New Danish Frigates

[Ths]

Grand Danois: Yes, I'm speculating. There is a lot going on at the moment - weird little adjustments. Bizarre reorganisations - and one name occuring in all the contexts: Niels Wang. A lot of travelling and a lot of contact with the US.
This carreer drive is not selfsustainable, there must be some support behind it.

Anyway, I won't doubt Your estimate. What I've not quite come to terms with is the price from Lindø. They are known to be a quality yard; but not cheap. And when a yard is losing money constantly, Mr. Møller isn't happy and he hates cutting prices. So there is more to this than meets the eye.

About the helo's: That is another thing. The Air Force is having a devil of a time preparing them for service - not all of it due to the reorganisation and loss of experienced workforce. That should be the least appropiate time for extra sales negotiation - or maybe a good time as the supplier might have a weak position. They've bought 14 of the Merlin and are now proposing buying 4 more ---- and what shall replace the Lynx?? And there are the new patrollers for Greenland - with helipad. Do You know what they have in mind there???

By the way the suggestion to cut back the Army/AirForce part doesn't cut any ice with me, as it is one of the usual negotiation ploys of the defence department.

 

[RA1911]

Anyway, it's closer to 1½-2 Nansens. And their helos are probably included in that figure.

The number that have been used for the 5 Nansen FFGs is 21 bill NOK. Today that's roughly 3,25bill US$ and includes everything (Weapons/Helos/Land equipment/Modifications to the naval base).

 

[Grand Danois]

The number that have been used for the 5 Nansen FFGs is 21 bill NOK. Today that's roughly 3,25bill US$ and includes everything (Weapons/Helos/Land equipment/Modifications to the naval base).

Ah, yes. It did include the helos. How much did you have to cough up for them?

 

[RA1911]

Ah, yes. It did include the helos. How much did you have to cough up for them?

Sorry, but I haven't seen any numbers on the helos. Maybe someone else?

 

[contedicavour]

The number that have been used for the 5 Nansen FFGs is 21 bill NOK. Today that's roughly 3,25bill US$ and includes everything (Weapons/Helos/Land equipment/Modifications to the naval base).

Pretty expensive 650 mln USD for a FFG ... I guess adding SM-2 III would make for a better return on investment by transforming the ship into an AAW FFG as well ?

cheers

 

[Ths]

Conte: Then why not call it a destroyer, and end the debate??

The point is the Norwegean Navy gets more responsability.

Grand Danois: Wang will grap any opportunity, and TF150 makes a good example.
The point is that due to German internal politics, they are not quite ready for raising their profile. Denmark has the excellent property, that any accusation of ambition can be belly laughed off. (As long as we get our fee!)

 

[RA1911]

Pretty expensive 650 mln USD for a FFG ... I guess adding SM-2 III would make for a better return on investment by transforming the ship into an AAW FFG as well ?

cheers

Maybe, but that's not a part of their intended role as of now. They are primary ASW ships with AAW and SSW as secondary roles. They will also be equiped with the new NSM missile and some of the costs might be because of R&D for this. Don't quote me on that though.

 

[Ths]

1911:
If I'm not mistaken:
The point is that the Norwegean Navy to intends and purposes gets the task of stopping the Russian submarines out of Murmansk and the Danes a bit further west. The threat has probably degraded to that extend that it is within the capability of two small Nato countries. My guess is that the US provides a Seawolf to give submarine capability in that scenario.

 

[Grand Danois]

Some news...

i) The patrol frigate (AAW) design has been offered to Greece.
ii) The choice of 127mm armament may be from Oto Melara or Bae (!).
iii) Denmark plans to join a theater missile defence study with Germany, Spain and the Netherlands.

From Defense Technology International.

Lots of good stuff, including on UAVs and the F-35.

Cheers

 

[Ths]

Some observations.

Thanks for the link Grand Danois.

Taking OUT a deck compared to the Absalon. That is the reverse of normal practice. Danish ferries have traditionally all been designed with the option of Adding an extra deck. Did give some of them stability problems though.

Seem like (from the ro/ro part of the article) that the danish Tank btn is upgraded from the coldwar standard of 30 tanks to 40. 13 tanks to a squadron, 4 to a platoon???

