New Danish Frigates
- Thread starter PhillTaj
- Start date
contedicavour
New Member
I'd love them to have Aster-30... but it wouldn't make sense to have ESSM and Aster-30. It's either ESSM+SM-2III with the same VLS cells, or Aster15/30 with the Sylver VLS cells.docrjay said:
APAR makes sense, same as German and Dutch navies.
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
With the choice of AAW suite, Sylver/Aster 30 wouldn't be a logical first choice.
It would make sense to take the entire F124/LCF package which includes the Mk41 SL/Standard Missile combo. This would make for a great deal of similarity between the three classes of ships and is a tested and tried solution.
If SAMPSON/CEAMOUNT had been chosen, then it would have been interesting, as the solution would have been unique. SAMPSON (and EMPAR) can't provide CWI or ICWI for the ESSM which would then need an unique and complex FC solution. This would have levelled the field for the Aster 30. However much I like SAMPSON, it would have entailed greater risk. The choice of launcher missile has practically been made with the choice of AAW suite. From a risk management perspective it wouldn't make sense to go for the Sylver/Aster 30 now.
Also the US dollar exchange rate is sinking like a rock vs Danish KR/Euro. It has lost something like 10% (6.3 DKK/USD -> 5.8DKK/USD) since the amount of money to allocate was decided.
Cheeeaaaaaap!
I looks like it has effectively been decided.
I'll go look for a new avatar
It would make sense to take the entire F124/LCF package which includes the Mk41 SL/Standard Missile combo. This would make for a great deal of similarity between the three classes of ships and is a tested and tried solution.
If SAMPSON/CEAMOUNT had been chosen, then it would have been interesting, as the solution would have been unique. SAMPSON (and EMPAR) can't provide CWI or ICWI for the ESSM which would then need an unique and complex FC solution. This would have levelled the field for the Aster 30. However much I like SAMPSON, it would have entailed greater risk. The choice of launcher missile has practically been made with the choice of AAW suite. From a risk management perspective it wouldn't make sense to go for the Sylver/Aster 30 now.
Also the US dollar exchange rate is sinking like a rock vs Danish KR/Euro. It has lost something like 10% (6.3 DKK/USD -> 5.8DKK/USD) since the amount of money to allocate was decided.
Cheeeaaaaaap!
I looks like it has effectively been decided.
I'll go look for a new avatar
contedicavour
New Member
Just a fast question : have the SM-2IIIA or B been selected for your nice new FFGs ? APAR and Mk41 and ESSM are confirmed, but what about the SM2s ?Grand Danois said:With the choice of AAW suite, Sylver/Aster 30 wouldn't be a logical first choice.
It would make sense to take the entire F124/LCF package which includes the Mk41 SL/Standard Missile combo. This would make for a great deal of similarity between the three classes of ships and is a tested and tried solution.
If SAMPSON/CEAMOUNT had been chosen, then it would have been interesting, as the solution would have been unique. SAMPSON (and EMPAR) can't provide CWI or ICWI for the ESSM which would then need an unique and complex FC solution. This would have levelled the field for the Aster 30. However much I like SAMPSON, it would have entailed greater risk. The choice of launcher missile has practically been made with the choice of AAW suite. From a risk management perspective it wouldn't make sense to go for the Sylver/Aster 30 now.
Also the US dollar exchange rate is sinking like a rock vs Danish KR/Euro. It has lost something like 10% (6.3 DKK/USD -> 5.8DKK/USD) since the amount of money to allocate was decided.
Cheeeaaaaaap!
I looks like it has effectively been decided.
I'll go look for a new avatar
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
It is/was a contest between Aster 30 and SM-2 Blk IIIA. Decision on the missiles themselves, but not launchers, has now been postponed a few years, so it may be a different choice that will be made by then ie Blk IIIB or SM-6... They will first be needed in 2010-2011 anyway.contedicavour said:
There wouldnt be a problem with ESSM and Aster 30 since the sensor suite is capable of guiding both. You can get Slyver for the Asters and use Stanflex available in Danish Navy inventory for the ESSM. 3 stanflex would carry 36 ESSM right? add to that 1 32 cell Slyver for the Aster 30's....it would be tough to saturate this ship.
Except of course if there is another reason to purchase the the Mk41's. The Danish Navy is so unique on this perspective because they have a native launcher capable of launching the ESSM. They do not require the Mk41's to fire the ESSM so theres no pressure to buy the SM-II for area defence if they chose the Asters? Just a thought....
Except of course if there is another reason to purchase the the Mk41's. The Danish Navy is so unique on this perspective because they have a native launcher capable of launching the ESSM. They do not require the Mk41's to fire the ESSM so theres no pressure to buy the SM-II for area defence if they chose the Asters? Just a thought....
