New Danish Frigates

[kato]

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.

Just drop a M3 Amphibious Bridge Truck off the ramp. Can carry MLC70 tracked or MLC100 wheeled in bridge or linked-ferry mode, at currents up to 2.6m/s without anchor or in bridge mode up to 3.5m/s with anchor.
70 vehicles available with the Bundeswehr and Royal Army Germany.

There's also the HPG pontoon assembly bridge. Each assembly links up into a 64m MLC80 bridge, but needs a lot more time than the above method with the M3 (5 hours instead of 20 minutes). One assembly in each Heavy Engineer Battalion in the Bundeswehr.

Alternatively, there are a couple dozen standard US Army Ribbon Bridge systems spread around the Bundeswehr.
Or you could attempt to load directly off from the ramp onto a LCU, though i have my doubts about the safety of that for anyone involved.

 

[harryriedl]

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.

if your talking about reserve vessels couldn't you also include Sir Beliverder [the last LSL] I no it was decomistioned but the round tables are simple ships. Also the Points seem to be used in the same way the LSL's were when they were in commission.

 

[Palnatoke]

In reply to the earlier discussion in this thread with regard to the purpose of the new frigates:


I think it's quite obvious that the danish defense is no longer organising itself to deliver a territorial defense in concert with it's NATO allies. Instead the defense is organised to surport danish foreign policy either in a FN peacekeeping role or in expeditionary warfare either in a NATO context or in ad hoc alliences with key allies (US/UK).

F.ex. the army is centered on it's 1st and 2nd brigade. Where the 1st brigade is trained and equiped to engage with f.ex. UK forces in foreign "hot" missions (lately Iraq and for the time in Helmand, Afghanistan). 1st brigade is entirely proffesional contract personel and the volunteers knows that they will get sent to f.ex. Helmand Afghanistan. 2nd Brigade on the other hand is also a volunteer force, but it's personel will - per "gentlemen's agreement" only get sent into low risc peacekeeping missions (like Kosova). The mobilisation force who in it's heydays during the cold war could muster 250k men all with around a year's millitary training and reasonably well equiped is a shadow of it self now: Instead of a significant territorial fighting force the current socalled "total defense" (a mobilisation force) is comparable in fighting power to something in between a civil-defense-force and a militia, and it's real function, imho, is recruiting for the proffesional fighting units and training of the officer corps - not shooting the communist dog should it go digging in our garden.

The navy transformation is likewise telling:
The real fighting power of the navy should it be tasked with defending the danish waters: subs, mines and the Sfx300s are in the case of the first two discontinued and in the case of the last down-sized and it doesn't look like they are working hard on a modern replacement.
Instead the navy have gotten 2 large command and surport ships (absalons) and now getting 3 AAW frigates. all of them suitable not for war fighting in the straights of Denmark and the baltic, but instead suitable for global deployment. Along this the navy have gotten a line of small "workhorses" with limited combat value to take care of all the stuff a navy also has to do when it's not fighting a war.

My personal oppinion about the shift from territorial defense into expeditionary warfare, is, that it's great for the foreign policy and security policy of Denmark. Denmark have gotten a lot - relative to size - leverage and international reconition for it's participation in a lot of international missions. F.ex. The danish contribution to ISAF (some 800 men, mostly deployed in heavy fighting in Helmand) or the navy which f.ex. have been quite active in anti-piracy off the horn of africa have given a lot of credit f.ex. within NATO. And this is maybe the reason why denmark is one of the few european contries which will actually increase it's millitary spending during the next 4 years.

But the down side is that we have a problem if the warsaw pact decides to make landfall in the bay of Køge (which the warsaw pact probably won't since it doesn't exists anylonger)

 

[swerve]

if your talking about reserve vessels couldn't you also include Sir Beliverder [the last LSL] I no it was decomistioned but the round tables are simple ships. ...

Alas, now gone -

RFA Sir Bedivere was handed over to the Brazilian Navy on 21 May 2009 at a dockyard in Falmouth. She was commissioned into service with the Brazilian Navy, and renamed NDCC Almirante Saboia (G-25), after a late senior naval officer.

 

[kato]

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).