In all: Sea lift capacity for a brigade.

 

[swerve]

Seem like (from the ro/ro part of the article) that the danish Tank btn is upgraded from the coldwar standard of 30 tanks to 40. 13 tanks to a squadron, 4 to a platoon???

In all: Sea lift capacity for a brigade.

Yes, but shared, not dedicated to Denmark. In the (translated) words of German Vice-Admiral Wolfgang Nolting, Germany has "access to secured commercial strategic sealift to the tune of three RoRo ships" as part of an agreement with Denmark. Six other states are part of the agreement, paying for access. Denmark (mostly) the UK (residual capacity of part of the Point-class fleet) & Norway (ad-hoc) provide ships. The money from the NATO sealift consortium - of which Germany pays most - covers most of the cost of the Danish ro-ros, & in return, they get guaranteed access.

BTW, the Germans are looking at buying some sealift ships to replace the current contract when it expires. If that happens, I would expect Denmark to reduce the number of vessels chartered.

 

[kato]

BTW, the Germans are looking at buying some sealift ships to replace the current contract when it expires.

All i've seen so far (from a study done for the Bundeswehr) points at a continuation of ARK. With a potential expansion to five ships (two Danish, three German; ship number 4 was added in 2007).

Technically, ARK - and the other mentioned assets - are pooled and coordinated under MCCE/MSSC (not NATO SCC, transferred in 2003), currently 15 members.

MSSC currently maintains:
- 4 ARK vessels (originally 3)
- 1 NAMSA vessel (originally 2)
- 1 Norwegian vessel
- up to 4 Point class vessels (residual capacity RFA JRRF, fixed)
- up to 3 French vessels (residual capacity MN charter, not fixed)

Additional vessels are available from the spot market through MSSC. All ships RoRo with around 2500 lm.

MCCE/MSSC is a bilateral agreement separate from NATO, and membership open to non-NATO EU members (ie. in particular Sweden); the organization holds some observer status in relevant NATO groups.

 

[regstrup]

Thanks for the link Grand Danois.
Seem like (from the ro/ro part of the article) that the danish Tank btn is upgraded from the coldwar standard of 30 tanks to 40. 13 tanks to a squadron, 4 to a platoon???

Isen't that jumping to conclusions, just because it is mentioned, that there among many things are space for 40 battle tanks ?

To my knowledge a danish armoured squadron still contains only 10 tanks, 3 to a platoon and one for the squadron CO.

There have been much talk about 4 tanks to each of the three platoons plus one for both the CO and NC. But this is still just talk.

 

[Ths]

Thanks for the information

Swerve + kato: That was very interesting!

With all that shipspace we are talking a Corps (-) reinforcing the Baltic states. Which to a Russian general is about the most nasty place they can get it. Landing either in Estonia or Lithuania will threaten St. Petersburg or Kaleningradskaya Oblast respectively. The will have to be landed before a war breaks out, as it is next to impossible to invade in the face of even mediocre opposition - the waters are indeed shallow with access to the ports being more or less canals.

This also explains the new Danish Frigates: They are veritable SAM fireworks floats. With 2 Absalon-class Command Ships - I've wondered why there was 3 Frigates (The Niels Iuel - class corvettes were clearly build to defend the Danish Belts - and that purpose only, as they are short of endurance). So the plan probably includes one Frigate in constant transite for reload. The Absalon class being primarely a minelayer.

Very flexible: Land in Estonia (I would forget Riga, at the approach to that city is terrible at the best of times) AND/OR Kleipeda in Lithuania. Force size and composition unpredictable, point of landing unpredictable.

Of course it cannot take on the Russian military might all by itself - isn't meant to, but it will divert considerable forces: One or two armies - these cannot be used on the Central Front.
For an economical price the OPFOR is presented with a very expensive problem - popularly known as upping the ante.

 

[Ths]

Regstup

First an excuse to this forum users, as the following at first sight doesn't have very much relevence to Naval Warfare. But the integrating forces does mean that both Frigate, Command Ships and Transport ships have to be designed into the context of the integrated force:
The Army context gives the dimention to the transport force, this again influences the protection these ships must have. Please bear with me.

