German Navy: Third Combat Support Ship instead of F125-Frigates?

[kato]

Why should we need a real helo hangar if we don't get the MH90s to operate them from it?

I just don't see the real benefits?

I'm thinking of the entire squadron. The corvettes still sortie with a Type 404 tender, which uses helos (Sea Kings usually) for VERTREP, but doesn't have a helo hangar of its own.
Giving some corvettes a permanent helo embarkment capability would enable a squadron of corvettes to operate without a EGV or frigates. Plus you could always use the hangar for other stuff still if you don't need a helo on the ship on the particular mission.
UNIFIL for example could be perfectly well executed with a squadron of corvettes and one or two tenders - if there was some helo capability, even if it's just 2 or 3 in the entire squadron. For VERTREP, Medevac, or vertical insertion of commando groups if necessary. Add in two of the converted Frankenthal minehunters, and we're good to go.

Why not procuring more K130? By doing that the individual system price could be reduced and so more nice items could be fitted into the ships (Drones, Polyphem,...).

Remember, Germany never just keeps producing the same thing, even with upgrades - that wouldn't be good for business
(exception: F122, with two additional ordered after several years)

 

[turin]

I know that they intend to carry Heer units.
We had some discussions about this earlier in this thread.
My point is that our light infantry forces are already stretched and before we field something like ETrUS, errrh JSS, we need to expand these forces or at least conslidate them.

I just dont see anymore than wishful thinking in this JSS on behalf of the Navy. So they included it in their BwPlan 2009. I cant see how the Army will go along with this, considering they didnt do it when it was about Etrus. So whats the point? Maybe some try to have a bargain for future negotiations over funding? The JSS is not going to happen. Cant see the consent in the military, cant see a clear-cut requirement, that can be presented to the government and parliament alike.

 

[kato]

I just dont see anymore than wishful thinking in this JSS on behalf of the Navy. So they included it in their BwPlan 2009.

Well, of course. Sometimes it seems like half the planed stuff in the BwPlan is just in there to generate a "heap" of "unfunded projects" for which the navy "needs" more money.

I cant see how the Army will go along with this, considering they didnt do it when it was about Etrus. So whats the point?

As i understand it (now ), JSS isn't so much about some fabled amphibious landing capacity that the Heer would have to agree with. It's about sealift. If you look at Nolting's article in ES closely, he says that within "Basis See", the Navy needs to establish secure sealift capabilities. That means transport, not landing. With the focus on transporting ground troops to an overseas port, or to evacuate them from there.
Within that scope, i could see the Heer agreeing. Along the lines of "as long as we receive our stuff back in a port, not at sea". Pretty much like with the Luftwaffe

Plus, the project is slated for ... well, 2020+. A mission along the lines of UNIFIL, just including German ground forces this time, could come along by then easily. And if they designed the JSS a bit more multi-purpose (not just ferries with a helo deck above), they could be useful for more stuff than just that.
I think i also remember some Admiral (Nolting? Hoch? Witthauer?) mentioning containerized OP centers (as part of "Basis See) that could be put on the EGVs, to enable them for taskforce command along the lines of the French BCR. Now of course, we'll always not have enough EGVs to mount these. Same for MERZ btw. Or any other, similar module options if they pop up over the years (SUGs for the frigates? Ok, not likely). Another option as "carrier" - ie JSS - might be "sellable" there.
Just needs the proper highlighting and twisting.

Personally, i like how the "Basis See" concept folds out by now. It at least restricts itself to a concise approach to what the Weißbuch 2006 laid out as missions for the Navy. And it gives a good framework for the direction of future Navy procurement and spending, including limits regarding both acquisitions and cuts. Combined with the fact that there are apparently people who tend not to forget conventional warfare capabilities, it at least brings some order into things. Unlike that entire period between 2003 and 2005, when the Navy eg. constantly changed Fähigkeitsprofile of planned units.

 

[Falstaff]

And another article on the F-125 just appeared here... (in German)

Not too much new stuff in there, but: What do the F-35 and the F-125 have in common?

