Budget cuts in European Navies

[contedicavour]

Dear all,

budget cuts are affecting almost all European Navies
> the well known cuts in the Royal Navy from 12 to 8 SSNs, from 12 to 8 DDGs, several Type 23 sold abroad, etc
> the French Navy cutting the number of DDG horizon from 4 to 2
> the Dutch Navy cutting its frigate size from 12 to 6 (4 LCF, 2 Doorman)
> the Danish Navy eliminating its entire submarine force
> the Swedish Navy cutting subs to 5
> the German Navy cutting subs from 12 to 6 U212 by the mid-2010s
> the Italian Navy cutting subs from 8 to 4 U212 and from 12 FFGs to 10 although more powerful FREMMs
> even the Greek Navy is not replacing yet its CF Adams ex-USN DDGs even if it is building 4 new submarines

The only European Navy currently growing in size seems to be the Spanish one, with one huge LPH building, 2 more planned to replace the old ex-USN LSTs, a 5th new AEGIS FFG, 10 more OPVs...

The lucky Spanish apart, given the cuts in fleet size it would be just about time the major European governments got their act together to revive joint procurement, as the defunct Nato NFR frigate in the 90s so that we don't end up spending billions in R&D for a production series of ....... 2 ships :mad3

[Big-E]

Europes not the only one.:o

[Grand Danois]

Dear all,

> the Dutch Navy cutting its frigate size from 12 to 6 (4 LCF, 2 Doorman)
> the Danish Navy eliminating its entire submarine force


I think the Belgian Navy took over two of the Doormans, so in real terms the Belgians expanded. These form a joint structure with the Dutch if my memory serves me right.;)

The Danish Navy has effectively traded the sub sqn, dedicated minelayers and a FAC sqn for two Support Ships (previously known as Flexible Supports Ships) with frigate qualities to them. They will also get three powerful multimission frigates that will replace three smallish, shortlegged Niels Juel class frigates.

That less money is spent is not the only explanation, as a transition from territorial defence to expeditionary operations is also a factor.

Cheers

:)

[Scorpius]

what about Turkey?

[contedicavour]

It is true that navies such as the Dutch or the Danish ones have increased their "expeditionary" potential by trading in frigates (Dutch) or subs (Denmark) for LPDs, but the overall defense capabilities are decreasing and an LPD (even the powerful Danish Absalon half-LPD half-frigates) costs much less than a modern SSK or FFG.
Besides, being able to send a LPD to far away waters is a real plus for a country with an "independent" foreign policy, but the navy still needs to ensure the LPD has escorts with significant AAW and ASW, so I still feel we are creating a new gap while we fill an old one.

On Turkey, their navy is powerful enough, with 12 SSK, several OH Perry ex-USN frigates and German-designed Meko-200 frigates. However, after years of new orders for ever larger ships, even Turkey is slowing down with only OPVs and FACs on order.
However, from a capability standpoint, Turkey has according to me more than it needs to protect its interests, especially since relations with Greece have become much more cordial.

cheers

[RA1911]

The Norwegian navy is getting a major boost in capability with the the first ship of the new Nansen class frigates delivered and 4 more being delivered within 2008-2009 to replace the ancient Oslo class firgates.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nansen/

[Grand Danois]

The Norwegian navy is getting a major boost in capability with the the first ship of the new Nansen class frigates delivered and 4 more being delivered within 2008-2009 to replace the ancient Oslo class firgates.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/nansen/

Yes, that can at least be considered a 1:1 replacement.

Many consider the requirement for those frigates a relic of the Cold War. I am of the opinion that with the proximity of the Murmansk Naval Base in mind, it makes sense for Norway to keep a tight picture of what is going on, not only on the surface, but especially in the submarine environment.

Cheers

:)

[Grand Danois]

It is true that navies such as the Dutch or the Danish ones have increased their "expeditionary" potential by trading in frigates (Dutch) or subs (Denmark) for LPDs, but the overall defense capabilities are decreasing and an LPD (even the powerful Danish Absalon half-LPD half-frigates) costs much less than a modern SSK or FFG.
Besides, being able to send a LPD to far away waters is a real plus for a country with an "independent" foreign policy, but the navy still needs to ensure the LPD has escorts with significant AAW and ASW, so I still feel we are creating a new gap while we fill an old one.

I think the nations that have the need and ability to send off independent amphib groups to do overseas ops still retain the ability to defend these.

Added to that, is that such deployments are joint these days. Think of the Anglo-Dutch cooperation wrt amphib warfare. Also consider the Franco-British joint carrier groups with a RN Type 23 (HMS Lancaster) currently being an escort for CdG and the French Surcouf currently being an escort for HMS Illustrious. Both groups currently deployed to the Indian Ocean.

You mention of that sub forces are being cut are right, and my impression is that it is that they're being cut to the minimum operational number per country.

So, it is the countries that have the skill and ability to build SSK's that retain their sqn's. This begs the question if there are enough to go around?

Using your numbers, as they are readily available I see that the nmumber of SSK's are:

Sweden 5
Germany 6
Italy 4
Netherlands 1 sqn
Norway 1 sqn
Spain 1 sqn
Greece 1 sqn
Turkey ?

Feel free to correct ;)

So there will be at least 30 modern SSK's in Europe. Taking into account that the battlegroup shotgun mission is taken care of by the SSN's. So there is a reasonable number to go around for surveillance and other stuff.

I think the important thing is that the subs are modern. Rather than counting the number of hulls it is important to keep the subs up to date as a high end capability. Added to that, I really hope that the nations that are prioritising the retention of their skills are focusing on the UUV aspect. This will be what defines a modern capability SSK in the decades to come.

This makes it difficult to gauge what capability has actually gone, as it is difficult to benchmark or compare hidden UUV programmes or subsystems.

To some extent I suspect that SSK development and building is awaiting some of this technology to come online.

Cheers

:)

[Big-E]

It is simply a reflection of a Post-Cold war Europe. You can see the trends among all NATO countries.

[contedicavour]

Yep indeed you are all right : most NATO countries' navies suffer from budget cuts and some ship classes' procurement such as SSKs may also suffer from fast evolving technology.
This furthens strengthens the point that I don't see any sense anymore in so many different types of ships and subs in Europe. We're becoming navies made of prototypes :cry2 . Only Germany and Italy have effectively merged their requirements and are building almost identical U-212A subs, and France and Italy the FREMM frigates (still with a load of differences, Italian ones having better AAW radars and potential to launch Aster-30).
I still find 2 types of SSNs (Trafalgar, Rubis), 8 types of SSK (U-212, Sauro, Agosta, the 2 Swedish types that I have trouble spelling correctly ;) , Greek T-209, Norwegian Ula, U-206) for a total of approx 40 operational subs !!
We should consolidate into 1 or 2 competing models, say U-212 and Scorpène, leaving SSNs to the Astute which could be extended to France if they are affordable enough.
Same on surface escorts : why on earth did the Royal Navy leave Horizon consortium with France and Italy only to develop Type 45 DDGs with the same AAW than French and Italian DDGs ?? Why did Dutch, German and Spanish navies build at the same time very similar large AAW FFGs (Alvaro de Bazan, F124 and LCF classes) but each one with different radars and non-AAW equipment ?? The FREMM design is probably the best for modern multi-purpose frigates, why can't it be the base for the future German F125 or the UK's future replacement of the Type 22 Batch 3 or Type 23 FFGs ?? :confused:
This would all slash R&D expenses and lower unitary costs for each ship and sub, allowing European navies to field cost-efficient navies comparable to the US Navy (at least if you take CVNs and SSBNs out of the picture)

cheers

[Whiskyjack]