Just as an update: Germany and Denmark will be jointly continuing ARK and expanding it to 7 ships in the next couple years. The two additional ships will cost about 120 million together, with the same sum to be paid to DSFS (the commercial partner who's buying the ships) as charter cover in the period 2013 to 2021 by the two partner nations.

 

[Grand Danois]

uhm... DFDS?

 

[Grand Danois]

Hey Palnatoke,

Lots of good input, but a few corrections and comments, if you'll allow me.

1) I believe in case of a full mobilization during the Cold War you'd end up with about 2 divisions, some independent regiment-sized units and the Home Guard, navy and Air Force totalling something around 140k personnel. Just an off-hand guestimate, haven't done an exact tally.

2) Mine warfare hasn't been discontinued, though there has been a proposal to do so.

3) Replacing small combat craft with larger units like frigates does not necessarily mean a loss in territorial defence capability - larger units command larger areas much better than small, though they may be harder to hide and maneuver in the littorals. IIRC, the Niels Juel class used to act as a command ship for FAC sqns for the above reason. Yes, hopefully in a week or so, we should be able to put numbers on how many Flyvefisken there will be left, as well as number of fighter jets to be acquired.

Cheers

 

[kato]

uhm... DFDS?

Right. Blame it being 2 am when i wrote that

 

[swerve]

uhm... DFDS?

The United Steamship Company, n'est ca pas?

 

[Grand Danois]

The United Steamship Company, n'est ca pas?

Oui monsieur.

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

With a full mobilisation of the reserve I am pretty sure that at the height, the number of troops was 250k or more - though going off memory. After all there is 50k+ in a one year generation. That 25k men minus disabled ready for draft each year. And most males where drafted in the 60-70ties.

I think we can be pretty sure that the mine weapon is going out the door. As I understand it the minesweeping cabability is also downsized.

I am not an admiral, though for combat against an invasion force in North sea-skagerak-kattegat-straights-western baltic I think it's obvious that you get most bang for the dollar with small units and subs than 6k+ tons frigates. The corvettes of Niels Juel class, were to my understanding, intended for close defense of the minelayers. Playing in with the overall strategy of keeping a reasonable territorial "discouragement force(?)" (Afvisningsberedskab) but having an invasion defense of the islands centered around mines and "beach defense" with the navy tasked with laying the mines, and threathning/complicating an invasion by "being" - being in the shape of fast gun/missile units like the Willesmoes class.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD

With a full mobilisation of the reserve I am pretty sure that at the height, the number of troops was 250k or more - though going off memory. After all there is 50k+ in a one year generation. That 25k men minus disabled ready for draft each year. And most males where drafted in the 60-70ties.

This is true, but the regiments usually consisted of 2-3 batallions of which only one or two were cadre staffed for mobilization. I'm just counting the units.

I think we can be pretty sure that the mine weapon is going out the door. As I understand it the minesweeping cabability is also downsized.

I agree to this. The MIW capability is almost only there in name, but it is still around.

I am not an admiral, though for combat against an invasion force in North sea-skagerak-kattegat-straights-western baltic I think it's obvious that you get most bang for the dollar with small units and subs than 6k+ tons frigates. The corvettes of Niels Juel class, were to my understanding, intended for close defense of the minelayers. Playing in with the overall strategy of keeping a reasonable territorial "discouragement force(?)" (Afvisningsberedskab) but having an invasion defense of the islands centered around mines and "beach defense" with the navy tasked with laying the mines, and threathning/complicating an invasion by "being" - being in the shape of fast gun/missile units like the Willesmoes class.

Effective territorial defence has been given up upon, agreed, the decommisining of the subs is the most visible proof of this. My point was to highlight that as far as surface combat in the littorals is considered, large units like frigates will often be as good or better than scores of FACs. You just use them differently. You see this among the Singaporean Navy amongst others, which are also moving to larger units (and they also retain their subs).

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

Assuming a scenario like the one the navy prepared for during the cold war, ie. warfare in the western baltic and straights, I have a very hard time seeing how f.ex. a modernized version of the flyvefisken class (f.ex optimized for stealth) wouldn't offer distinct advantages over a large frigate like the huitfeld class not only in numbers but also ship to ship.

The small ships won't bring the AAW cababilities of the frigates, but that cabability can be accuired in other ways, in the given scenario.

