- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #61
And then they stamp "concept" on it and call it "Transformation"
nfloorl:At least now it seems the headline of the thread proves to be wrong. We'll have the 3. EGV as well as the 4 F125s.
German Navy: Third Combat Support Ship instead of F125-Frigates?
- Thread starter Falstaff
- Start date
nfloorl:At least now it seems the headline of the thread proves to be wrong. We'll have the 3. EGV as well as the 4 F125s.
contedicavour
New Member
If my German is correct you're talking about parachutists aboard LPDs or even navalized mountain troops ... gee folks you're very advanced on interoperabilityMuhahahahaha
cheers
contedicavour
New Member
WowJup, the magic work is netcentric joint services three block war capabilities together with a continious transformation process.
though by continuous transformation politicians mean continuous troop reduction until the day there's only the net at the center and no troops around anymore I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to create a task force with the Netherlands : they handle amphibious projection with 2 LPD and the new big JSS/JLOS while Germany provides support with EGVs and helps out with F122, 123, 124 and 125 since the RNLN is starting to be short of escorts...
cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #68
Well, why do you think that MCM vessel climbed that rock off Norway?contedicavour said:
This isn't such a bad idea, I think. Our navy has strong ties with the dutch navy, it is considered as one of the major partners for us.contedicavour said:
On the other hand, you would have the usual problems: What if one partner wants to take action and the other doesn'? And on the other hand I think the dutch would complain about us sitting safely in our armoured ships while they are whacking enemies at the beach...
Things have become complicated: In the cold war we had to keep the Baltic Sea clean and escort North Atlantic convoys, today every navy wants to become a multi-role navy.
If only we had a common military and security policy in Europe so we could really set up combined forces... We'd have 2-3 very shiny battle groups.
If I would be the dutch government I would also think about us being able to do what is necessary.
The fact that dutch forces are involved in the south and germany refuses to go there for sure doesn't help the idea of a combined amphibious force.
The fact that dutch forces are involved in the south and germany refuses to go there for sure doesn't help the idea of a combined amphibious force.
A new LPD always sounds smart to me; I honestly believe ships of dual use employing both well decks and aviation platforms will be critical to war at sea in the 21st century like the big deck aircraft carrier was in the 20th century.
I'm not saying a replacement, so don't misunderstand, I'm just pointing out that the LPD can augment naval forces under, on, and over the sea using new technologies in ways that augment and expand the capabilities of frigates and destroyers greater than just adding new frigates and destroyers, while also providing capability in support of land operations.
I am a firm believer the first nation that outfits the LPD for a purely Naval role, not an amphibious marine role, and arms the ship like a frigate and 21st century off board unmanned systems is going to redefine Naval Maritime Strategy in the 21st century. Maybe Germany will be the first to go that direction, it certainly wouldn't be the first time Germany redefined the naval strategy calculus.
I'm not saying a replacement, so don't misunderstand, I'm just pointing out that the LPD can augment naval forces under, on, and over the sea using new technologies in ways that augment and expand the capabilities of frigates and destroyers greater than just adding new frigates and destroyers, while also providing capability in support of land operations.
I am a firm believer the first nation that outfits the LPD for a purely Naval role, not an amphibious marine role, and arms the ship like a frigate and 21st century off board unmanned systems is going to redefine Naval Maritime Strategy in the 21st century. Maybe Germany will be the first to go that direction, it certainly wouldn't be the first time Germany redefined the naval strategy calculus.
Yeah. You could use our LPH, LPDs, LSDs & ro-ros to transport your troops. We could use your & the Italians Tornado ECRs to good effect, & there are lots of places where your, or our, troops would be very happy to have some Italians along in Centauros - of which they have plenty. Etc., etc, etc.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #72
Yes, that's true. The "traditional" EU members alone would provide for an more than impressive and world class capable fighting force indeed.Yeah. You could use our LPH, LPDs, LSDs & ro-ros to transport your troops. We could use your & the Italians Tornado ECRs to good effect, & there are lots of places where your, or our, troops would be very happy to have some Italians along in Centauros - of which they have plenty. Etc., etc, etc.
That's why I think future purchasing plans should take interoperability into account very strongly. I don't think every member of the EU has to have the same tanks, arty, aircraft etc. but interfaces, communication standards etc. should be the same for all so they can all work together without major preparations. Link 16 is a step towards the right direction.
That is a very interesting thought indeed. So you mean a LPD acting as mothership for a fleet of unmanned vehicles, boosting warfare capabilities in all dimensions?galrahn said:
Should the german navy rellay get a LPD it will most likely enter service after 2019 (reasonable guess, I think), so there's a lot of time to develop new concepts. The german navy has always been keen on putting much developmental work into their ships to make them innovative in some respects, so I think one can be looking forward to what's coming.
Last edited:
For sure a LPD is a nice thing and as you said it would give us the chance to develop and implement some new tech and ideas.
But I really doubt that it is what we need with our current budget.
When an increased budget comes along with such a pocurement I have no problem with it and would happily clap my hands. But there are so many things in our armed forces which are wrong and cause problems to the troops now that I don't see that introducing a LPD is the right way.
But I really doubt that it is what we need with our current budget.
When an increased budget comes along with such a pocurement I have no problem with it and would happily clap my hands. But there are so many things in our armed forces which are wrong and cause problems to the troops now that I don't see that introducing a LPD is the right way.
It really depends on what the strategic outlook is for Germany for 2020.
For comparison, I'd point out that Spain, Italy, France, Netherlands, British, and even Denmark all have the capability to deliver troops by sea, but Germany really doesn't.
