Poland is buying 96 AH-64Es, with the Apache E beating out an updated AH-1 variant. This will make them the #2 operator after the US. Between this and the M270/HIMARS purchases, Poland seems to be intent on putting a lot of hurt on someone.

I have to wonder if given the magnitude of Polish arms purchases, if the US isn't subsidizing these buys.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/s ... -announced

They are really on a shopping spree, a few days back a deal with South Korea and now this.

Dutchy wrote:

They are really on a shopping spree, a few days back a deal with South Korea and now this.

Don't forget the January buy of 250 Abrams tanks.

And soon they are rumored to be buying Chinook's.

Probably kicking the tires on some HIMARs as well.

Poland has been pretty smart, being early in placing orders ahead of all of the other countries now wanting to stock up.

Where's the money coming from, these are huge expenditures for any medium sized nation. The F16 purchase needed the US bending the rules slightly to accommodate them. Pentagon Foreign Military Sales contracts require the final customer to cough up money well before payments are actually made to the manufacturer by the Pentagon. The US reaps a nice profit doing so floating other peoples money. Poland was allowed to pay more on regular commercial installment terms spreading out the cost more evenly till delivery. US would have to also dramatically increase Polish Foreign Military Financing from US.

trex8 wrote:

US would have to also dramatically increase Polish Foreign Military Financing from US.

I don't see a problem of The US financing some of the Polish weapons. After all, if the Poles do not buy these weapons, then the harware needed to support that front have to come from some where. Imagine cost of stationing a similar US force there.

bt

Dutchy wrote:

They are really on a shopping spree, a few days back a deal with South Korea and now this.

They're probably preparing to invade Germany.

Kiwirob wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

They are really on a shopping spree, a few days back a deal with South Korea and now this.

They're probably preparing to invade Germany.

OT reminds me of the joke about the Polish guy who found a lamp with a genie who could give him any 3 wishes which could even change the course of history. Polish guy asked for the Mongol hordes to invade his country, three times he asked. Genie agreed. Poland got razed to the ground 3 times with each invasion. When genie asked the Pole why he would do that to his own nation, " they razed everything in Russia 6 times going back and forth to Mongolia!"

Hey guys,
I was just reading an oldish online article about Poland’s apparent interest in the new Leonardo AW249 (replacement of the Mangusta)… I guess that the order for 96 Apaches replaces this interest?
Take care
Bunumuring

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

The Polish Army is replacing their Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, and settled on the AH-64 as their best option.

And the Poles are also making major investments in their ground forces; they have signed an agreement with South Korea to purchase and license build hundreds of tanks and self-propelled artillery vehicles.

ThePointblank wrote:

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

The Polish Army is replacing their Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, and settled on the AH-64 as their best option.

And the Poles are also making major investments in their ground forces; they have signed an agreement with South Korea to purchase and license build hundreds of tanks and self-propelled artillery vehicles.

They are replacing 30 Hind with 96 Apache according to the Drive. And they are also buying F-35s; on top of everything else.
Their only potential enemy is Russia and Russia has just had their military cut in half and exposed as a fraud.

Again, this purchase makes no sense to me.

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

Defeated you say? 100,000 deaths and 6 million refugees and the war is still going.

Extremely expensive weapon systems such as Apache will stop an enemy at your border with minimal casualties on your side.

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

Maybe they are lookng west for lebensraum.

johns624 wrote:

Maybe they are lookng west for lebensraum.

Someone above suggested they may be planning on invading Germany.
That would make an interesting thread.

Vintage wrote:

with 96 Apache according to the Drive.

Someone more knowledgeable would have to chime in, but if you have upwards to 400 tanks, then is 96 attack helicopters sufficient for combined arms operation?

Heck, after this war, and if they find they need as many of those helicopters and tanks, I'm pretty sure Ukraine would love to rake em of their hands.


bt

Edit. Just did my own estimate from Google.

US ratio of thank to AH-64 is about 8 to 1. Add in the scout helo it comes down to 5 tanks to 1 helo.

The the Poles will be about the same 5-1 if they intend to use the AH-64 as scout as well.

So . . . within ball park of US force structure. Now, question if they need all that force? .

bikerthai wrote:

Now, question if they need all that force?

That's the point of my question.
Whether they need those Apache's more than a hundred other things that might serve them better.

Perun may have to evaluate that. If Poland needs spend X % of their GDP on defense, what share would go to which weapons platform. Maybe the AH-64; is one of the cheaper option compared to something like an AEW&C or a P-8A.

The other thought is that Poland seems to be less reluctant to send forces on expeditions along side the US. So the excess serve more than just defense from Russia.

To which even if Russia is weakened, how long will it take for it to re-build its army? 5 years? 10 years?

bt

Apache isn't just an weapon to destroy tanks.