 

[harryriedl]

Alas, now gone -

How many LSL are their left now Bedivere gone

 

[Grand Danois]

The small ships won't bring the AAW cababilities of the frigates, but that cabability can be accuired in other ways, in the given scenario.

Larger ships provide a stable, better sensor platform. They also provide more diverse complimentary sensors and fire control direction. They bring with them far more capable self defence measures as well as battlemanagement and mothership capability.

If the Ivar Huitfeldt class was to sail from the Baltic Sea to the North Sea, they would sink all flyvefisken class in the missile role en route.
Now, you'd say that the Flyvefisken would lie in ambush and get OTOH targeting - the problem here is, that it could be done just as well from shore batteries (far, far, cheaper and far more survivable).

If power was to be projected by the Flyvefisken into the Baltic it would be heavily dependent on air superiority qua their limited selfdefence - and if such is established, they fairly marginal in their missile role.

So, to optimize resources spent and you want ships, go with the larger ship.

That being said, the Willemoes class was a pure FAC, while Flyvefisken is multirole - it can be tasked with other missions.

 

[swerve]

How many LSL are their left now Bedivere gone

Sir Lancelot in civilian service 2003, renamed Glenn Braveheart, property of Glenn Defense Marine Asia, of Penang. Broken up Bangladesh 2008.
Sir Galahad (no. 2) in Brazilian service.
Sir Geraint broken up India 2005.
Sir Percivale laid up at Marchwood. Still there last month, if the photo on Flickr is dated correctly.
Sir Tristram is a static training ship in Portland harbour.

 

[kato]

And the Bay class, in service...

 

[swerve]

And the Bay class, in service...

4 ships with a total tonnage over 60% greater than the 6 ships they replaced, & also superior in just about every other way . . .

 

[Palnatoke]

GD

Notice I talked of a modernized version of flyvefisken. Specifically one optimised for stealth.

Such a ship will, imho, have a ship-to-ship advantage in the assumed scenario because it will see the larger frigate first. Doesn't help that the frigate got a better sensor suite because the engagement will anyway happen on the limit of the horizon or clutter/blind spots along the shoreline. Evenmore the defender has the advantage, in the given scenario, that it will have a large situational awareness being feeded with land based observations. It only has to stay a live to be activated at the right time, and a good way of doing that is hiding, the danish shoreline does not offer hiding spots for a 6k tons frigate.


A territorial defense of Denmark, by danish forces, has to be somewhat "assymetrical". We can safely assume that the possible enemy (be that ressurected commies, americans, germans or swedes graving for a beer) got more material and fighting power than we got. building a defense around however cabable large units is self defeating, since we have made the assumption that we are numerically inferior: If our ships can't evade, they will get sunk.

 

[Grand Danois]

GD

Notice I talked of a modernized version of flyvefisken. Specifically one optimised for stealth.

Such a ship will have a ship-to-ship advantage in the assumed scenario because it will see the larger frigate first. Doesn't help that the frigate got a better sensor suite because the engagement will anyway happen on the limit of the horizon or clutter/blind spots along the shoreline.

From the shoreline? Then why not use a truck loaded with AShM?

I would like to put special emphasis on the mothership part of a modern frigate. UAV, USV, UUV. Off-board recce assets will spot both prior to engagement anyway - then self defence capability decides the outcome. To a direct confrontation, I have following notes:

Sensor horizon
Larger ship benefits from:
1) extended horizon due to higher placement of sensor
2) larger sensor
3) more stable sensor platform; this matters as there are many phenomena associated with mast height and stability which are not often addressed in forum discussions, e.g. influence from sea surface on radar wave propagation properties. In short, a larger platform using the same sensor as a small has better reliability and probability of detection. This also applies to mechanically/electronically stabilized radars.

Suggested main sensor layout comparison: K130 vs Flyvefisken (TRS-3D/32 vs TRS-3D/16MS).

Comparing these two also highlights the difference in competence in self defence and the impact of depth of magazines.

Translating into far better survivability and battlefield impact.

If inside the radar horizon of an Smart S or similar (like TRS-3D/32), even a Visby can't hide.

Anyhow, if we should build a Flyvefisken NG I do have some ideas, but as a starting point, I'd suggest they should be larger than today, and then we may be leaving the FAC concept anyway. They're already to small, as they today struggle to cope with a full missile loadout. Perhaps a new thread?