Well, you might say, both are utterly ugly and have roughly the same acceleration and top speed (sorry, couldn't resist )... But no, what I mean is the all around infrared sensor system which (IIRC) is a first on a navy ship.

Second interesting point is the comparison between the F-124 and F-124 which according to the article have roughly the same size and displacement (I thought the F-125 was much bigger?) The F-125 is to be able to stay on station for 24 months (6-9 months), can be operated 5000 hours/year at sea (2500 hours) and has a crew of only 105 (223). Impressing figures.

 

[kato]

But no, what I mean is the all around infrared sensor system which (IIRC) is a first on a navy ship.

Nah, IR usage isn't that rare. They're usually more intended as a IR/optronic horizon scanning system instead of close surveillance though. France has been using IRST systems since the late 80s or so. It's just that most of their ships are only fitted-for-but-not-with the Sagem Vampire IRST. The Horizons will get them too, supposedly (with iirc one of the two already deleted for cost reason?). Vampire - and similar systems, like Thales Sirius or IRSCAN - usually only consist of one or two strategically mounted sensors for horizon scanning. The other side of the coin is of course that the F125's system will hardly be useful for actual search-and-track.

I still really wonder what the F125 needs the phased array radar for btw... probably the heaviest dedicated sensor suite for RAM as the only surface-to-air effector (within an entire Stabilization Taskgroup!) ever

Oh, and they've confirmed ADLER/ASCA integration for tactical fire support, good. I was kinda fearing they'd go and do something on their own again, when ASCA supports such integration already.

 

[Waylander]

Hey. atleast they are going to know when something bad is coming their way...

Is it possible to use the radar as a very, very big and expensive fire finder radar when operating close to the shore?
Waiting for a not liked mortar crew and give them a guided 127mm to think about what they have done. (Ok not from a german ship but still... )

 

[swerve]

To divert this thread slightly, but only slightly -

what if any prospects are there that Germany might obtain some dedicated transport ships, rather than (like Denmark) leased commercial ro-ros? From what Kato says on his blog, transports are thought desirable: something capable of operating into poor-quality ports, perhaps with more passenger capacity than the Point-class but probably similar otherwise. I would expect this need to be met better by ships built for the purpose (I'm thinking in terms of lightly militarised versions of a standard civilian ship - strengthened vehicle decks for tanks, military comms, perhaps provision for light armament for self-defence, perhaps a helicopter landing pad) than by leased commercial ships.

 

[kato]

Germany is a co-signer (or something similar) of that lease Denmark has - the three RoRo ships under that lease are also available to the Bundeswehr. Those, under the German concept, provide the "secured commercial sealift capability", which is supplanted by some future "secured military sealift capability".

However, there's a big problem - politically - with dedicated amphibious and/or sealift ships in Germany. The last General-Inspector, Klaus Naumann, had a big project in the 90s - ETrUS, the Task Forces Support Ship, which was a amphibious/sealift ship. And which died, from political pressure, from lack of support from other services (after all, Army troops would have to be transported), and, primarily, from lack of money. The project has received the nickname "Naumann Ark", and its failure is pretty much the one big thing the Navy thinks off when the name Naumann is mentioned. The Navy finally buried it only in 2005, and was very glad about it being over.

Any future amphibious/sealift project therefore has to be carefully prepared politically, including inside the Bundeswehr. The JSS project, as outlined by the current Inspector of the Navy for the future (2020+), is just that preparation. It'll depend on how they play it over the next 10 years - don't pump too much money into it prematurely, don't get in over your head, carefully examine alternatives, work very closely together with the Army, accept compromises quickly; or it will fail just as the "Naumann Ark" did.

There's of course also the money side - with standing projects for the next 5-8 years (F125, U212A Batch 2, EGV Batch 2), there's little wiggle room, even for something like the Point Class, monetarily. The budget is stretched as it is, and won't really relax before around 2016-2017 by current estimates - at that time, certain large-scale investments are paid for (Eurofighter, Puma, F125), and there will be room for a few billion in new investment for the post-2020 period.