Yep indeed you are all right : most NATO countries' navies suffer from budget cuts and some ship classes' procurement such as SSKs may also suffer from fast evolving technology.
This furthens strengthens the point that I don't see any sense anymore in so many different types of ships and subs in Europe. We're becoming navies made of prototypes :cry2 . Only Germany and Italy have effectively merged their requirements and are building almost identical U-212A subs, and France and Italy the FREMM frigates (still with a load of differences, Italian ones having better AAW radars and potential to launch Aster-30).
I still find 2 types of SSNs (Trafalgar, Rubis), 8 types of SSK (U-212, Sauro, Agosta, the 2 Swedish types that I have trouble spelling correctly ;) , Greek T-209, Norwegian Ula, U-206) for a total of approx 40 operational subs !!
We should consolidate into 1 or 2 competing models, say U-212 and Scorpène, leaving SSNs to the Astute which could be extended to France if they are affordable enough.
Same on surface escorts : why on earth did the Royal Navy leave Horizon consortium with France and Italy only to develop Type 45 DDGs with the same AAW than French and Italian DDGs ?? Why did Dutch, German and Spanish navies build at the same time very similar large AAW FFGs (Alvaro de Bazan, F124 and LCF classes) but each one with different radars and non-AAW equipment ?? The FREMM design is probably the best for modern multi-purpose frigates, why can't it be the base for the future German F125 or the UK's future replacement of the Type 22 Batch 3 or Type 23 FFGs ?? :confused:
This would all slash R&D expenses and lower unitary costs for each ship and sub, allowing European navies to field cost-efficient navies comparable to the US Navy (at least if you take CVNs and SSBNs out of the picture)

cheers

I agree in the most part, the issue is which country will supply the systems, build the ships etc...for each combat system that is installed 2-3 are not and that means jobs, and that leads to politics.

Also different navies build for different doctrine, of the european navies I think that the UK and France are closest in their doctrine, but are still a long way apart.

I think Europe will get there eventually but it will be a long ugly road before they do.

[mark22w]

Same on surface escorts : why on earth did the Royal Navy leave Horizon consortium with France and Italy only to develop Type 45 DDGs with the same AAW than French and Italian DDGs ??

Great concept but sadly flawed by national interests as shown by the UK taking the T45 route; yes, PAAMS might be the same missile package but the SAMPSON multi-function radar is quite different to the French/Italian requirement with EMPAR MFR.

In the end the RN required a larger platform with differing operational requirements - as is often the case in multi national programmes such as this.

The reality is choice / cost of the weapons & sensors fit is probably more significant than the platforms they are based on.

[contedicavour]

I agree with all posts above.
Key to getting politicians aligned in Europe on common procurement programmes is to preserving employment in defense industries.
We need more industry consolidation, of the sort that has been started in the shipyard sector with the Germans owning the Swedish and Greek submarine-construction sectors.

cheers

[harryriedl]

mulit nationanal or joint programes tend to work better on paper than practist due to people differing requerments

[KAPITAIN]

YOU WANT TO SEE REAL CUTS!

Soviet union 1991: 572 submarines 91 of which SSBN's
Russia 1995: 245 submarine 32 of which are SSBN's
Russia today: 119 submarines 16 of which SSBN's

United states navy have roughly:
44 los angeles SSN's
3 seawolf SSN's
2 virginia SSN's
14 Ohio SSBN
4 Ohio conversions


in 2020 russian navy is aimed to have:

12 - 14 SSBN's
32 SSN's
12 SSK's
4 special purpose submarines.

[Grand Danois]

YOU WANT TO SEE REAL CUTS!

Soviet union 1991: 572 submarines 91 of which SSBN's
Russia 1995: 245 submarine 32 of which are SSBN's
Russia today: 119 submarines 16 of which SSBN's

United states navy have roughly:
44 los angeles SSN's
3 seawolf SSN's
2 virginia SSN's
14 Ohio SSBN
4 Ohio conversions


in 2020 russian navy is aimed to have:

12 - 14 SSBN's
32 SSN's
12 SSK's
4 special purpose submarines.

Just curious. But what was the average age of the various sub types in 1991, 1995 and 2006. That is, if you have the numbers at hand.

:)

[Grand Danois]

On subject of joint European submarine design and production.

This is a Google-translation of an article from Mer et Marine with a French view of an "European naval Airbus." It is, of course a proposal on how Mr. Poimboeuf wants things to develop and also the reason why he uses the Airbus analogy.


The European submarine: A course filled with difficulties
Limited international market, increasing foreign competition... The European industrialists could gather well around a project of common submarine. An inevitable reorganization to preserve the current leadership.

21/02/2006

Jean-Marie Poimboeuf, president of DCN, are posed like the defender of a European submarine intended for export. More than the second aircraft carrier or the Franco-Italian frigates (Fremm and Horizon), this project would be a true base for the constitution of famous "the naval Airbus". The will of bringing together starts from a very simple economic report: "the market of the traditional submarine accounts for two or three units per annum. We will not be able to maintain our capacities if we do not gather. I do not believe in (continuity) of six engineering and design departments in Europe ", affirms Jean-Marie Poimboeuf. On the old continent, the three principal exporters of submarines are the Germans of HDW, in addition owners of Swedish Kockums, French DCN and Spanish Navantia.

More... (http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meretmarine.com%2Fart icle.cfm%3Fid%3D1303&langpair=fr%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

By the way, I don't think SSN or SSBN design or production will ever be a candiate for int'l project. Too sensitive.

:)

[Big-E]

YOU WANT TO SEE REAL CUTS!

in 2020 russian navy is aimed to have:

12 - 14 SSBN's
32 SSN's
12 SSK's
4 special purpose submarines.

Unless the Russian navy can find some money these will be sitting at the Kola peninsula just like the rest of the fleet.

[KAPITAIN]

Since 2000 the russian defence spending has quadrupled, and is set to go up yet again with in the next 2 years, at the moment the funding is seen as adaquate to fit the units they have.

Right now a borey cost's roughly the same as a delta SSBN and also will be cheaper to maintain eventualy eliminating them and the very expencive typhoons.

by 2020 its predicted that the russian defence buget will have incrased to around 33% of GDP at the moment it sits around 12% so it a big hike.

This is what ive read and told so its not gospel and figures are rough.

[Grand Danois]

by 2020 its predicted that the russian defence buget will have incrased to around 33% of GDP at the moment it sits around 12% so it a big hike.

This is what ive read and told so its not gospel and figures are rough.

They must be more than "rough" ;), as NATO calculated that the Soviets spent 15-17% of GDP in the 1987-1989 period - the all time high. That is calculating items* so they were comparable to NATO countries, which were at 2-6% of GDP.

The Soviet number excludes hidden civilian sector subsidizing through fixed pricing, so the real expenditure of the Soviets were closer to 25%.

Compare that to current NATO expenditures of 1-5%.

33% is probably of Gov't budget... (?)

*Items like R&D, procuremnt, salaries et al.

[Big-E]

Since 2000 the russian defence spending has quadrupled, and is set to go up yet again with in the next 2 years, at the moment the funding is seen as adaquate to fit the units they have.

Right now a borey cost's roughly the same as a delta SSBN and also will be cheaper to maintain eventualy eliminating them and the very expencive typhoons.

by 2020 its predicted that the russian defence buget will have incrased to around 33% of GDP at the moment it sits around 12% so it a big hike.

This is what ive read and told so its not gospel and figures are rough.

Out of all these defense spending raises they have yet to purchase many new platforms. Most orders end up going for export. The funding is not adequate for the platforms they have. They can't even pay the electric bills for their naval bases.

The Typhoons have been decomed since 04'

Russia will never spend 33% of GDP on defense.