Ask yourself this question: What weapon would you buy to shoot down ultra cheap drones that have a max speed of 100km/h?

The Apache has the ability to detect these low altitude drones and have the speed to easily intercept. These have air launched Stinger and the 30mm cannon to cheaply destroy these drone.

Cheap drones are becoming the weapon of choice in these conflicts. F-35 with Sidewinder is expensive and an F-35 trying to shoot down a drone at 200 feet with its gun is quite ridiculous. A cheap helicopter with a door gunner or a light trainer lacks the ability to detect these small drones.

The Apache is the ideal platform with the correct sensors, two crew for situational awareness, the perfect speed and survivability at low altitude.

RJMAZ wrote:

What weapon would you buy to shoot down ultra cheap drones that have a max speed of 100km/h?

If you mean ultra cheap like the Bayraktar or Iranian drone, then I can see that.

If they get the Longbow radar then it can work as heavy scout.

We agree that they are useful. The question is just quantity.

So to follow up on the question, for the price of the extra helicopter, say anything over 50, what would be on the wish list that they are not already buying?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

So to follow up on the question, for the price of the extra helicopter, say anything over 50, what would be on the wish list that they are not already buying?

Poland has a 500km eastern border. Let's say half of the helcopters are doing offensive operations across the border attacking supply lines and convoys.

That leaves 48 AH-64 for drone hunting and killing duties. Lets say 4 AH-64 is required to provide 24 hour coverage in the one location. That gives only 12 patrol locations for a 500km border. That is not overkill as their detection radius will be small.

Ukraine has proven that flying at very low altitude is safest for drones, helicopters and even fighter jets. So unless you are fully stealth like the F-35 at medium altitude then the second best option is an advanced attack helicopter flying at very low altitude. 4th gen fighter jets fly too fast to stay below 200ft and the single set of eyeballs does not help finding targets.

Additional SAM systems is an obvious suggestion but I think Stinger on an Apache is far superior option to MANPADS. A single Apache armed with stingers could provide air defence against helicopters and drones in a 40x40km box. You would probably need 100 shoulder launched stingers evenly spread out to thoroughly cover a 40x40km box. The enemy drones flying below 200ft could easily sneak through gaps in MANPAD coverage.

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).
If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

Sure. They should base their decisions on new equipment that they'll depend on for the next 30 years on a few battles in one war and assume that nothing the enemy does will change and none of their gear will be any different.

Poland has no border with Russia, it has 130 miles of border with Kalingrad and Kalingrad will never be an invasion threat. Even without NATO, Poland will never fight Russia alone Russia would have to get past Latvia and Lithuania first or if they walked through Belarus they would still have a 350 mile long supply line and we all know that logistics is not a strong point for Russia. (And Poland would never have to fight Russia without the Baltic nations along with Czech, Slovak and Ukrainian help at the very least.)

What is a strong point for Russia is air defense, and helicopters don't fare well in high threat air defense environments. If anyone were to send helicopters behind Russian lines on a strike mission the loss rate would be high, to say the least.

The reason I spoke out, is the issue of bang for the buck; Poland has already committed to buying 366 Abraham's tanks (https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comment ... m_us_says/) and 32 F-35s among other things. The 32 F-35s are priced at 4.6 billion, so if Poland went with 64 more F-35s (96 total) they would end up over three billion bucks left over, probably enough money to renovate their 30 Hinds or replace them with something more reasonably priced. Alternatively, they could buy over 3,000 more Abraham's tanks (at 4 mil apiece) should they want to conquer everything all the way to the Kamchatka Peninsula.

The thing is, Poland is a country with a population of just under 38 million and they are not a rich country. Where is this 12.5 Billion dollars supposed to be coming from? BTW, we know where it would be going - to Boeing, the same people who are enriching our nation's air defense with the perfectly useless F-15EX.

I hope that 12.5 billion isn't coming from my tax dollars.

Vintage wrote:

Poland has already committed to buying 366 Abraham's tanks

And 180 Korean tanks. So the ratio of tanks to helo is about right.

So I guess they are enriching General Dynamics as well with the with the 366 Abrams.

They have to spend 2% on defense. And they seem not to need to spend on expensive ships.

What else can they buy? More F-35s? Enrich LM. Which also means more KC-46 so back to Boeing.

From a NATO force structure stand point however, could it be that Poland is supplementing the lack of armor and aviation in its eastern NATO neighbors?

Those AH-64 can quickly deploy to Latvia and Lithuania if situation arises.


bt

Vintage wrote:

The thing is, Poland is a country with a population of just under 38 million and they are not a rich country.