The projects already outlined by the Navy that will be tackled then will be the JSS (two sealift/"support" ships) and the K131 (six corvettes as replacement for Gepard FACs). Will be a good point, and very likely, because further investments - new MCM fleet, new ASW frigates - are at least another 5 years or so down the line, so they're not interfering.

To summarize - transports not likely, in the short term. In the medium term, it looks good so far, but depends on handling.

 

[harryriedl]

Germany is a co-signer (or something similar) of that lease Denmark has - the three RoRo ships under that lease are also available to the Bundeswehr. Those, under the German concept, provide the "secured commercial sealift capability", which is supplanted by some future "secured military sealift capability".

However, there's a big problem - politically - with dedicated amphibious and/or sealift ships in Germany. The last General-Inspector, Klaus Naumann, had a big project in the 90s - ETrUS, the Task Forces Support Ship, which was a amphibious/sealift ship. And which died, from political pressure, from lack of support from other services (after all, Army troops would have to be transported), and, primarily, from lack of money. The project has received the nickname "Naumann Ark", and its failure is pretty much the one big thing the Navy thinks off when the name Naumann is mentioned. The Navy finally buried it only in 2005, and was very glad about it being over.

Any future amphibious/sealift project therefore has to be carefully prepared politically, including inside the Bundeswehr. The JSS project, as outlined by the current Inspector of the Navy for the future (2020+), is just that preparation. It'll depend on how they play it over the next 10 years - don't pump too much money into it prematurely, don't get in over your head, carefully examine alternatives; or it will fail just as the "Naumann Ark" did.

There's of course also the money side - with standing projects for the next 5-8 years (F125, U212A Batch 2, EGV Batch 2), there's little wiggle room, even for something like the Point Class, monetarily. The budget is stretched as it is, and won't really relax before around 2016-2017 by current estimates - at that time, certain large-scale investments are paid for (Eurofighter, Puma, F125), and there will be room for a few billion in new investment for the post-2020 period.

The projects already outlined by the Navy that will be tackled then will be the JSS (two sealift/"support" ships) and the K131 (six corvettes as replacement for Gepard FACs). Will be a good point, and very likely, because further investments - new MCM fleet, new ASW frigates - are at least another 5 years or so down the line, so they're not interfering.

To summarize - transports not likely, in the short term. In the medium term, it looks good so far, but depends on handling.

im curious about ETrUS what was it meant to look like and its capability's . and why did the army veto it apart from interservise rivalry [was the Puma procurement involved in killing it].

When is construction starting on the F125 [1st steel cut]

 

[kato]

im curious about ETrUS what was it meant to look like and its capability's .

ETrUS usually went as some kind of LHD/LPD in the usual sizes. Think similar to a mid-sized Schelde Enforcer (Rotterdam/Galicia/Bay classes).
Details changed a lot over the 10 years the project was going on for, and everyone was pretty much pushing their pet peeves with regard to the ship.
There's a German term for what was wanted that doesn't translate to English at all - "eierlegende Wollmilchsau", basically an "all-in-one device" that can do everything.

The original proposal in 1995, by MTG, looked like this...

"Multi-Purpose Ship Type 707"
Displacement: 19,200 tons design load (80% bigger than Rotterdam)
Range, Speed: 7500 nm at 15 kn cruise speed; max speed 20 kn (larger than Rotterdam)
Crew: 188 + 650 troops
Well Deck: 2-4 landing craft, unspecified
Aviation: two helo landing spots, hangar for 4-6 NH-90 (same as Rotterdam)
Sealift: 3100m² for 60-70 large, heavy vehicles (such as tanks; twice as much space as Rotterdam)
Services: onboard Joint Staff HQ, onboard hospital with up to 200 beds

These values floated a lot over time; in 2002, for example, an enlarged design with 27,000 tons and 210m length made the rounds. A SWATH design was also examined.

and why did the army veto it apart from interservise rivalry [was the Puma procurement involved in killing it].

The Army, among other things, had problems with the sheer concept of temporarily subjugating any of its units to Navy command (while they're onboard that is). Additionally, the Navy was pushing for the Army to pay part of the bill for the ship.