[KAPITAIN]

"Out of all these defense spending raises they have yet to purchase many new platforms. Most orders end up going for export. The funding is not adequate for the platforms they have. They can't even pay the electric bills for their naval bases.

The Typhoons have been decomed since 04'

Russia will never spend 33% of GDP on defense."

I highly beg to differ, three of the six typhoons have been decommissioned, TK208 TK20 TK17 remain active northern fleet at zapadnya litsa.

Most platforms built are half and half roughly for export, in the last year or two the russians have purchased one borey with two building one lada with two more building one sevdvinsk and one building, three akula's (gepard being paid late), as well as new frigates and also patrol vessels.

Hardly nothing, not to mention recent design authorisation for the next generation carriers.

Russia wont spedn that much just yet in 20 or 30 years maybe they still see the west as enamy so they will keep a big navy for defence but a navy on cold war level wont happen for a long time if ever again.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/tpcrew.jpg

One very recent picture of a typhoon this was taken from a news clip back in november 2005 doesnt look paid off to me

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/tk20crew.jpg

A very much active TK 20 here this picture is only a year old infact was taken in august 2005

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/197_20.jpg

Picture taken january 2006

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/donskoi.jpg

Taken jan 2006

Need any more proof?

[KAPITAIN]

Oh yeah i forgot they dont pay electric bills they acctualy wire up to nuclear submarines and heck i aint joking either!

An officer and his team was awarded for it for using thier innisative and skills to help out the people of murmansk in winter because all electric had failed because of the ice and snow.

[KAPITAIN]

"Just curious. But what was the average age of the various sub types in 1991, 1995 and 2006. That is, if you have the numbers at hand."

It is a bit sad to note that at the time of the collapse the soviet union was still no match for america the average age of a submarine was 24 years.

K3 the first submarine built in 1950's was active in 1990 paying off in 1991 as far back as 1983 the crews had reported serious problems with leaks malfunctions and what not, the soviets still had the belief the americans were coming and wanted to keep every submarine and ship it could at sea no matter what.

[Big-E]

Need any more proof?

Yeah, show me pictures of her loading SLBMs. These subs are unarmed.

[Big-E]

Oh yeah i forgot they dont pay electric bills they acctualy wire up to nuclear submarines and heck i aint joking either!

An officer and his team was awarded for it for using thier innisative and skills to help out the people of murmansk in winter because all electric had failed because of the ice and snow.

The naval base in Vladivostok keeps getting her electricity shut off b/c they don't pay the bills. If the Russian navy is in such great financial shape then why do towns have to adopt a ship to send them food and supplies?

[KAPITAIN]

Well of course they will be empty at a pier, standard proceadure indicates that all missiles and torpedos are to be removed from any vessel after docking and they are to be placed in storage for saftey reasons.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/northpolefiring.jpg

TK208 in the white sea january this year firing a missile hows that?

Also that adoption thing yes its true but the further east you go the poorer they are, sad but true.

The funding is just adaquate its not exceptional not great not even good just adaquate, the russians as we know have had a bad time and also the reason the power keeps getting cut off is yes because they A dont pay thier bills and B comes from three unreliable power stations.

Also the adoption thing is only half to do with the millatery adopt a ship programme is mainly through a merchant or auxilary vessel.

Also come to think of it i have a video of a firing that was done this year back in january il grab some stills when i get time.

[Big-E]

Well of course they will be empty at a pier, standard proceadure indicates that all missiles and torpedos are to be removed from any vessel after docking and they are to be placed in storage for saftey reasons.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/northpolefiring.jpg

TK208 in the white sea january this year firing a missile hows that?


The Donskoi is a trials ship for the Bulava, she will never go on patrol again. All the rest have been withdrawn and are awaiting defueling to be scrapped.

[KAPITAIN]

I dont mean to be rude but have you ever been to a russian naval base? ever been on board a russian nuclear submarine? ever spoken to russian naval officers and enlisted? i think thats the diffrence between us i have, my stepfather was soviet navy and after living with him for 13 years and also acctualy going to these places i do have a fair idea about what is there.

As for the submarines:

TK17 is due to pay off 2006 about june time
TK20 is due to pay off 2007
TK208 is due to pay off 2008


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/tk20crew.jpg this is TK20 and crew member this year the submarine was readying for patrol.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/backend.jpg
Back end of TK20 in 2004 now why in gods name would you spen a few million on a repaint and also other maintinance when your going to scrap it?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/ssbn_typhoon_941_3.jpg
Close up of TK17 in december 2004 returning home from deployment.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/t30.jpg
This is all three typhoons that remain tied up at pier TK20 TK208 TK13




"The Typhoon ballistic missile nuclear-powered (SSBN) submarines are the largest submarines ever to be built. They were constructed at the Severodvinsk Shipyard, on the White Sea near Archangel. The first of the six members of the class to be commissioned was TK 208 in 1981, followed by TK 202 in 1983, TK 12 in 1984, TK 13 in 1985, TK 17 in 1987 and TK 20 in 1989. The submarines were stationed with the Russian Northern Fleet at Litsa Guba.

Of the six, only TK 17 and TK 20 are operational. TK 208 was relaunched following refit in 2002 and is being used as a trials ship. TK 12 and TK 13 are decommissioned, waiting to be scrapped. With assistance from the United States, through the Co-operative Threat Reduction Program, TK 202 has had its nuclear fuel removed by US funded processing facilities and converted into forms suitable for long term storage or re-use. The UK has also agreed to take part in the dismantling of Russia's decommissioned nuclear submarines."

From naval technology

By 2004 the three remaining project 941 (Akula) subs assigned to the 19th division of the Northern Fleet were still armed with the D-19 missiles.

Global security


I have other pictures but i cannot post them here, i know your going to just plainly arguee this because its a forum and you dont want to look as if you have been beaten, but im telling you now i do know exactly whats what in the russian navy, ive been there and seen it first hand ive even lived it i think thats more than what youve done sir.

You a defence analyst so your always right, well no sir i dont think in fact i know your not on this one i can only quote from public sources because the pictures and what not i have i cant put them here.

Regards sir

[Big-E]

I dont mean to be rude but have you ever been to a russian naval base? ever been on board a russian nuclear submarine? ever spoken to russian naval officers and enlisted? i think thats the diffrence between us i have, my stepfather was soviet navy and after living with him for 13 years and also acctualy going to these places i do have a fair idea about what is there.

So your step-father was in the Soviet Navy, well that explains your attitude about this subject.

My experiences with the Russian Navy include:

1) In 02' I had the opportunity to CROSSPOL, US 7th Fleet and RU PAC-FLT. My stay at Vladivostok was a nightmare. We had no power, no hot water, our food tasted like tough chicken yet it was supposed to be lamb-chops. I discussed our condition with a sailor who spoke English rather well (I didn't expect it) and said that this was a good day! Sergei had many friends who committed suicide. He spoke of sailors stripping ships of materials to feed their families. He said he couldn't wait to get out of the service, he said he tried everything to get a deferment but his family didn't have enough money. We quickly became friends and after I left we started a correspondence.

2) Sometime around late October/early November of 04' as part of the ENTBATGRU detatched to 2nd Fleet operations in the North Atlantic; I was talking to the COMMS officer about going home and an urgent message was recieved. I was told that the Admiral Kuznetzov (carrying out exercises) had sent a distress call b/c she was taking on water. The Peter the Great had been contacted and said no assitance was required. The CCDG-12 decided that we should check it out. By the time we got there we saw on oil slick 3 miles long. We thought she had sunk.