Their GDP still dwarfs the combined GDP of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. So the more I think about it, I can see them providing armor support for the Baltic state's infrantry.

Don't believe Finland and Sweden are armor heavy either.

So if one takes the region as a whole, 600+ tanks and 100 or so attack helo may not be as extravagant. The situation in Russia not withstanding.

bt

Vintage wrote:

ThePointblank wrote:

Vintage wrote:

This purchase makes no sense to me. Ukraine has just proven that the Russian Army can be defeated without this kind of extremely expensive weapons system. The twelve billion would better be spent on a factory that churns out modern IFVs IMO (that or drones).

If they want helicopters, the money would be better spent on transport varieties IMO.

The Polish Army is replacing their Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, and settled on the AH-64 as their best option.

And the Poles are also making major investments in their ground forces; they have signed an agreement with South Korea to purchase and license build hundreds of tanks and self-propelled artillery vehicles.

They are replacing 30 Hind with 96 Apache according to the Drive. And they are also buying F-35s; on top of everything else.
Their only potential enemy is Russia and Russia has just had their military cut in half and exposed as a fraud.

Again, this purchase makes no sense to me.

Germany??

bikerthai wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The thing is, Poland is a country with a population of just under 38 million and they are not a rich country.

Their GDP still dwarfs the combined GDP of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. So the more I think about it, I can see them providing armor support for the Baltic state's infrantry.

Don't believe Finland and Sweden are armor heavy either.

So if one takes the region as a whole, 600+ tanks and 100 or so attack helo may not be as extravagant. The situation in Russia not withstanding.

bt

It's not just 600 tanks it's 1000 K2 tanks, 672 K9 self propelled howitzers and the 366 Abrams. They are increasing the size of their military from 120k to 300k.

Wonder how effective the AH-64 is at spotting ATGM teams in a combined arms structure?

bt

Kiwirob wrote:

it's 1000 K2 tanks

Then I'd say the ratio of helo to tanks is about right?

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

it's 1000 K2 tanks

Then I'd say the ratio of helo to tanks is about right?

bt

its 1366 tanks, pus they will be developing the next generation of Korean tanks with Korea, so another 1000 or so will come out of that. They'll also have to buy hundreds of tank transporters, tank recovery vehicles..........

Kiwirob wrote:

developing the next generation of Korean tanks with Korea, so another 1000 or so will come out of that.

It seems to me then the M-1 is but a temporary solution and they will probably phase them out once the Korean tanks fill the ranks.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

Vintage wrote:

The thing is, Poland is a country with a population of just under 38 million and they are not a rich country.

Their GDP still dwarfs the combined GDP of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. So the more I think about it, I can see them providing armor support for the Baltic state's infrantry.

Don't believe Finland and Sweden are armor heavy either.

So if one takes the region as a whole, 600+ tanks and 100 or so attack helo may not be as extravagant. The situation in Russia not withstanding.

bt

According to Wiki, Sweden has 121 Leopard 2s and Finland has 239. That means that Finland has one of the larger armor arms in NATO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... edish_Army
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... ttle_tanks

So comparing the number of tanks Poland is buying to the number of tanks of the rest of European NATO, it does seem to be overkill.

But then maybe the Poles are saying the rest of Europe are not buying enough tanks, so they have to make up for the short fall.

Same can be said about the attack helo.

bt

bikerthai wrote:

So comparing the number of tanks Poland is buying to the number of tanks of the rest of European NATO, it does seem to be overkill.

But then maybe the Poles are saying the rest of Europe are not buying enough tanks, so they have to make up for the short fall.

bt

That is a concern. The Netherlands just lease a few Leopards from Germany for their joint brigade and Belgium doesn't own any at all. The British army is down to 2 armoured battalions. Denmark has one and Canada has one. Too much "peace dividend " in my view.

Polands economy is 600 billion USD GDP. 3% is 18 billion yearly. those purchases are spread over a number of years so lets say over 5 years they have a defence budget of 90 billion. Is there room enough there for the existing forces AND all those purchases? I think not. however, Polish government debt is 46% of GDP. It is reasonably balanced. the currency is on a somewhat negative trend though, having gone from 4 to an euro in 2010, to 4,30 in 2020 to 4,75 now. Is there room enough in the government budget for all these purchases, without ending like Greece? Perhaps.

They are becoming the 2030’s version of 1970’s Iran, perhaps, as far as being a ‘miniature’ USAF/US Army aviation equipped/trained/doctrinally oriented force. Certainly, I wish for them to enjoy more freedom in the coming decades than the Iranian people have comparatively/subsequently endured.

Where does Poland currently source its fuel for its military?

So a question on 96 Apache's how many of these are expected to be operational at one time, in maintenance and or being used for training, do we just assume that if they are required all 96 are available?