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Update
Some notes on the Patrol Ships from an article in Søværnsorientering.
Some other notes:
ES 3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and Surveillance System from EDO Corporation.
ASO 94-01 bow mounted sonar from Atlas Elektronik.
Attachments from the mentioned article.
Some notes on the Patrol Ships from an article in Søværnsorientering.
- First ship should be ready to sail at the Royal Danish Navys 500 year jubilee in 2010. First unit ISD 2011.
- Emphasis on commonality with Absalon class.
- Operational experience with Absalon class has led to minor improvements.
- Negotiations with Thales NL has been entered wrt APAR and Smart L.
- Six vertical damage control compartments [havarizoner?].
- NBC divided into three separate citadelles each with its own NBC filters and air condition. Electronic Damage Management System as per Absalon class.
- Redundancy of some sensors and weapons systems in order to retain
fighting ability after being hit.
- High standard of crew comfort.
Some other notes:
ES 3701 Tactical Radar Electronic Support Measures (ESM) and Surveillance System from EDO Corporation.
ASO 94-01 bow mounted sonar from Atlas Elektronik.
Attachments from the mentioned article.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
Thanks for sharing the data and the mockups, they are very useful to visualize the ship 3D !
The choice of APAR plus Mk41 means that SM2-IIIB has been officially selected ?
If yes, this would add the Danish AAW FFGs to the Daring, Doria, Forbin, De Zeven Provincen, Bazan F100 and German F124, ie the elite of AAW in Europe
cheers
The choice of APAR plus Mk41 means that SM2-IIIB has been officially selected ?
If yes, this would add the Danish AAW FFGs to the Daring, Doria, Forbin, De Zeven Provincen, Bazan F100 and German F124, ie the elite of AAW in Europe
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Still nothing official on radars, VLS and missiles.Thanks for sharing the data and the mockups, they are very useful to visualize the ship 3D !
The choice of APAR plus Mk41 means that SM2-IIIB has been officially selected ?
If yes, this would add the Danish AAW FFGs to the Daring, Doria, Forbin, De Zeven Provincen, Bazan F100 and German F124, ie the elite of AAW in Europe
cheers
But they will have high end radars, and 56 SAM missiles. So you can safely put them in that class.
My personal guess is that this is how they will be configured.
contedicavour
New Member
Well then welcome to the advanced AAW club
I still remember when the best AAW in the Dansh fleet was a Sea Sparrow module on the Niels Juel. What an improvement !
cheers
A bit of background:
The Iuel-class was build to guard the minefields in Fehmarn and Great Belt + a minefield in Øresund. Those minefield were primarily to laid by the Falster class minelayer (actually the Danish flagship at the time was a minelayer), but also cablemines were on the agenda. On top of that the ferries between Rødby and Puttgarden as well as the big ferries on the Great Belt could be used as minelayers.
So the backbone of the defence was the minefields; but they were not alone:
The Willemoes class of MMB, the mobile missile batteries and artillery - they even trained tank crews to attack against shipping.
The airforce part was 2 Marinenflieger Geschwaders from Germany - they used the Peter Paars - class ferries as mock targets - very few discovered what happened when a Tornado came blazing high speed over the ferry midways between Zealand and Jutland. At least one squadron of the RDaAF was dedicated to shipping attack with rockets.
On top of that B-52 had a mission of repleníshing the minefields. (D-model as far as I recall).
It was in this enviroment the Iuel-class should operate:
1. Shallow waters, so they should be small to have maneaure.
2. They needed a lot of firepower.
3. They not only operated within aircower; but the greatest concern was really blue on blue.
4. To achieve this all higher command functions were put ashore - air defence f.i. was coordinated by the Air Force.
They would not have survived long in a war; but the point was to keep the Danish Straits from being forced. If it could be done luckily remains to be seen; but it would have been costly - just think of the hindrance the wrecked ships would have constituted. The only route for oceangoing ships passing through the Danish Straits is route Tango - that by the way has a few turns where inattentive skippers touch ground.
The enviroment for the new frigates is very different.
They have to deal with the shallow waters of the Baltic and the Atlantic ocean. If you don't think it makes much difference, just ask the crew on Glenten that sailed for Lebanon and encountered 5-7 meters of waveaction. That is rarely comfortable; but in a shallow draught Flyvefisken class build for the Baltic it is terrible.