3) Last year I went to Latvia for a cheap vacation and I met up with my friend Sergei who lived in St. Petersburg. He had just finished his 3yr conscription leaving service from the Northern Fleet. We had a blast in Riga and went to visit his family in St. Petersburg, now thats a beautiful city!!! We decided to go up the Kola (by train) to see some of the war/muesems. The train was packed with sailors, once Sergei told them I was in the USN they asked me more questions than I could shake a stick at. They were shocked when I told them how much I make. They said they could live off one of my paychecks for a year!! While in Murmansk I asked if we could visit his base at Severomorsk. He said no way that was going to happen, it was a closed town and you needed a special "outsvise" that required connections to NOR command. Sergei couldn't even get one and he just got out of the service!

Thus concludes my experience with the Russian Navy. So you have been to these places in the last few years? It's a totally different world from Soviet days. Have I talked to officers? no, they always have a partisan view anyway, I have talked to conscript sailors who make up the back-bone of the fleet and their condition is deplorable. They don't serve or train long enough to become proficient with the systems they operate. Seeing PAC-FLT at Vladivostok was enough to turn my stomach.





As for the submarines:

TK17 is due to pay off 2006 about june time
TK20 is due to pay off 2007
TK208 is due to pay off 2008


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/tk20crew.jpg this is TK20 and crew member this year the submarine was readying for patrol.


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/backend.jpg
Back end of TK20 in 2004 now why in gods name would you spen a few million on a repaint and also other maintinance when your going to scrap it?


http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/ssbn_typhoon_941_3.jpg
Close up of TK17 in december 2004 returning home from deployment.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y262/russian-navy01/t30.jpg
This is all three typhoons that remain tied up at pier TK20 TK208 TK13

These pictures mean nothing, there are no dates or places. No captions means they are part of a photo-album. Besides that it proves nothing. They could all be of TK 208 (which is a test ship) or they could be old shots.




"The Typhoon ballistic missile nuclear-powered (SSBN) submarines are the largest submarines ever to be built. They were constructed at the Severodvinsk Shipyard, on the White Sea near Archangel. The first of the six members of the class to be commissioned was TK 208 in 1981, followed by TK 202 in 1983, TK 12 in 1984, TK 13 in 1985, TK 17 in 1987 and TK 20 in 1989. The submarines were stationed with the Russian Northern Fleet at Litsa Guba.

Of the six, only TK 17 and TK 20 are operational. TK 208 was relaunched following refit in 2002 and is being used as a trials ship. TK 12 and TK 13 are decommissioned, waiting to be scrapped. With assistance from the United States, through the Co-operative Threat Reduction Program, TK 202 has had its nuclear fuel removed by US funded processing facilities and converted into forms suitable for long term storage or re-use. The UK has also agreed to take part in the dismantling of Russia's decommissioned nuclear submarines."

From naval technology

This source is not current.


By 2004 the three remaining project 941 (Akula) subs assigned to the 19th division of the Northern Fleet were still armed with the D-19 missiles.

Global security



I asked Sergei about the Typhoons weapons status and he told me "that was classified" but if I wanted to know more about the truth read Admiral. Gennady Suchkov and his complaints. He was wrongly convicted so he spilled the beans about the Typhoons. BTW your source from global security doesn't include the update from May of that year.

"On 24 May 2004 it was reported that. . . navy chief Adm. Vladimir Kuroyedov had ordered the navy to decommission the remaining three Typhoon-class submarines. . .the Severstal carried only 10 missiles, while the other two are unarmed."



I have other pictures but i cannot post them here, i know your going to just plainly arguee this because its a forum and you dont want to look as if you have been beaten, but im telling you now i do know exactly whats what in the russian navy, ive been there and seen it first hand ive even lived it i think thats more than what youve done sir.

You a defence analyst so your always right, well no sir i dont think in fact i know your not on this one i can only quote from public sources because the pictures and what not i have i cant put them here.

You have other pictues:confused: Are they classified? b/c every one you posted I found during a google image search. Are your sources classified as well? The classified data on these subs was spilled 2 years ago.

As for the state of the Russian navy, if Americans and EU citizens have to spend billions of their tax dollars to defuel the rust yard at Kola then the Russian fleet does not have the funds she needs. If I make more in a month than a Russian sailor makes in a year they do not have the funds they need. If they can't keep power at their bases b/c they can't pay their bills they do not have the funds they need. If they can't feed the sailors and families they don't have the funds they need. The problem with the fleet is they try to operate platforms that they can't maintain and do so with conscript sailors. Doing so leads to disasters and we have seen many, if this continues many more lives will be lost. It's exactly your Soviet superior attitude that gets people killed on the high seas. This is a different era than the Cold War, let it go friend. Take a step back and think about the men who have to operate these vessles.

[KAPITAIN]

You are are quite correct, it is a poor force and i have heard about the kuznetsov incident ok i found it funny but its not the point.

I do agree with you that those pictures can be found on google and are on my personaly album, however i do have some i cannot post.

As for kurdyov (spelt it wrong for a reason) he says something and does something else he is an arrogant ********* he said he said that the Peter the great was about to explode, funnily enough he only said it because he had a grude on the captain of that ship.

Bring back popov!

[contedicavour]

First of all thks to "Grand Danois" for his post on the naval airbus. This could be a good start to creating some efficiencies in European defence spendings.

On the posts on the Russian Navy and the cuts it suffered : yes, they are massive. However, among Russia's armed forces, the Navy is by far the least useful. Recent conflicts concern the Caucasus region or the central Asian ex-USSR republics. That's where the army and the air force are still losing men and equipment every day (patrolling Grozny or the mountain valleys of the Fergana Valley...).
What role aircraft carriers or tens of SSBNs and SSNs may have for Russia beyond playing superpower status versus the US, one can hardly say... If Putin's priorities do include showing the flag around in sensitive areas such as the Indian Ocean or the Mediterranean, then I suggest he starts by keeping the few remaining Sovremmeny and Udaloy destroyers operational and by equipping the Black Sea fleet with something more than obsolete Kara and Kashin ships... 1 Moskva/slava cruiser is just not enough.

cheers

[KAPITAIN]

Those obsolete and down right unuseful ships as you so put it remain very useful they still have modern missiles and radar and what not they have all been updated just because the hull of the ship is 30 years old doesnt mean that the rest of it is obsolete, if you want to see obsolete try mexico or some where else.

Also submarines have been used for firing cruise missiles to terrorist targets in the caucuses the azov is a modern ship even if her hull isnt the thing about russian ships is that equipment is interchangable it just needs a refit.

Take a look at the kirov there were four of them each one when modified never came back to sea the same.

but did you even know the SS-N-22 is the most powerfullest anti ship missile in the world second is the SS-N-19 these missiles could easily mission kill a carrier.

[Big-E]

but did you even know the SS-N-22 is the most powerfullest anti ship missile in the world second is the SS-N-19 these missiles could easily mission kill a carrier.

If the carrier is by itself then yes but you will never find this. The missiles listed are highly observable on radar and if fired at any distance could be shot down either by AEGIS or fleet defenders. As you know a carrier is surrounded by ships to divert such missiles from targeting the carrier. The only real threat is if an Oscar sneaks into a CBG and launches inside the escort bubble. If they got that close they might as well save their missiles and use torpedoes.

[contedicavour]

Those obsolete and down right unuseful ships as you so put it remain very useful they still have modern missiles and radar and what not they have all been updated just because the hull of the ship is 30 years old doesnt mean that the rest of it is obsolete, if you want to see obsolete try mexico or some where else.

Also submarines have been used for firing cruise missiles to terrorist targets in the caucuses the azov is a modern ship even if her hull isnt the thing about russian ships is that equipment is interchangable it just needs a refit.