889091 wrote:

Where does Poland currently source its fuel for its military?

Well this lot is partially state owned, so who knows it might be them.

https://www.orlen.pl/EN

The cost for Poland to get armed to the teeth is far lower than the cost to rebuild just 1 city and some bridges. Who would want to mess with them if so armed, only someone crazier than Putin. I think Poland is being quite smart, they got their place in line before the backlog stretches out 5 -10 years.

We have learned in Ukraine that the tank, the howitzers, aircraft, and the like are still important, precision shells and missiles are really good, drones are the new tool. I think Poland is being prudent.

JayinKitsap wrote:

We have learned in Ukraine that the tank, the howitzers, aircraft, and the like are still important, precision shells and missiles are really good, drones are the new tool. I think Poland is being prudent.

They just all have to be used to their strengths in a combined arms formation, something that Russia seems not to be able to do, thankfully.

RJMAZ wrote:

Apache isn't just an weapon to destroy tanks.

Ask yourself this question: What weapon would you buy to shoot down ultra cheap drones that have a max speed of 100km/h?

The Apache has the ability to detect these low altitude drones and have the speed to easily intercept. These have air launched Stinger and the 30mm cannon to cheaply destroy these drone.

How does an Apache detect a low altitude, small drone at any real range?

kitplane01 wrote:

How does an Apache detect a low altitude, small drone at any real range?

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/northro ... bow-radar/

During the FOT&E, the modernized LONGBOW FCR successfully demonstrated many new operational modes and capabilities, including maritime, single target track, and 360-degree surveillance mode, as well as extended detection range capability against land, air and sea targets. The detection range has doubled and improved detection of unmanned aerial vehicles.

The M-TADS turret with electro and optical sensors can also detect drones. The Apache can use 30mm cannon, laser guided 70mm rockets, Stinger to take out the drone.

Apache can even carry Sidewinder missiles for 10+km engagements against larger enemy aircraft. So it can do the job of vehicle based SAM systems with greater survivability and better detection range due to being higher up.

If an F-35 or AWAC detects a small $10,000 drone there is no need to fire a million dollar AMRAAM or SAM at it. The drone location will be sent to the nearest Apache to shoot it with a 30mm round. Think of everything as an integrated network.

JayinKitsap wrote:

The cost for Poland to get armed to the teeth is far lower than the cost to rebuild just 1 city and some bridges. Who would want to mess with them if so armed, only someone crazier than Putin. I think Poland is being quite smart, they got their place in line before the backlog stretches out 5 -10 years.

We have learned in Ukraine that the tank, the howitzers, aircraft, and the like are still important, precision shells and missiles are really good, drones are the new tool. I think Poland is being prudent.

The question has to be asked who are they afraid of?

par13del wrote:

So a question on 96 Apache's how many of these are expected to be operational at one time, in maintenance and or being used for training, do we just assume that if they are required all 96 are available?

Good question and the answer explains the large purchase.

To provide 24 hours coverage for 7 days I think only 24 Apache could be kept in the air at any given moment. It gets worse when you assume the Apache fleet would be based 1 hour or 200km from the combat area. 3 hour mission duration with 1 hour transit to the operational area, 1 hour in combat and 1 hour returning to base. Around 8 Apache are in the operational area at any moment. Not very good for a 500km border.

Where does Poland get the money from ?

2.3 % above GDP. From Wiki.
So we are complaining Poland spenda too much on defense or are we complaining that they are buying the wong system?

We would be spending more as well if our neighbor is in a shooting war.

As for the Russian Army, yep they are down now. But if Russia breaks up and the various components like Belarus desatablize? Who would have to send in forces? Peace keeping or other wise?

bt

Mortyman wrote:

Where does Poland get the money from ?

Poland's government honestly got a pretty good credit rating, and bear in mind, the country's economy is three times the size of Ukraine's.

bikerthai wrote:

2.3 % above GDP. From Wiki.
So we are complaining Poland spenda too much on defense or are we complaining that they are buying the wong system?

We would be spending more as well if our neighbor is in a shooting war.

As for the Russian Army, yep they are down now. But if Russia breaks up and the various components like Belarus desatablize? Who would have to send in forces? Peace keeping or other wise?

bt

Good points. I think some are just upset that some other countries realize that spending 2% of GNP for defense is a good investment in their future. You're also correct about the peace keeping/making.

johns624 wrote:

I think some are just upset that some other countries realize that spending 2% of GNP for defense is a good investment in their future.

I think it is just good old USA and Europe rivalry. Boeing and Lockheed Martin both scored two very big orders with the F-35 and Apache. They are trying to suggest Poland should instead spend money on different weapons that are made in Europe.