This discussion seems to have missed the central points of the new class:
1. They are build like ferries - a type of ship that has to maintain stability and manaeuvre with rapidly changing loads and thus draughts. The new class can actually vary its draught, so they can accomodate both types of waters. If I'm not wrong, that was actually the essential test for the Absalon class in the Atlantic.
2. They will have to operate without guarantied aircover, and at best not even close to the quality that was available over the Belts during the cold war. If I'm not wrong: Their primary mission is to secure reinforcements/evacuation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The mere threat of a reinforcement to those nations will give an agressive Russia a planning problem out of proportion to the effort giving it. Russia is so-so peacefull at the moment: The aim of these ships is to keep it that way - if for no other reason: Danish air defence is to be fought near the Russian boarder - with Estonia. That is why Luftmeldekorpset was disbanded the day the Baltic nations became members of Nato.
3. The secondary mission - if we cut through the sales-talk - is to protect reinforcements from the UK and USA. Thus the modular build - we don't have money for 2 classes of ships.
As far as I can see: The idea is to sail reinforcements in (supplementing their national force and the light Danish forces flown in) - before a war turns hot - with an Absalon class delivering an armoured squadron - thus overcoming the heavy forces normal low operational mobility - to secure a bridgehead in say Lithuania - the rest will follow on ro-ro ferries. Escort will be one new frigate and about 4 Flyvefisken class together they have a significant firepower - alone they are just patrollers. Secondly a screening force of one new frigate with another set of Flyvefisken-class.
I strongly suspect methods have been found that will allow rapid and accurate determination of submarines in the Baltic - with a reultant microscopic life expectancy of submarines.
To suggest they are build for humanitarian reasons is as ludicrious as suggesting that the WASP class has been build to save tsunami-victims. They are used for that; but it is not why they were build.
What I haven't quite figured out is how the Danish navy is to cooperate with the Norwegean Nansen-class to shut the gab between Greenland and Northern Norway - in this context Iceland and the Fairisles are remote southsea holiday resorts.
The Iuel-class was build to guard the minefields in Fehmarn and Great Belt + a minefield in Øresund. Those minefield were primarily to laid by the Falster class minelayer (actually the Danish flagship at the time was a minelayer), but also cablemines were on the agenda. On top of that the ferries between Rødby and Puttgarden as well as the big ferries on the Great Belt could be used as minelayers.
So the backbone of the defence was the minefields; but they were not alone:
The Willemoes class of MMB, the mobile missile batteries and artillery - they even trained tank crews to attack against shipping.
The airforce part was 2 Marinenflieger Geschwaders from Germany - they used the Peter Paars - class ferries as mock targets - very few discovered what happened when a Tornado came blazing high speed over the ferry midways between Zealand and Jutland. At least one squadron of the RDaAF was dedicated to shipping attack with rockets.
On top of that B-52 had a mission of repleníshing the minefields. (D-model as far as I recall).
It was in this enviroment the Iuel-class should operate:
1. Shallow waters, so they should be small to have maneaure.
2. They needed a lot of firepower.
3. They not only operated within aircower; but the greatest concern was really blue on blue.
4. To achieve this all higher command functions were put ashore - air defence f.i. was coordinated by the Air Force.
They would not have survived long in a war; but the point was to keep the Danish Straits from being forced. If it could be done luckily remains to be seen; but it would have been costly - just think of the hindrance the wrecked ships would have constituted. The only route for oceangoing ships passing through the Danish Straits is route Tango - that by the way has a few turns where inattentive skippers touch ground.
The enviroment for the new frigates is very different.
They have to deal with the shallow waters of the Baltic and the Atlantic ocean. If you don't think it makes much difference, just ask the crew on Glenten that sailed for Lebanon and encountered 5-7 meters of waveaction. That is rarely comfortable; but in a shallow draught Flyvefisken class build for the Baltic it is terrible.
This discussion seems to have missed the central points of the new class:
1. They are build like ferries - a type of ship that has to maintain stability and manaeuvre with rapidly changing loads and thus draughts. The new class can actually vary its draught, so they can accomodate both types of waters. If I'm not wrong, that was actually the essential test for the Absalon class in the Atlantic.
2. They will have to operate without guarantied aircover, and at best not even close to the quality that was available over the Belts during the cold war. If I'm not wrong: Their primary mission is to secure reinforcements/evacuation of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The mere threat of a reinforcement to those nations will give an agressive Russia a planning problem out of proportion to the effort giving it. Russia is so-so peacefull at the moment: The aim of these ships is to keep it that way - if for no other reason: Danish air defence is to be fought near the Russian boarder - with Estonia. That is why Luftmeldekorpset was disbanded the day the Baltic nations became members of Nato.