When is construction starting on the F125 [1st steel cut]

Got a bit conflicting dates there. 2011 supposedly, that's what you usually find. 2010 in some older data. First delivery sometime between 2012 and 2014 (probably delivery to BWB 2012 and then Navy 2014 i'd guess).

Might seem late, but the F122 (which the F125 are replacing) are about to receive another MLU, between 2008 and 2011 for the 8 units.

 

[rickusn]

Speaking of the F-122 that eight unit class was based on the Dutch "Standard design" and the Greeks have 10 in service plus the UAE operates two.

An excellent design such that some may well serve until as long as 2030.

 

[harryriedl]

ETrUS usually went as some kind of LHD/LPD in the usual sizes. Think similar to a mid-sized Schelde Enforcer (Rotterdam/Galicia/Bay classes).
Details changed a lot over the 10 years the project was going on for, and everyone was pretty much pushing their pet peeves with regard to the ship.
There's a German term for what was wanted that doesn't translate to English at all - "eierlegende Wollmilchsau", basically an "all-in-one device" that can do everything.

The original proposal in 1995, by MTG, looked like this...

"Multi-Purpose Ship Type 707"
Displacement: 19,200 tons design load (80% bigger than Rotterdam)
Range, Speed: 7500 nm at 15 kn cruise speed; max speed 20 kn (larger than Rotterdam)
Crew: 188 + 650 troops
Well Deck: 2-4 landing craft, unspecified
Aviation: two helo landing spots, hangar for 4-6 NH-90 (same as Rotterdam)
Sealift: 3100m² for 60-70 large, heavy vehicles (such as tanks; twice as much space as Rotterdam)
Services: onboard Joint Staff HQ, onboard hospital with up to 200 beds

These values floated a lot over time; in 2002, for example, an enlarged design with 27,000 tons and 210m length made the rounds. A SWATH design was also examined.



The Army, among other things, had problems with the sheer concept of temporarily subjugating any of its units to Navy command (while they're onboard that is). Additionally, the Navy was pushing for the Army to pay part of the bill for the ship.



Got a bit conflicting dates there. 2011 supposedly, that's what you usually find. 2010 in some older data. First delivery sometime between 2012 and 2014 (probably delivery to BWB 2012 and then Navy 2014 i'd guess).

Might seem late, but the F122 (which the F125 are replacing) are about to receive another MLU, between 2008 and 2011 for the 8 units.

thanks for the information as Google didn't have any results. so the ETrUS was a big LPD/LHD, i can see the problems it would have getting approved.

would the F122 be to old to sell off 2015 as they would be very sale able if there hulls aren't too tired

 

[kato]

An excellent design such that some may well serve until as long as 2030.

Indeed - they're considered the "workhorses" of the German Navy.

It's just that they don't fit very well into the realigned German Navy, or rather into the Stabilization Forces as ASW frigates (lack of growth space for specific roles).

would the F122 be to old to sell off 2015 as they would be very sale able if there hulls aren't too tired

Nah, they'll sell easily. The hulls are variably tired (some more, some less), but there will still be easily another ten years in them, especially for the usual South-American customers.

Customer will only need to buy new missiles - the Harpoon Block 1C are approaching service life end at that time, and the Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher will not be upgraded to ESSM in the MLU (too pricy, not worth it in their role).

 

[kato]

Regarding the RORO lease:

In 2006 the ARK project was enlarged with a cooperation with MOD Germany. The agreement regarding this cooperation was signed November 2006 and this made Germany and Denmark common owners of the ARK project. This agreement made the ARK project responsible for the strategic sealift of German armed forces, which meant that further two ships had to be chartered. [...] The ARK project is now governed by a common German – Danish board called ARK Administration Board and the first meeting was held in February 2007.

more @ http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/The+ARK+Project/ (Danish Military official site)

The ARK Project has leased four ships for joint Danish/German use. These are:
Tor Anglia (2,450 lm or 627 TEU)
Tor Dania (2,562 lm or 696 TEU)
Tor Futura (2,308 lm or 1,738 lm + 246 TEU)
Ark Forwarder (2,715 lm or 800 TEU)

A little sidesnipe: The four ships are chartered full time, providing an all-time 10,000 lm solution. The six British Point class ships are available afaik on a part-time solution only, with two ships available at all times, providing about 5,200 lm regularly with a surge capability to 16,800 lm total (for "major operations").