Does anyone actually believe that the country with Europe's largest economy, and Europe's second largest population, can afford not to start planning for some form of limited offensive expeditionary capability or far ocean requirement for the future?
I think Germany would be wise to build a dual purpose ship of LPD type, both offering a limited expeditionary capability for marine forces, but also for a Command Ship capability for its Navy with the capability of adding both aviation and unmanned sensor platforms in defense of its naval forces, OTH surveillance capability, MOTW, and SOF operations.
LPDs and LHDs are platforms of choice worldwide right now for good reason, the flexibility they offer a nation in lift, delivery, payload, and self sustainment capabilities of operations is unmatched by any land or air based equivalent, and technology only increases its potential for operations either at sea or on land. To me, a LPD is always a good choice, particularly if it is armed like a MEKO A-200 class and designed for sea and land operations, as opposed to one or the other.
If you think about it the mothership is actually an extension of what Germany already does best. Germany excels in conventional underwater and small surface combatants already, so designing such weapons either manned or unmanned to be deployable from a mothership is nothing more than a miniaturization of existing technical proficiency's.
Transformation, a buzz word in 21st century military improvements, isn't about reinventing the wheel like the US treats the term, it is about capitalizing on what you are already good at in new and innovative ways that increases the capability of existing forces. A LPD mothership design for Germany is exactly that in my opinion, and you have to look no further than current operations in the Med to see where such a platform would make a difference, both in cost effectiveness and expansion of operational/tactical capability.
As I said before I have no problem with the idea of a LPD. We would really benefit of such a ship and I totally agree with the increases capabilities such a ship would give to us.
But not with our current budget!
If the budget rises I see no problem with such a ship. But with the current budget there are much too many important projects struggling when it comes to (fast) introduction.
Especially the faster introduction of already approved equipment is more than important. This goes just much too slow
We need a faster introduction of IdZ infantry equipment, Puma IFVs, Boxer APCs, Tiger and NH90 helicopters, A400Ms, JDAMs for our Tornados, Wiesel 2 mortar systems, new ATGMs, Tranche 3 capabilities for our EFs and the list goes on...
And now they are thinking of using much needed money for a LPD for which we don't even have the necessary light forces available with only 9 active light infantry bns which are all totaly tied up in oversea deployments, EU and NATO battlegroups and the minimum of training for which they have time here at home.
But not with our current budget!
If the budget rises I see no problem with such a ship. But with the current budget there are much too many important projects struggling when it comes to (fast) introduction.
Especially the faster introduction of already approved equipment is more than important. This goes just much too slow
We need a faster introduction of IdZ infantry equipment, Puma IFVs, Boxer APCs, Tiger and NH90 helicopters, A400Ms, JDAMs for our Tornados, Wiesel 2 mortar systems, new ATGMs, Tranche 3 capabilities for our EFs and the list goes on...
And now they are thinking of using much needed money for a LPD for which we don't even have the necessary light forces available with only 9 active light infantry bns which are all totaly tied up in oversea deployments, EU and NATO battlegroups and the minimum of training for which they have time here at home.
I found myself agreeing with everything that Galrahn said but I also have to agree with the logic of what you are saying about budget constraints and the need to work out what the priorities are and fund them first. It seems that perhaps the LPD should be seen as a long term project to be commenced if and when more immediate needs, such as those you have addressed, have been met.
Cheers
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #77
Yes, Galrahn, you're absolutely right. And Waylander is right as well.
One or two LPDs would be of immense value for the peacekeeping and disaster relief operations we perform.
Unfortunately, our interpretation of the term transformation is: do a lot more with less. And another problem is, that increasing the defence budget isn't as popular as wasting another dozen billion euros on badly organised, performed and untterly pointless social welfare programs (although we're already spending ruoghly 2/3 of our budget for them).
If we're very lucky we'll have a balanced budget in FY 2009 (probably as late as 2011). Only from that point on we can perhaps think of a slight and steady increase of our defence budget.
Many procurement programs in the past were launched with the thought in mind that we already hit the bottom rock and that spending would go up...
However, the Marine has done quite well so far somehow retaining sustained procurements and keeping readiness high. Perhaps somehow they'll manage without sacrificing too much.
One or two LPDs would be of immense value for the peacekeeping and disaster relief operations we perform.
Unfortunately, our interpretation of the term transformation is: do a lot more with less. And another problem is, that increasing the defence budget isn't as popular as wasting another dozen billion euros on badly organised, performed and untterly pointless social welfare programs (although we're already spending ruoghly 2/3 of our budget for them).
If we're very lucky we'll have a balanced budget in FY 2009 (probably as late as 2011). Only from that point on we can perhaps think of a slight and steady increase of our defence budget.
Many procurement programs in the past were launched with the thought in mind that we already hit the bottom rock and that spending would go up...
However, the Marine has done quite well so far somehow retaining sustained procurements and keeping readiness high. Perhaps somehow they'll manage without sacrificing too much.
A first step would be finance the oversea missions not with the normal defence budget but with an extra budget.
This idea is floating around for some time now and I still hope that it becomes true.
This would really help to stabilize the budget and the ongoing procurements.
This idea is floating around for some time now and I still hope that it becomes true.
This would really help to stabilize the budget and the ongoing procurements.
contedicavour
New Member
It shouldn't be difficult to understand that defence shouldn't pay for a mission organized by foreign affairs ... even our (Italian) leftwingers have accepted the reality of extra budget funding for peace operations.
cheers
Unlike our government . . . . .