Would be my pick but perhaps I'm biased and just looking to for a defensive navy, not one that can bomb some desert far away with cool carrier-stealthplanes ^^
If it sinks a Carrier (in trials) and the US navy can't find it, thats enough for my needs
I highly doubt it would perform as well outside of trials (as you did rightly imply) with significant ASW assets protecting a CBG. Bear in mind the USN aren't exactly the best at ASW, that falls to the Royal Navy! :happy: Also, didn't the USN borrow it for a year to see just how to detect it? Besides, crewing 1000 Gotlands would be a significant project.
Nah not really. At a crew of only 24 it wouldn't be that much more then a normal CBG if your counting all ships. The next generation will probably even have less crew (down to as little as 17) as you can automate more and more.Besides, crewing 1000 Gotlands would be a significant project.
My point was that given how comparably cheap they are you could basically swarm the oceans with these (or something similar) for the price & crew of a single CBG. And then it doesn't really matter if the CBG can find one of them, or can outrun one of them, because any one of them pose a deadly threat.
I meant for a nation like Sweden. Besides, you'd have to support those subs and arm them. The logistics for such a fleet would be impossible for Sweden imo.
Yes it would be impossible for us smaller nations to supply many them on offensive operations outside their maximum range from home bases.
But I wouldn't call it impossible to crew them if we really wanted too and had the money. We Nordic nations used to field pretty impressive conscription armies during the cold war.
Anyways when it comes to best bang for the buck I'd say these rank pretty high together with SSMs.
Personally I regard Carriers as being today what the Battleship was back in the 1940s, Besides being a prestige ship just a big floating target.
I mean today any cheap platform can just be loaded up to the brim with SSMs that got equal range and firepower that a Carrier has.
As long as you don't fight an advanced enemy thats fine but in this game we get try that out. I'm curious to how it will turn out.
But I wouldn't call it impossible to crew them if we really wanted too and had the money. We Nordic nations used to field pretty impressive conscription armies during the cold war.
Anyways when it comes to best bang for the buck I'd say these rank pretty high together with SSMs.
Personally I regard Carriers as being today what the Battleship was back in the 1940s, Besides being a prestige ship just a big floating target.
I mean today any cheap platform can just be loaded up to the brim with SSMs that got equal range and firepower that a Carrier has.
As long as you don't fight an advanced enemy thats fine but in this game we get try that out. I'm curious to how it will turn out.
The best option is several ICBMs aimed at the potential enemy. No army can be more effective than that.
Thats pretty insane. $268.6 billion would give you a bit over 1000 x Gotland_class_submarine
Would be my pick but perhaps I'm biased and just looking to for a defensive navy, not one that can bomb some desert far away with cool carrier-stealthplanes ^^
If it sinks a Carrier (in trials) and the US navy can't find it, thats enough for my needs
I'm pretty sure Gotland subs can't shoot at enemy planes or asw helis.
You get to try it out in a balanced game system... Not at all the same thing as doing it in real life.
The carrier is not what the battleship was/is. A surface ship cannot match the length of touch that a carrier has. Buddy-buddy tanking coupled with modern UCAV/Strike fighters/AWACS... Why does no one understand this.
To shoot a carrier you have to have a target lock, you have to know WHERE it is. The carrier will not necessarily radiate it's presense to you now will it? SO we end up with your little surface ship trying to find it. To do that it has to radiate. The carrier has AWACS/AEW so it will pick you up. If you fire, it will pick you up. It has ASW assets. IT IS A FLOATING AIRFIELD. So it as flexible as it's airwing.
Anyone who thinks it's as simple as loading SSM's on a ship and firing is a fool. You need to identify the target, you need to engage the target, you need to bypass the targets defences. You need to bypass the CAG, the outer AAW umbrella, the inner AAW umbrella, the ship running goalkeeper, the point defence systems, the soft kill systems. A missile doesn't destroy/sink a ship. A missile damages a ship. TO sink it you need a torpedo. A F-18 superhornet has a combat radius of 390nm. Flying buddy buddy you can probably double that combat radius to 780nm thats close to 900-1000 miles. A CVN carriers up to 70 of these Superhornets. Even running buddy-buddy thats no less than 35 heavily armed strike fighters than can respond to and engage your targets up to 1000miles away.
You think YOU are going to get a clean radar signal at anything past 100 miles from a surface ship? NO so you need something close to the carrier. Which has to avoid the battlegroup and airgroup. Probably the SSN or two that are escorting the CBG. Once you fire you missiles.... Superhornet can engage missiles, AMRAAM has that capability, AEGIS cruisers will engage your missiles, frigates will engage your missiles, soft kill suites will redirect.
Then there is stability and sea going, smaller vessels struggle to do that. SO if I sit my carrier 750nm out in deep sea your in real trouble.
Then there is your own ability to react to danger, you've got loads of SSM's... good on you. Have fun making it to your target alive without organic air support. Or good ASW (best done by a helo).
This whole "I can just use a single carrier", or "I can use ships with loads of cruise missiles", or "I can use just submarines"... DOESN'T WORK. People seem to fail to grasp the fundamental of how nations like the UK and the US use carriers.
A carrier is a centralised asset that contributes to the effectiveness of a balanced naval taskforce. While viewed as "the dominant capital ship" this is a misnomer. A carrier is part of "the dominant naval force", that is a blue water task force. It is deployed alongside destroyers, frigates, RFA vessels, submarines and amphibious assets. It has organic air support. All of this allows it to react to a wide range of threats and act in a flexible manner.
The carrier by itself IS a vulnerable platform and can be beaten. A CBG, is an effective and difficult force to overcome due to flexibility and capability.
Also, if you use all missile frigates, or all submarines... My ASW assets or SSN's respectively will have great fun smashing your inflexible force into the ground.
Except your ICBM can't do peacekeeping, anti-narcotics, anti-piracy, disaster relief. It is a one shot weapon. It is expensive. If you fire it you have lost as your opponent or his allies will fire it. Or no one will trade with you when the dust settles. If your opponent can produce more ICBM's than you you are also in trouble. Again flawed argument.
The military force a nation needs must be based on it's strategic direction BUT balanced forces are always better than weighted forces.