Take a look at the kirov there were four of them each one when modified never came back to sea the same.

but did you even know the SS-N-22 is the most powerfullest anti ship missile in the world second is the SS-N-19 these missiles could easily mission kill a carrier.

Hmm I beg to differ. I saw the Russian Black Sea Fleet squadron in Sicily recently and it was a really poor showing. Other than the Moskva (which by the way only has SS-N-12, neither the Shipwreck nor the Sunburn) which has technology dating back to the 80s, the Azov is not operational anymore after being a test ship to launch SA-N-6, and the other Kara cruiser is stuck in the early '70s with SA-N-3 AAW !!! The Kashin class DDG has SA-N-1 AAW !! Those are '60s vintage obsolete missiles.
By the way, AFAIK, there are no Russian subs capable of launching cruise missiles permanently stationed in the Black Sea Fleet, only one Kilo and one Tango (by the way not operational).
Modernizing the sole Kashin with SS-N-22 may indeed make it a threat, but the ship is almost 40 years old and with serious maintenance problems and without any serious AAW or CIWS defence.
The situation in the Black Sea is desperate. They really need reinforcements from Murmansk !! And very very fast...

One question : where did you get the information that a Russian SSN launched cruise missiles on the caucasus ? That sounds new to me.

cheers

[Big-E]

Those obsolete and down right unuseful ships as you so put it remain very useful they still have modern missiles and radar and what not they have all been updated just because the hull of the ship is 30 years old doesnt mean that the rest of it is obsolete, if you want to see obsolete try mexico or some where else.

The world is going AEGIS, without it, your obsolete.

[KAPITAIN]

Where did i get the info from my stepfather other than that im saying no more.

And Big E yes you are correct aegis is the way to go the black sea fleet is acctualy in poor state however the tango has paid off and Alrosa has been back at sea she was refitted i do have pictures of her in dry dock being refitted and also after.

Black sea fleet isnt a major fleet it never was the fleet was only realy there to look good and make the people living on that coast feel at ease with the presence of a soviet warship, however during war time it was seen that that region would be the last to be invaded and so a bigger emphasis was placed on the northern pacfic and baltic fleets with the caspian and black sea coming last in the runnings.

[Big-E]

with the caspian and black sea coming last in the runnings.

Can you please tell me why the Caspian flotilla contains 3 blue water frigates and 12 medium missle boats??? Any other force on the Sea could be dealt with RUs Coast Guard. When the navy is so hard pressed for funds why would they waste these ships and naval squadrons in a inland sea? And they continue to build up!

[KAPITAIN]

Can you please tell me why the Caspian flotilla contains 3 blue water frigates and 12 medium missle boats??? Any other force on the Sea could be dealt with RUs Coast Guard. When the navy is so hard pressed for funds why would they waste these ships and naval squadrons in a inland sea? And they continue to build up!

Well in recent years there has been alot of sabotage in these area's as you should know theres precious oil rigs out there and oil exploration, the frigates are only there realy to provide back bone and say get lost to would be sabatures, also the patrol craft are now obsolete.

Its also a job the coast gaurd is not tasked to do.

[Big-E]

Can you please tell me why the Caspian flotilla contains 3 blue water frigates and 12 medium missle boats??? Any other force on the Sea could be dealt with RUs Coast Guard. When the navy is so hard pressed for funds why would they waste these ships and naval squadrons in a inland sea? And they continue to build up!

Well in recent years there has been alot of sabotage in these area's as you should know theres precious oil rigs out there and oil exploration, the frigates are only there realy to provide back bone and say get lost to would be sabatures, also the patrol craft are now obsolete.

Its also a job the coast gaurd is not tasked to do.

Then what good is their coast guard? Don't you think frigates and ocean going missile boats are a bit of overkill to get rid of sabotuers?

[KAPITAIN]

Personaly if i was in charge in the kremlin i would definatly agree with you yes it is overkill, i do know the coast gaurd is more than capible of forfilling this role but also a few nanchuka PTG boats would do just fine too, and yes it is a waste of money but do tell that to top brass who wont listen to you.

[gf0012-aust]

Black sea fleet isnt a major fleet it never was the fleet was only realy there to look good and make the people living on that coast feel at ease with the presence of a soviet warship, however during war time it was seen that that region would be the last to be invaded and so a bigger emphasis was placed on the northern pacfic and baltic fleets with the caspian and black sea coming last in the runnings.

I'd strongly disagree with that. The Black Sea Fleet was critical as a supplementary counterpoint to the US 5th Fleet. She was also designed to act as a lever against the Turks and neighbouring states to reinforce Soviet capability. This was in addition to providing additional mobile strike platforms for ballistic strike.

The Soviets never completely trusted their states like Ukraine and Georgia, and you don;t have to go too far back in Soviet history to see how both Ukrainians and Georgians were treated by leaders such as Stalin, Brezhnev and Kruschev.

The Black Sea Fleet was a visible and demonstrable reminder of the power of the state to impose military presence and will - even in a "lake".

[gf0012-aust]

Note:

Please use editing facilities when quoting other posters
Please correct your punctuation as much as possible before posting. I appreciate that for some English is not their first language. but for others the excuse is somewhat thinner.
Responses should demonstrate substance and logic so as to stimulate debate. Hence falling back on unsupported arguments is not an example of considered debate IMV.
Stay on topic

[contedicavour]

I'd strongly disagree with that. The Black Sea Fleet was critical as a supplementary counterpoint to the US 5th Fleet. She was also designed to act as a lever against the Turks and neighbouring states to reinforce Soviet capability. This was in addition to providing additional mobile strike platforms for ballistic strike.

The Soviets never completely trusted their states like Ukraine and Georgia, and you don;t have to go too far back in Soviet history to see how both Ukrainians and Georgians were treated by leaders such as Stalin, Brezhnev and Kruschev.

The Black Sea Fleet was a visible and demonstrable reminder of the power of the state to impose military presence and will - even in a "lake".

Thank you gf0012 !
For these reasons I am astonished that the Russians are still putting such a low priority on funding for their Black Sea Fleet. Budget cuts seem to hurt Russian Fleets differently : heavy cuts on the Black and Pacific fleets, some new ships in the Baltic, and the bulk of investment goes to Murmansk.
This doesn't seem to make sense vs current geopolitical threats/priorities.

cheers

[KAPITAIN]

The buget's for the pacific and black sea have been cut badly the worst affeted is the black sea, this is because they are becoming stupid the threats lie outside of the black sea in the caucuses not high up over in the kola peninsular, its just they cant get a priority going.

[RA1911]

IMO it's less geopolitical threats and more economical interests combined with the Russian wish of still having a blue water navy to be reconned with. There are huge oile and gas fields as well as fishing resources in the areas above the Kola peninsula, so it's in Russias economical interests to keep a strong presence there.

[gf0012-aust]

IMO it's less geopolitical threats and more economical interests combined with the Russian wish of still having a blue water navy to be reconned with. There are huge oile and gas fields as well as fishing resources in the areas above the Kola peninsula, so it's in Russias economical interests to keep a strong presence there.

Putin declared some time ago that Russia no longer needed to have a global fleet presence - the inference was that they were going to focus on immediate areas of national interest - and the Pacific, Indian Oceans and Atlantic don't really fit into the Nat'l Sec interest at the moment.

Better a quality fleet than one diluted by lots of numbers and thus a drain on the necessary funds.

[Big-E]

Putin declared some time ago that Russia no longer needed to have a global fleet presence - the inference was that they were going to focus on immediate areas of national interest - and the Pacific, Indian Oceans and Atlantic don't really fit into the Nat'l Sec interest at the moment.

