German Navy

[StingrayOZ]

Curious the falling through of the triton drones and the lack of perhaps any ASW air platform will be a big blow to Germany. Often having this is complimentary to operating subs, as it gives you the complete training cycle.

Even the smaller of present gen Turboprop MPA like CN235 can provide loitering patrol times of 11 hours. The capabilities and capacities that Turkish ATR-72 seems already capable enough as P3 replacement.

Significantly different number of hard points. I guess the alternative platforms would be more suited to smaller search areas, covering less distance. Perhaps the North sea and the Baltic sea do fit these profiles better. However, it will limit Europe's wider capability to patrols the oceanic waters around it.

The P8 is a high end platform, and operates differently from the p3, and is generally not replaced on a 1 for 1. Some countries like Australia and the US are complimenting it with drones (MQ4C) which have tremendous range, mission length etc. Its a systems approach where two platforms vastly out perform the previous one in every way.

For a lot of countries P3's provided the backbone of eez protection. SAR, fishing, to surface navy and submarines. For countries like Iran and Taiwan, they can't just walk into a Boeing dealership and walk out with P8's and tritons, regardless of the money. I would imagine P3 airframes/spares would fetch high prices. I can see plenty of European countries being put in a bind where it becomes extremely uneconomical to operate their p3 fleet, but cannot acquire a replacement. I would presume many would be watching Germany and other leading European nations on what they may do.

 

[swerve]

If Germany, and other P-3 users such as Canada, Chile etc., muck around to long they will be left with little choice. The KHI P1 and some twin engine turboprops.

OR SAAB Swordfish on the Bombardier Global 6000.

Not quite a paper aeroplane, since it has some commonality with the Globaleye.

 

[kato]

While i've only seen it mentioned as a joke, the one thing that may actually make some sense for an interim solution would be to develop a drop-in solution to be mounted on a A400M. Could be as simple as a containerized or palletized solution for workstations, perhaps with radar and sonobuoy pods on the two underwing mount points.

That would be a "realistic" solution that's arguably very achievable in 2-3 years and enable a continuation of low-impact surveillance missions and training for crews while transitioning the whole thing over to another similar enough 4-engine turboprop airframe. And the German Air Force has 13 of them spare that it doesn't know what to do with.

 

[ngatimozart]

OR SAAB Swordfish on the Bombardier Global 6000.

Not quite a paper aeroplane, since it has some commonality with the Globaleye.

Mea culpa, I had forgotten about that one. Put it down to quake brain.

 

[swerve]

I don't think they're actively marketing it at the moment, but I'm sure that'd change if someone expressed interest.

 

[alexsa]

Curious the falling through of the triton drones and the lack of perhaps any ASW air platform will be a big blow to Germany. Often having this is complimentary to operating subs, as it gives you the complete training cycle.


Significantly different number of hard points. I guess the alternative platforms would be more suited to smaller search areas, covering less distance. Perhaps the North sea and the Baltic sea do fit these profiles better. However, it will limit Europe's wider capability to patrols the oceanic waters around it.

The P8 is a high end platform, and operates differently from the p3, and is generally not replaced on a 1 for 1. Some countries like Australia and the US are complimenting it with drones (MQ4C) which have tremendous range, mission length etc. Its a systems approach where two platforms vastly out perform the previous one in every way.

For a lot of countries P3's provided the backbone of eez protection. SAR, fishing, to surface navy and submarines. For countries like Iran and Taiwan, they can't just walk into a Boeing dealership and walk out with P8's and tritons, regardless of the money. I would imagine P3 airframes/spares would fetch high prices. I can see plenty of European countries being put in a bind where it becomes extremely uneconomical to operate their p3 fleet, but cannot acquire a replacement. I would presume many would be watching Germany and other leading European nations on what they may do.

Agree with you, an added issue is time to get on station. The smaller turbo props are some what slower than the Jet counterparts meaning the transit time can eat into time on station. Horses for courses and this is less of an issue with a small coast line or smaller areas to cover.

As an example of the impact with wide areas to cover - AMSA charter SAR assets moved from Dash 8's to Challengers for this reason and this resulted in better persistence with one less airframe.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency had delivered the required certification to the Congress of the possible sale of the P-8A to Germany.
Its not clear yet if its for the airforce or navy, but at the moment the P-3C Orions are in use by the navy.

Germany – P-8A Aircraft and Associated Support | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

 

[John Newman]

The US Defense Security Cooperation Agency had delivered the required certification to the Congress of the possible sale of the P-8A to Germany.
Its not clear yet if its for the airforce or navy, but at the moment the P-3C Orions are in use by the navy.

Germany – P-8A Aircraft and Associated Support | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

www.dsca.mil

Has already been posted, see previous page, post #191.

 

[kato]

France has offered to lease 4 ATL2 to Germany for an unknown price.