3. The secondary mission - if we cut through the sales-talk - is to protect reinforcements from the UK and USA. Thus the modular build - we don't have money for 2 classes of ships.
As far as I can see: The idea is to sail reinforcements in (supplementing their national force and the light Danish forces flown in) - before a war turns hot - with an Absalon class delivering an armoured squadron - thus overcoming the heavy forces normal low operational mobility - to secure a bridgehead in say Lithuania - the rest will follow on ro-ro ferries. Escort will be one new frigate and about 4 Flyvefisken class together they have a significant firepower - alone they are just patrollers. Secondly a screening force of one new frigate with another set of Flyvefisken-class.
I strongly suspect methods have been found that will allow rapid and accurate determination of submarines in the Baltic - with a reultant microscopic life expectancy of submarines.
To suggest they are build for humanitarian reasons is as ludicrious as suggesting that the WASP class has been build to save tsunami-victims. They are used for that; but it is not why they were build.
What I haven't quite figured out is how the Danish navy is to cooperate with the Norwegean Nansen-class to shut the gab between Greenland and Northern Norway - in this context Iceland and the Fairisles are remote southsea holiday resorts.
contedicavour
New Member
Very interesting thanks. I thought that strengthened air defence was due mostly to overseas missions requiring Danish ships to have sufficient air cover. I wasn't expecting residual Cold War scenarios such as supporting amphibious landings in Estonia to support local forces under attack from Russia :shudder though from a logical point of view it makes sense.
Though if we keep thinking about this scenario, hasn't the Danish navy been too fast to downplay ASW by decommissioning subs ?
cheers
Though if we keep thinking about this scenario, hasn't the Danish navy been too fast to downplay ASW by decommissioning subs ?
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I would not consider the Baltic Sea their design environment. They are too big and expensive to risk in waters rife with mines, SSK, etc.
We can't realistically defend the Baltic nations in case of WW3.
The prime example of this is when the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) suggested possible USMC amphibious landings in the Baltic states during a hot war with WARPAC.
This insane idea, a suicide mission, was promptly shot down by commentators with the proper sense of military realities.
That two USMC brigades were available as reserves for the Baltic region (which includes Denmark) did imply that they in case could be deployed in Norway, as well as in Denmark or Northern Germany fighting a defensive battle.
DIIS lacking the knowledge to interpret this correctly, used this invented scenario together with ABLE ARCHER - a 1983 NATO staff exercise - as evidence of an aggresive NATO posture, ie fuelling the Cold War.
[sarcastic]The DIIS researchers did not have legacy perceptions from their past, no way. [/sarcasm]
contedicavour
New Member
This makes a lot of sense to me. It would take much more than a couple of brigades supported by Danish FFGs and Absalons to repeal a land invasion by Russian T-80/90 tank divisions supported by SU24, 25, 30 ...I would not consider the Baltic Sea their design environment. They are too big and expensive to risk in waters rife with mines, SSK, etc.
We can't realistically defend the Baltic nations in case of WW3.
The prime example of this is when the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) suggested possible USMC amphibious landings in the Baltic states during a hot war with WARPAC.
This insane idea, a suicide mission, was promptly shot down by commentators with the proper sense of military realities.
That two USMC brigades were available as reserves for the Baltic region (which includes Denmark) did imply that they in case could be deployed in Norway, as well as in Denmark or Northern Germany fighting a defensive battle.
DIIS lacking the knowledge to interpret this correctly, used this invented scenario together with ABLE ARCHER - a 1983 NATO staff exercise - as evidence of an aggresive NATO posture, ie fuelling the Cold War.
[sarcastic]The DIIS researchers did not have legacy perceptions from their past, no way. [/sarcasm]
though from a naval point of view, Finland and Estonia could make the exit from St Petersburg impossible (via mines mainly) and Denmark could handle the assets moored at the Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania.
Wow I feel I'm back in the '80s
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
I was not a fan of disbanding the SSK squadron. But perhaps, if there is to be a hiatus in this or similar capabilities, this may the right time to have it.
I get the impression that a "silent revolution" is underway for this aspect of warfare and it may be worth waiting it out to see where things are heading, instead of investing in a mere continuation of traditional solutions.
contedicavour
New Member
Silent revolution ? Other than AIP and plans for a lower-cost coastal SSK (SMX-23) by DCN, I don't see what is revolutionary in submarine evolution?
cheers
Grand Danois
Entertainer
If you want to wish to buy an SSK and expect to use it as you do today in ten or twenty years time, then okay.
However, UUV's or networked schools of UUV's acting as mobile distributed sensor networks and perhaps also shooters, working together with ad hoc deployed static sensors may offer a better solution to littoral ASW than an SSK.