So all they need is an Arctic presence?:confused:

[gf0012-aust]

So all they need is an Arctic presence?:confused:

Buggered if I know. Putin gave a speech about 6 months ago saying that the Russian Navy needed to redefine itself. He indicated that the need to have a permanent blue water presence in those Oceans I mentioned were not of high importance.

At the time I thought it meant that they were going to maintain 2 fleets. The Northern and the Black Sea. The Black Sea Fleet is a shell of its former self though.

Considering that they've lost almost 60 subs to the cutters in the last 3-4 years, then he has stuck to his word about trimming it. There are another 16 nukes tagged for the torch this year. I think they've closed about 60% of their North Sea facilities as well. RANSAC had a report published last year stating which ones were closed.

They have been pretty brutal.

[RA1911]

(the) Atlantic don't really fit into the Nat'l Sec interest at the moment.

Security, no. The Cold War is over. Economical, yes. The border disputes with Norway on the continental shelf have never been settled. These areas contains loads of oil/gas/fish. It's in Russias (and Norways) interest to maintain a trustworthy military presence in these areas.

[Big-E]

Security, no. The Cold War is over. Economical, yes. The border disputes with Norway on the continental shelf have never been settled. These areas contains loads of oil/gas/fish. It's in Russias (and Norways) interest to maintain a trustworthy military presence in these areas.

With Norways new frigates that might not be a bad place to put the fleet, that and Vladivostok with the Japanese island disputes.:roll

[contedicavour]

With Norways new frigates that might not be a bad place to put the fleet, that and Vladivostok with the Japanese island disputes.:roll

Yep and having no significant naval presence in the Pacific is a big mistake. That's where most of the current military buildup is taking place. One day the Chinese may be tempted to dominate all that empty Siberian space filled up with precious natural resources.
At that point it would be Tsushima once again, and the Russians would have to send their only significant fleet from Murmansk to other side of the world...

To go back to the thread, I've read on Naval Forces that the Russian Navy's priorities for spending are focused on the Dolgoruky SSBNs, the Severodvinsk SSNs, eventually the Lada SSKs, may be some frigates based on the Steregus--- (sorry for the spelling) design, and that's it. Again, I don't get their priorities... they'd need modern destroyers and frigates to supplement the few Udaloy and Sovremenny and to replace the obsolete Krivaks, even more than SSBNs :confused:

cheers

[Waylander]

I know that it is one of the most loved fantasies of modern thriller authors but I really doubt that china is going to attack russia in the near or middel future.There are too much nuclear warheads which prevent the chinese from being to aggressive (And the other way around).

[contedicavour]

I know that it is one of the most loved fantasies of modern thriller authors but I really doubt that china is going to attack russia in the near or middel future.There are too much nuclear warheads which prevent the chinese from being to aggressive (And the other way around).

True. That's why I think Chinese penetration will be slow and gradual, first economic, then demographic, and at the end Russia will probably end up losing all influence on its Eastern provinces... though this process gets faster as the central government shows that it doesn't care about them, to the extent that it leaves the state's most visible asset in place (the Pacific fleet) rust away in Vladivostok.

[Grand Danois]

IIRC, the Norwegian Navy is coughing up something like 20 bn NKR (3.25 bn $) for their 5 frigates. That is including NH-90 helos.

That must have torn a sizeable chunk out of the Norwegian defense budget. Have the other services had to suffer from this?

Defense expenditure mn NKR
2000 25,722
2001 26,669
2001 32,461
2003 31,985
2004 32,945
2005 31,346

Source: NATO-RUSSIA COMPENDIUM OF FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA RELATING TO DEFENCE (http://www.nato.int/docu/pr/2005/p05-161.pdf)

So 20bn NKR is not neglible...

More to the general topic, whilst lurking the NATO website I found this nifty piece:

NATO Operational capabilities briefing - Improving capabilities to meet new threats (http://www.nato.int/docu/briefing/briefing-capabilities-e.pdf)

A glossy presentation, but it somewhat shows it is not as if Europeans are not used to work together on an operational level. It is the connection to common European interest (or lack thereof) that undermines doctrine. The Cold War is over and the political focus has shifted.

Is the Prague Capabilities Commitment a realistic framework?

Hmmm...

[contedicavour]

Well then good for you Norwegians ! Your Navy and the Spanish ones are the only European ones that haven't suffered too much from budget cuts...
cheers

[Big-E]

If the Norwegian frigates get SM-2s they would be the most potent AAW fleet in Europe.

[contedicavour]

If the Norwegian frigates get SM-2s they would be the most potent AAW fleet in Europe.

That's why I asked RA1911. Apparently no plans whatsoever exist to include SM-2s. By the way FREMM frigates in Italian service are all equipped with VLS A50 for Aster 15 AND 30 missiles. This means that if the order for 10 FREMM is completed, Italy will have 2 Horizons, possibly 2 modified De la Penne DDGs, and 10 FREMM, for a total of 14 ships capable of launching long-range AAW missiles. :italy

cheers

[Grand Danois]

Well then good for you Norwegians ! Your Navy and the Spanish ones are the only European ones that haven't suffered too much from budget cuts...
cheers

I think RA1911 is the only Norwegian in this thread. ;)


That's why I asked RA1911. Apparently no plans whatsoever exist to include SM-2s. By the way FREMM frigates in Italian service are all equipped with VLS A50 for Aster 15 AND 30 missiles. This means that if the order for 10 FREMM is completed, Italy will have 2 Horizons, possibly 2 modified De la Penne DDGs, and 10

I thought it was the French who cancelled two Horizons... Did the Italians also cancel two?

[Grand Danois]

If the Norwegian frigates get SM-2s they would be the most potent AAW fleet in Europe.

My bets would be on the Dutch LCF or the German Sachsens class. Both sporting SM-2 blk IIIA and AESA multifuction radars. But that would only be until the Type 45 is around. :)

[contedicavour]

I thought it was the French who cancelled two Horizons... Did the Italians also cancel two?[/QUOTE]

Actually the 3rd and 4th Horizons have not been cancelled but postponed to 2015 approx when our 2 De la Penne DDG (delivered in 1993) will have to be replaced. By then the design will certainly be a modified Horizon.

[mark22w]

By the way FREMM frigates in Italian service are all equipped with VLS A50 for Aster 15 AND 30 missiles. This means that if the order for 10 FREMM is completed, Italy will have 2 Horizons, possibly 2 modified De la Penne DDGs, and 10 FREMM, for a total of 14 ships capable of launching long-range AAW missiles. :italy

I had understood the Italian mix was 4 ASW plus 6 General purpose frigates armed with Aster-15 but not Aster-30? That makes only 4 long-range AAW platforms...

Has this now been overturned? If so good news for Italy

[contedicavour]

I had understood the Italian mix was 4 ASW plus 6 General purpose frigates armed with Aster-15 but not Aster-30? That makes only 4 long-range AAW platforms...

Has this now been overturned? If so good news for Italy

You are right about the mix within FREMM programme : 4 ASW plus 6 General Purpose. However, both types carry the EMPAR radar (capable of supporting Aster-30 contrary to the French ARABEL system) and A-50 type VLS (instead of the A-43) capable of receiving the larger Aster 30 missile. So all 10 FREMM will be capable of embarking, launching and guiding Aster 30, although not to maximum range because FREMM lack the S-1850 long range radar the Horizons have (and De la Penne will have after modernization currently underway).

cheers

[Grand Danois]

I think I might have a feeling were the pessimism is coming from. ;)

Defence budget cuts hit Italian Navy hard (http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdi/jdi060323_1_n.shtml)

By Luca Peruzzi Jane's Correspondent

Cuts in the 2006 Italian defence budget have hit the Italian Navy particularly hard, with running costs slashed by 43.1 per cent to EUR256.8 million (USD362.6 million) and investment cut by a substantial EUR297.8 million, or 58.6 per cent on the previous year.