If chosen, in comparison to other solutions this would bring Germany and France in line time-wise for MAWS as a successor project.

 

[Terran]

This is opinion, People often talk about a NIH syndrome in defense affairs most of the time the Not invented here is really just an excuse for a system that just didn’t meet the requirements, wasn’t offered or cost to much. In Germany However seems to be openly pushing NIH. As such the US is clearing the path for a program that will probably end up being closed to them in favoring a very expensive bespoke build from Airbus. Probably based on the A320 as existing offers of CASA based turboprops come up short.

 

[Albedo]

German frigate returns to sea

The German Navy’s Sachsen-class (Type 124) anti-air warfare frigate FGS Sachsen commenced post-refit sea trials in early 2021.

www.janes.com

Responding to questions regarding the absence of a new Mk 41 VLS, Katharina Theobald, spokesperson at the Federal Office for Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), said the VLS was severely damaged during the 21 June 2018 misfire and declared a total loss. With a planned maintenance period scheduled from late 2018 already, Sachsen proceeded directly to the arsenal for repairs.

A new 32-cell Mk 41 VLS in its latest version was ordered from Lockheed Martin after the damage assessment was completed, however it was not available in time for the overhaul period.

According to BAAINBw spokesperson Soeren Schmelz, “A Mk 41 VLS is not a commercial off-the-shelf spare part which is stockpiled by the German Navy or the US Navy.”

Apparently the FGS Sachsen's SM-2 failure to launch accident in 2018 caused the total loss of the entire 32-cell Mk 41 VLS complex which still hasn't been replaced. While the most important thing is that the incident was contained to the VLS complex and didn't compromise the ship and no one was seriously injured, it's surprising that it couldn't be contained to the individual 8-cell Mk41 module and disabled all 32-cells. It definitely seems important for ships to have dispersed missile locations for redundancy, in this case separate RAM and Harpoon launchers, since the Mk41 VLS complex can be a single point of failure. It's also concerning that Lockheed Martin takes more than 2 years to fulfill Mk 41 orders, a time-frame which is probably going to get even longer now that LM is closing one of their Mk41 factories, which means the ability for Mk41 users to replace damage or losses in a conflict is limited and is only going to get more so.

SYLVER VLS complexes leave a gap between 8-cell modules on one axis and I wonder if this substantially improves damage resilience? Many ships just don't have the room for multiple Mk41 VLS complexes located in completely separate parts of the ship, but perhaps it might be worthwhile for future Mk41 ship designs that use a single Mk41 VLS complex to sacrifice a little bit of density and leave some space between 8-cell modules?

 

[kato]

It's also concerning that Lockheed Martin takes more than 2 years to fulfill Mk 41 orders

That's a pretty standard timeframe for US-sourced replacement parts for export customers. Not trying to frame that in any particular way, but let's remember those replacement screws for CH-53G helos taking 6 months to be produced at Sikorsky a few years ago...

it's surprising that it couldn't be contained to the individual 8-cell Mk41 module and disabled all 32-cells.

The Mk41 modules do not have any sort of side walls or other containment towards each other. Containment is only within the individual launch canisters, i.e. per cell. The same goes for Sylver.

The compartment within which the launch modules are placed - i.e. the full installation - is typically lightly armored.

If the entire complex was "damaged" we're likely rather talking damage to electronics btw, possibly caused by the automatic firefighting system that basically flushed out the installation.

 

[John Fedup]

That's a pretty standard timeframe for US-sourced replacement parts for export customers. Not trying to frame that in any particular way, but let's remember those replacement screws for CH-53G helos taking 6 months to be produced at Sikorsky a few years ago...


The Mk41 modules do not have any sort of side walls or other containment towards each other. Containment is only within the individual launch canisters, i.e. per cell. The same goes for Sylver.

The compartment within which the launch modules are placed - i.e. the full installation - is typically lightly armored.

If the entire complex was "damaged" we're likely rather talking damage to electronics btw, possibly caused by the automatic firefighting system that basically flushed out the installation.

Two years for VLS replacement, six months for helicopter screws...good thing we have tons of spares and extra ships in the event of war...whoops!

 

[StingrayOZ]

Two years for VLS replacement, six months for helicopter screws...good thing we have tons of spares and extra ships in the event of war...whoops!

Its not really in the US interest to do it faster than this. They often talk about countries building their own stockpiles of spares. For the US they generally aren't to worried themselves, they can pull kit out of a bone yard or decommissioned ship, refurbish and they are good to go. In war time, I am sure significant improvements could be made. On US ships they have a lot of VLS cells, in separate areas, so if a few become inoperable they probably aren't too worried. in war time they would probably just deactivate the adjacent cells (or just the other complex) and go out with what is remaining. In peace time, well, it can be risky and expensive to use pulled out gear.