 

[harryriedl]

Regarding the RORO lease:


more @ http://forsvaret.dk/SOK/eng/The+ARK+Project/ (Danish Military official site)

The ARK Project has leased four ships for joint Danish/German use. These are:
Tor Anglia (2,450 lm or 627 TEU)
Tor Dania (2,562 lm or 696 TEU)
Tor Futura (2,308 lm or 1,738 lm + 246 TEU)
Ark Forwarder (2,715 lm or 800 TEU)

A little sidesnipe: The four ships are chartered full time, providing an all-time 10,000 lm solution. The six British Point class ships are available afaik on a part-time solution only, with two ships available at all times, providing about 5,200 lm regularly with a surge capability to 16,800 lm total (for "major operations").[/QUOTE/]
interesting that 2 ships in that list are British flagged. the nice thing about the points are that they are effectively the same vessels while these 4 vessels are all different [don't know how how important it is though:unknown ]

 

[kato]

these 4 vessels are all different [don't know how how important it is though:unknown ]

Not really much of a problem - they're standard civilian cargo ferries, spare parts are plenty on the market. DFDS Tor Lines, from which they are leased, also is known for keeping its 30+ ships in excellent shape. Plus, leasing them of course always allows for a different ship to be chosen a few years down the line (i think most of the leases are up for renewal in 2010).

Identical ships would only be important if you had "prepackaged" cargo for which you could develop an identical stowing plan or such in advance - like France has it for their Guepard Companies on their BATRALs (or, presumably, the USMC with a MEU).

 

[swerve]

Regarding the RORO lease:
...
A little sidesnipe: The four ships are chartered full time, providing an all-time 10,000 lm solution. The six British Point class ships are available afaik on a part-time solution only, with two ships available at all times, providing about 5,200 lm regularly with a surge capability to 16,800 lm total (for "major operations").

Not quite. The RN has four ships full-time, with two on commercial charter, liable to recall at 20 & 30 days notice respectively. The RNs four can be chartered via the private operator if not neede by the MoD, but opportunities have been rare, as the military has kept 'em pretty busy. Has managed to lend 'em to NATO & EUFOR, though. See page 9 -
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0607/hc07/0749/0749.pdf

 

[kato]

Now that i know the names of the ships:

Tor Futura, last August, transported a German training contingent to Crete.

Units transported in one run included:
- 1 Ozelot battery (Heer LFlaRakBttr 300)
- 1 near-air surveillance battery (Heer AufklBttr 100)
- 1 Rapier battery (out of Swiss LVb Flab 33)
- 6 Patriot batteries (Luftwaffe SAM Group 25 and 26)
- 1 force protection company (Luftwaffe 4./ObjSchRgt)
- several airforce-specific logistics, command and support units (SKB)

Total 263 vehicles, 79 containers. Loading and packaging was done by a SKB logistics platoon specific to this task (which wasn't created after the contract btw - the same unit has been active since the 90s).

Above units of course going to Crete for live-fire maneuvers at the NAMFI range. First joint tactical firing by Heer and Luftwaffe units btw.

 

[swerve]

Multirole Combat Ship 180

My attention has been drawn to this elsewhere. From the description, it seems more like a scaled-down F125 than a scaled-up K130, & intended for long-distance rather than local operations.

Does anyone know more?

 

[kato]

MRCS 180 / MKS 180 is the current designation for the former K131 project, previously also called MÜKE (medium surface combatant unit). Designation was changed last May by the Inspector General of the Navy. ESG is currently contracted to develop the PLM for the project, to be finished in November.

There is no selection for any design, or any publicized requirements for it. Requirements floated in the past, including for K131 and MÜKE, include:
- larger crew than K130
- higher redundancy, possible intensive usage (i.e. analogous to F125)
- increased endurance, no reliance on tender (... since we'd be getting rid of those in ZVM2025+)
- limited modularization
- helo (unlike K130)
- cheap (although not too cheap; projected €1 billion for six ships)