Although investment funding for the Cavour aircraft carrier, Andrea Doria (Horizon) and FREMM frigates ensures their relative security and international support underwrites the future of other projects such as the AV-8B upgrade programme, the SAAM/IT and PAAMS missile systems, Vulcano munitions and others will be postponed.

Other programmes in the balance include the mooted new LHD/LHA vessel, two second generation Type 212A conventional submarines, and a new mine-countermeasure and submarine operations command-and-support vessel with limited ARS (Auxiliary Rescue & Salvage) capabilities.
The numbers seems weird to me though. What exactly constitutes "Running costs?"


(OT: RA1911 - South Pole? ;))

[contedicavour]

I think I might have a feeling were the pessimism is coming from. ;)


The numbers seems weird to me though. What exactly constitutes "Running costs?"


(OT: RA1911 - South Pole? ;))

Yep, the ougoing government was suddently short of cash and decided to cut investment, maintenance and training costs temporarily, while authorizing the military to sell unused facilities and keep the revenues from the sale. At the end of the year most funding should be recovered for maintenance and training, but we'll suffer some delays in the programmes you mentioned. Let's see what the new administration will do.

cheers

[RA1911]

The first Nansen class frigate came to Norway and Oslo today. It'll be open for public this weekend. I wish I could be there!

Here's an article in Norwegian with a video of the ship: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article1337807.ece
There's a great picture here: http://www.mil.no/sjo/start/article.jhtml?articleID=122360

[nornavy]

You cannot say that the Norwegian navy haven't suffered cuts. As I see the problem in the future will be lack of numbers. This thread has concentrated on the big ships (Frigates where Nansen replaces the Oslo class 1:1) but what we are really good at are inshore operations with small
In 1989 we har nearly 40 missile - carrying FPBs. The largest force in Europe 'cept for the USSR
The new structure will have 6 Skjold class: (http://www.knmskjold.org/)
These will be supreme ships in every way, but amazing capabilities and speed cannot overcome this drastic reduction in numbers.

[contedicavour]

You cannot say that the Norwegian navy haven't suffered cuts. As I see the problem in the future will be lack of numbers. This thread has concentrated on the big ships (Frigates where Nansen replaces the Oslo class 1:1) but what we are really good at are inshore operations with small
In 1989 we har nearly 40 missile - carrying FPBs. The largest force in Europe 'cept for the USSR
The new structure will have 6 Skjold class: (http://www.knmskjold.org/)
These will be supreme ships in every way, but amazing capabilities and speed cannot overcome this drastic reduction in numbers.

Good point. Submarines have also been reduced from 12 to 6.
Though one could argue that several navies are drastically reducing numbers of FPB/FACs (Germany, Sweden, Israel, etc). This could be worth a separate thread by the way : are FAC/FPBs something of the past ?

cheers

[Grand Danois]

Good point. Submarines have also been reduced from 12 to 6.
Though one could argue that several navies are drastically reducing numbers of FPB/FACs (Germany, Sweden, Israel, etc). This could be worth a separate thread by the way : are FAC/FPBs something of the past ?

cheers

Well, there are persons in DK that think the loss of the FAC's compromises territorial defence. I'm not one of those as I think the FAC actually contributes little in DK context.

FAC/FPB's are fast, sexy with lots of firepower, but they're....


low on sensors.
low on anti air warfare.
low on survivability.

There are plenty of options for making firepower to bear, that are cheaper, more efficient and more survivable. There are so many and easy ways to knock out FAC's.

ISR is key and firepower can amongst others come from landbased missile batteries or attack aircraft.

Congrats to Norway on the Nansen. It is a very fine ship indeed! :norway

[Waylander]

I agree with that. For the cold war they were just fine but nowadays they are obsolete, especially in that numbers (In the past we up to 60 of them). We are replacing them with some K130 corvettes, which will be much better multi-role ships (If budget cuts don't kill their capabilities ;) ).
For germany a big navy has never been the right way. It was necessary in the cold war to protect our east-coast from landing forces and close the routes through the Kattegat. But now...
Unlike in other countrys like UK, France, Italy, etc. I think a small, high-tech navy is the bet way for germany with most of the budget going into the land forces and air force.
They are the ones who suffer most from our out of area missions.

[contedicavour]

I agree with that. For the cold war they were just fine but nowadays they are obsolete, especially in that numbers (In the past we up to 60 of them). We are replacing them with some K130 corvettes, which will be much better multi-role ships (If budget cuts don't kill their capabilities ;) ).
For germany a big navy has never been the right way. It was necessary in the cold war to protect our east-coast from landing forces and close the routes through the Kattegat. But now...
Unlike in other countrys like UK, France, Italy, etc. I think a small, high-tech navy is the bet way for germany with most of the budget going into the land forces and air force.
They are the ones who suffer most from our out of area missions.

I do agree. Though replacing 20+ T148 and T143A FACs with only 5 K130 corvettes may be tough since the German coastline from the Netherlands to Poland is long and still needs patrolling even if the Cold War threat is gone.
Do you have any news on the German programme for a large LPD for overseas missions ?
cheers

[contedicavour]

Well, there are persons in DK that think the loss of the FAC's compromises territorial defence. I'm not one of those as I think the FAC actually contributes little in DK context.

FAC/FPB's are fast, sexy with lots of firepower, but they're....


low on sensors.
low on anti air warfare.
low on survivability.

There are plenty of options for making firepower to bear, that are cheaper, more efficient and more survivable. There are so many and easy ways to knock out FAC's.

ISR is key and firepower can amongst others come from landbased missile batteries or attack aircraft.

Congrats to Norway on the Nansen. It is a very fine ship indeed! :norway

The Danish Navy still has a dozen Flykevisten (sorry for the spelling if it is wrong ;) ) FACs right ? I am aware the ships can be turned into MCMVs and other support roles, but they are still basically modern modular FACs.

cheers

[Waylander]

ETRus (Our LPD programm) is dead due to budget problems. There are plans and all now that such a ship (Better two) are necessary if our government wants to play the global game but we just have no money...

What I'm really frightened of is the decreasing status of our minewarfare vessels.
We were the ones who filled the role of anti-minewarfare in the NATO during the cold war and are leading this sector in naval operations but fundings are lacking (Like everywhere) and the problem I see is that anti-minewarfare capabilities of NATO are going to be too small and old in the future.

[nornavy]

I'd like to continue on the subject of FPBs. I think its wrong to say that they are out of date. You just have to modernize the concept, like the Skjold class. Just look at the Strait of Gibraltar operations (STROG). Our Hauk class did a fine job of escorting transports there in 2003. Operations in the future will be conducted in costal waters and you will need ships that can operate close to the shore.
The American Littorial Combat Ship is in my eyes too large for such operations but they define Skageraak littorial waters. For me littorial warfare is conducted amongs the islands and shallows with just enough clerance for a FPB to pass.

To combat assymetrical threats you don't need all the fancy, modern technology. What you need is small ships loaded with guns up to 40mm.
Just see how the Browning .50 has made it. The Nansen has 4 and the Skjold will have 2. Nearly all NATO warships have mounted similar weapons in the past years.

Therefore I hope and think that nations that today has fast ships will use that expirience in the future, like Norway. I don't like to brag but we are the best in NATO when it comes to operations in confined waters and will continue to be. Just our few ships cannot win on itself. We also have a decent MCM force of 6 Oksøy/Alta class. These are modern and the Hugin ROVs are coming online.