Yes splitting VLS up is a good idea. However, complete failure like the Germans experienced are pretty rare.

The cold launch systems for CAMM are the future for smaller missiles.

 

[kato]

The VLS on Sachsen was fully removed in the Marinearsenal depot last year btw, replaced with a simple cover. It got out of that yard time just before christmas and has since then completed full functionality tests at sea for all systems.

The ship is currently used for training (5 months of training cruises planned for the rest of the year). Next year it will receive a MBDA/Rheinmetall 20 kW laser demonstrator weapon which it will trial and operate for a year and which in 2023 will likely be removed at the same time when the new VLS is installed.

 

[John Fedup]

If a MK41 VLS requires a two year lead time, I wonder what the annual production rate is now that one site will be closed? With four of the FEYES starting frigate production (around 50 ships), a few new ABs, and other navies from Asia and Europe needing VLS, it is surprising LM is closing the site but hopefully they know what they are doing.

 

[kato]

If a MK41 VLS requires a two year lead time

Four years technically. They apparently ordered it in early 2019...

To be fair though that may simply the first units in ongoing production that aren't already sold as long-lead items.

 

[kato]

F217 Bayern has been chosen for the Indo-Pacific cruise and will set sail in August.

 

[kato]

P.S.:

Planned route beyond the Indian Ocean is:

Malacca Strait
North Australia
(Pacific Ocean)
several weeks participation in embargo against North Korea
(South China Sea)
Malacca Strait

The cruise is planned to take 6 months.

Joint exercises are planned with the RAN and JMSDF as well as "other partners" (Singapore and South Korea are rumoured).
While passing through the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Bayern will take part in EU NAVFOR Atalanta and NATO OP Sea Guardian respectively.

While crossing the South China Sea it has been confirmed that Bayern will avoid any Chinese territorial waters (while reaffirming support for the UN interpretation of the Philipino 200-nm zone).

The last Indo-Pacific cruise by the German Navy was F218 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (a F123 frigate like Bayern) which on a 5-month cruise in 2002 visited Karachi, Pakistan; Mormugao, India; Cochin, India; Manila, Philippines; Qingdao, China; Inchon, South Korea; and Tokyo, Japan.

---

German thinktank SWP has taken the announcement as an occasion to publish a wider analysis of Indo-Pacific engagement in which (besides mentioning offside that the German Air Force will start deploying combat aircraft and tankers to Australia next year) they suggest that using French infrastructure in the Pacific would be beneficial as well as - if repeated - having the parliament pass a formal deployment mandate at least once for such missions; while that isn't strictly necessary as it is not a combat mission they see it as an intentional political signal.

In addition they hint a bit underhandedly that a security cooperation in the area should possibly include India and Indonesia as well. And they state that as far as "signals" are concerned posts like the German liaison in Singapore (to IFC) is a lot better for creating a "public reception" than hints of possible liaison officers on French ships in the Pacific (which no one would be aware of) would be.

In general if SWP "suggests" something you can assume it becomes official German policy sometime soon.

 

[mariohot]

P.S.:

Planned route beyond the Indian Ocean is:

Malacca Strait
North Australia
(Pacific Ocean)
several weeks participation in embargo against North Korea
(South China Sea)
Malacca Strait

The cruise is planned to take 6 months.

Joint exercises are planned with the RAN and JMSDF as well as "other partners" (Singapore and South Korea are rumoured).
While passing through the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Bayern will take part in EU NAVFOR Atalanta and NATO OP Sea Guardian respectively.

While crossing the South China Sea it has been confirmed that Bayern will avoid any Chinese territorial waters (while reaffirming support for the UN interpretation of the Philipino 200-nm zone).

The last Indo-Pacific cruise by the German Navy was F218 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (a F123 frigate like Bayern) which on a 5-month cruise in 2002 visited Karachi, Pakistan; Mormugao, India; Cochin, India; Manila, Philippines; Qingdao, China; Inchon, South Korea; and Tokyo, Japan.

---

German thinktank SWP has taken the announcement as an occasion to publish a wider analysis of Indo-Pacific engagement in which (besides mentioning offside that the German Air Force will start deploying combat aircraft and tankers to Australia next year) they suggest that using French infrastructure in the Pacific would be beneficial as well as - if repeated - having the parliament pass a formal deployment mandate at least once for such missions; while that isn't strictly necessary as it is not a combat mission they see it as an intentional political signal.

In addition they hint a bit underhandedly that a security cooperation in the area should possibly include India and Indonesia as well. And they state that as far as "signals" are concerned posts like the German liaison in Singapore (to IFC) is a lot better for creating a "public reception" than hints of possible liaison officers on French ships in the Pacific (which no one would be aware of) would be.

In general if SWP "suggests" something you can assume it becomes official German policy sometime soon.

possibilities that germany will establish permament military base on far east and indo-pacific region? in future