Then there is the question on how to deploy these UUV's. From a surface vessel like Absalon, the FFG's or a mothership SSK. I suggest that an SSK would look different from todays as it would be more a carrier of payload than a carrier of warload.
I'd say this offer a better way of dominating the area with less risk of compromising the enabling asset - the SSK.
contedicavour
New Member
OK I see your point. I'm though sceptical about which roles UUVs can perform. I see their usefulness for MCM missions for example, but is their range and their sensors' range sufficient for ASW missions ? :unknown
What payload (torpedoes, missiles) can UUVs carry ? Certainly enough to explode a mine, but enough to kill a double-hull SSN ?
Anyway let's see what the future will bring us.
cheers
Grand Danois and Conte di Cavour:
So many extreemly interesting points raised by both of You that I'll hve to take them over several posts.
Let's get started:
1. I sincerely hope the Americans - latecomers to the international scene as they are - have listned to a thousand years of painful experience: It is infinitely easier to invade a country if you are wellcome where you land! - as a matter of fact we've made a habit of it.
The whole idea is to be there before the russians can gather any strength - just a lot of danes, americans - perhaps dutch - camping out in the woods.
2. The defence of the Baltic states is far from hopeless, may I remind You both that during WW2 the russians bypassed the Baltic states and went directly for Berlin - which gave them 10 years of agony after the war (where the balt had NO help from the outside) before the last organised (and in uniform) resistance in the 3 countries was crushed. The terrain with swamps and woods is excellent for a defensive battle.
3. The whole idea of Nato is against an attack: The USSR - or what they call themselves nowadays will of course - given time and money be able to squash The Baltic states - like Chechetsnia (ouch!! that one hit a raw nerve) - just much worse, as they will have help. BUT they will not be alone: I is just possible (as the austrian thought) to attack Russia from the east of Poland - if you attack ANY of us.
This is not possible without a considerable buildup on both sides; but the message to the russians is clear: Don't even think about it! So let us both save a lot of time and money and face facts.
So many extreemly interesting points raised by both of You that I'll hve to take them over several posts.
Let's get started:
1. I sincerely hope the Americans - latecomers to the international scene as they are - have listned to a thousand years of painful experience: It is infinitely easier to invade a country if you are wellcome where you land! - as a matter of fact we've made a habit of it.
The whole idea is to be there before the russians can gather any strength - just a lot of danes, americans - perhaps dutch - camping out in the woods.
2. The defence of the Baltic states is far from hopeless, may I remind You both that during WW2 the russians bypassed the Baltic states and went directly for Berlin - which gave them 10 years of agony after the war (where the balt had NO help from the outside) before the last organised (and in uniform) resistance in the 3 countries was crushed. The terrain with swamps and woods is excellent for a defensive battle.
3. The whole idea of Nato is against an attack: The USSR - or what they call themselves nowadays will of course - given time and money be able to squash The Baltic states - like Chechetsnia (ouch!! that one hit a raw nerve) - just much worse, as they will have help. BUT they will not be alone: I is just possible (as the austrian thought) to attack Russia from the east of Poland - if you attack ANY of us.
This is not possible without a considerable buildup on both sides; but the message to the russians is clear: Don't even think about it! So let us both save a lot of time and money and face facts.
Conte di Cavour:
You talk about mines: Very interesting point.
I don't know what happened to the mines we had ready: The big minelayers are gone; but what about the mines????? And there were quite a lot of them.
There are two ports left to the Russians in the Baltic: St. Petersburg and Königsberg - and if I remember my seacharts right: The access to them give a whole new meaning to the frase: "Close waters".
To sum it up: The moment it is convienient for us nothing Russian moves in the Baltic. And militarily speaking Königsberg stands with leg in the grave and the other on a banana peel anyhow. A nerveous hand on a switch at Ignalina would probably make all the lights go out in Kaleningradska Oblast.
The message still is: You don't go to war - we don't go to war, so pipe down Putin.
You talk about mines: Very interesting point.
I don't know what happened to the mines we had ready: The big minelayers are gone; but what about the mines????? And there were quite a lot of them.
There are two ports left to the Russians in the Baltic: St. Petersburg and Königsberg - and if I remember my seacharts right: The access to them give a whole new meaning to the frase: "Close waters".
To sum it up: The moment it is convienient for us nothing Russian moves in the Baltic. And militarily speaking Königsberg stands with leg in the grave and the other on a banana peel anyhow. A nerveous hand on a switch at Ignalina would probably make all the lights go out in Kaleningradska Oblast.
The message still is: You don't go to war - we don't go to war, so pipe down Putin.