I missed it the first time round as well. If You read carefully, they mention 40 MBT. The first I saw of the discussion to raise the tank btn to 40 was in the defence white paper before the last Defence Agreement - it was in an annex - and about the only readable thing in that "brick".

Up to now the plan has been to get the 3 Baltic nations into Nato - then integrating them.
Integration has meant the Baltic states foresake an airforce as such, reorganise their local defence - leaving the Home Guard to take care of that - and concentrating the armies into brigade sized forces.
Now moving from fighting at company level (btn at the max) to brigade, that is one big learning process - that takes time.
Until that time reorganising reinforcing forces doesn't make much sense. I'm just as impatient as You, Regstup, but have learned the hard way: Ting tar tid.

There are hefty indication that this reorganisation will take place.

1. 51 Leo2 (+6 for training) indicates 1 btn plus a personel reserve squadron for the brigadeer. It is too little for 2 30 tank btn's.
2. 1.5 odd million DDK could well be 100 odd (at a price of 15 mio DKK a piece) ACV.
3. The critique of the 10 tank squadron has been the lack of endurance in combat. That did not matter to much during the cold war, as they would have been clobbered to smithereens in case of a WAPA attack. It does matter, though, if you plan to fight far away from home.

We have plenty of Leo1's and reasonable M113 to form a medium (mechanized) brigade. The Piranhas are clearly for a light brigade.

 

[swerve]

Swerve + kato: That was very interesting!

With all that shipspace we are talking a Corps (-) reinforcing the Baltic states. ...

That's the pooled shipping. There are also the 2 Point-class permanently committed to UK use. The other 4 are theoretically available to the pool, but in practice the UK is using 4 of the 6 full-time at the moment.

There are also the amphibious ships:
1 Ocean LPH (UK)
2 Albion LPD (UK)
4 Bay LSD (UK)
2 Mistral LHD (France)
2 Foudre LPD (France)
1 de Witt LPD (NL)
3 Rotterdam/Galicia LPD (NL/Spain)
3 Santi small LPD (Italy)

1Juan Carlos I LHD building.
Secondary amphibious capability of 1 Cavour & 2 (+1 reserve) Invincible light carriers.

Whether this large fleet is actually available to reinforce the Baltics depends on what else is going on at the time, but in an emergency, I would expect there to be a substantial reinforcement of sealift capacity with STUFT. The European ferry fleet is very large indeed, & could carry a great number of troops & light to medium vehicles. MBTs & heavy artillery such as Pzh2000 run into deck strength problems.

 

[swerve]

All i've seen so far (from a study done for the Bundeswehr) points at a continuation of ARK. With a potential expansion to five ships (two Danish, three German; ship number 4 was added in 2007)....

Sorry, perhaps overstated. I didn't mean to imply it was planned. By "looking at" I meant studying it as an option.

 

[kato]

STUFT would vastly outrank this.

There's over 100 (!) large ro-pax ferries and ro-ro ships (pretty much all in the 2000-3000 lm range) based in Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Norway and the Baltic nations alone.

edit: actually, probably more like 150 even.

edit, just for scale and to blow your minds:

Registered relevant civilian ships registered in all MCCE members:
- Ro-Ro vessels: 384 (incl. vehicle carriers)
- Ro-Pax vessels: 754 (ie. ferries)

... although this of course includes smaller vessels.

Current Members: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, UK, USA.

 

[Ths]

Looking at....

If they are looking at it, they certainly have a cd with a plan on.

We are talking about ships available at short notice. The basic problem is these ships are needed BEFORE a war breaks out. After the war breaks out - it is a simple matter to requisition them - the trick is to avoid war.

The problem with ferries is that they normally have extensive harbour facilities designed specifically for the ships on that route.

 

[swerve]

1. Yup.
2. Yes, definitely.
3. Up to a point. Ferries are sold, & often end up operating on quite different routes from those they started out on. A RoRo has a degree of flexibility inherent in it, but agreed that it can't use just any old port, at least not for full speed loading & unloading. That could be got round to a certain degree with suitable equipment (e.g. floating bridges to link ro-ro ramps to shore), but outside the USN, there's not a lot of it around, AFAIK.