[Sea Toby]

I was wondering whether Norway is also thinking about acquiring a multi-role sealift ship like Denmark and New Zealand? Germany on the other hand is a much larger nation, and should be able to fund one or two LPDs like the Dutch Rotterdam? Maybe not now while they are building new warships, but in a few years after the warships have been built. It appears many nations don't have the sealift capability they need for all of these peacekeeping missions that have evolved over the last few years, with many nations almost being over extended. Maybe its time for other nations to undertake more peacekeeping missions.

The price of an LPD isn't as much as the price of a new frigate, as low as $150 million, and the New Zealand multi-role vessel is $100 million, both in American dollars. The Irish OPVs price is around $50 million American. The new German corvettes price is around $150 million American. I don't think LPDs or multi-role sealift ships are budget breakers. New transport planes cost as much if not more, with much smaller cargo capacity.

[RA1911]

When it comes to transportation capability I think Norways main priority should be something to replace the ancient C130Hs (from 1969). With the new Nansen, Skjold, & Oksøy classes entering service I don't think the Navy will get more funds for another class of ships.

[Waylander]

Germanys defence budget for example ist laughable if I look at the other western european countrys.
We now have a budget of round about 26 trillion €. If we would spend round about the same 2% of BIP like the others we would have 34 trillion €.
The gap that is between the requirements of our government and reality is funereal.

[contedicavour]

ETRus (Our LPD programm) is dead due to budget problems. There are plans and all now that such a ship (Better two) are necessary if our government wants to play the global game but we just have no money...

What I'm really frightened of is the decreasing status of our minewarfare vessels.
We were the ones who filled the role of anti-minewarfare in the NATO during the cold war and are leading this sector in naval operations but fundings are lacking (Like everywhere) and the problem I see is that anti-minewarfare capabilities of NATO are going to be too small and old in the future.

Worrying indeed. If you don't get LPDs, and SSK numbers go down to 6 U212, and only half of the Bremens are replaced, this will seriously reduce the size of the German Navy.
At least your economy is going stronger, so you may end up with extra budget... good luck :)

[contedicavour]

I'd like to continue on the subject of FPBs. I think its wrong to say that they are out of date. You just have to modernize the concept, like the Skjold class. Just look at the Strait of Gibraltar operations (STROG). Our Hauk class did a fine job of escorting transports there in 2003. Operations in the future will be conducted in costal waters and you will need ships that can operate close to the shore.
The American Littorial Combat Ship is in my eyes too large for such operations but they define Skageraak littorial waters. For me littorial warfare is conducted amongs the islands and shallows with just enough clerance for a FPB to pass.

To combat assymetrical threats you don't need all the fancy, modern technology. What you need is small ships loaded with guns up to 40mm.
Just see how the Browning .50 has made it. The Nansen has 4 and the Skjold will have 2. Nearly all NATO warships have mounted similar weapons in the past years.

Therefore I hope and think that nations that today has fast ships will use that expirience in the future, like Norway. I don't like to brag but we are the best in NATO when it comes to operations in confined waters and will continue to be. Just our few ships cannot win on itself. We also have a decent MCM force of 6 Oksøy/Alta class. These are modern and the Hugin ROVs are coming online.

You are right in case you are hunting terrorists bent on inflitrating your naval bases. There's a need for such ships as you describe. However I would more use Coast Guard ships for this. In Italy our Guardia di Finanza has over 30 FPBs which are 30 metre long, 42 knots, 30-mm automatic Breda gun, and can deploy small RIBs.
However the more classic FAC(M)s are much less useful today, very vulnerable if attacked by helos or aircrafts... FAC(M)s were good for attack with missiles and fast retreat. Using them for defence purposes seems a bit strange to me.
I guess this is why most countries are abandoning FACs.

cheers

[Gollevainen]

Using them for defence purposes seems a bit strange to me.
I guess this is why most countries are abandoning FACs.

well usually FACs are considered as defensive platforms as you hardly can wage full seaborne invasion whit them, only attack agains bigger ships whit missiles near shoreline and usually that would require that the bigger ships are doing the offensives and the small boats acting in defence purposes. And what comes to the helicopter thread, many modern FACs are fielding CIWSs or short range fire and forget SAMs in addition. This usually means that FACs tend to need to be atleast 350tons and 50+ meter size in order to fit them properly whit defensive and offensive missiles
and increased size makes them more stabile and better sea boats and allows better sensors to be fitted onboard.
But enlarging them to corvettes (1000-2000 tons, 100m ) usually makes them look and appear too much of big frigate substitude ships that their orginal coastal defence role is compromised. Coastal naval units need's enough speed and shallow draugth in order to use the maxium advantage of the geographical cover.
Intresting path that have left quite uncharted is to use high speed hovercrafts as missile FACs. Russian Dergah was (propaply, not sure but sure appears that way) too overloaded and our Tuuli class was trampled by the NATO jackboot so we havent got any good experience about their purposefullnes.

So in overall, FACs arent things of the past, they are adapting. They migth not fit well in current western military foresigths of distant invertion and terrorist-hunting, but still remain a promident platform in coastal defence, a number one issue in many navyes. Navyes that look foward of old imperial days to colonise third world sure overlook them over fancy LPDs but those who understand the need of good coastal defence are still producing them. Good example of their livelyness are the Greek Super Vita class, Finnish Hamina class, japanese Hayabusa and Vietnamese BPS 500 class... all of them modern ships whit sthealt and/or effective CIWSs

[Viper75]

... And what comes to the helicopter thread, many modern FACs are fielding CIWSs or short range fire and forget SAMs in addition. ...

A good example of the attention given to the (combat proved) high air threat against FAC is the new Finnish Navy Hamina-class FAC with both a Bofors 57mm mk3 Dp gun suitable for Bofors 3P ammunition and 8 Umkhonto-IR -missiles. From the Finnish Navy perspective the latter are not exactly close-in weapons, rather than point air defence (ranges up to 12 km) when compared to previous systems (57mm mk1 and 40mm guns, Mistral IR missiles, all with ranges well under 10 km)

some sources for the Umkhonto SAM:
-http://www.denel.co.za/Resources/AS_Umkhonto.pdf
-http://www.defense-update.com/products/u/Umkhonto.htm

... Intresting path that have left quite uncharted is to use high speed hovercrafts as missile FACs. Russian Dergah was (propaply, not sure but sure appears that way) too overloaded and our Tuuli class was trampled by the NATO jackboot so we havent got any good experience about their purposefullnes. ...

I wonder how ACV Tuuli was in any way "trampled by the NATO jackboot"?? From what I gather, the reasons for abandoning the Tuuli project had to do with high maintenance costs, low mission availability due to maintenance demands and primarily the fact that traditional defence of the coast against an invasion fleet is today quite a "backburner" mission for the Finnish Navy while the escort and protection of shipping have risen in priorities.

IMO the Tuuli is (was) probably very good for missions which were probable during the 1970s and 80s and quite useless for the missions that are probable today, and this was realized too late to stop the project before Tuuli had been built (or until certain high-ranking officers who supported the project were retired?). :rolleyes:

PS Gollevainen: sorry to "barge in" on you like this, but IMO your post had "between the lines" a familiar, quite unnecessary tone of blaming NATO for whatever problems our politicians/military/defence budget have...

[Gollevainen]

first of all well nice to see some other fins in these waters...:finland

But actually there was some sort of semi-offical report that the Tuuli was abbanon due its insuitability to modern crisis invention operations and your mentioned 'escort' dutyes, and that traditional displacement hulled vessels suits much better to it....So atleast it seems to fit my NATO conspiracy theories...:alian2

[Viper75]

first of all well nice to see some other fins in these waters...:finland

But actually there was some sort of semi-offical report that the Tuuli was abbanon due its insuitability to modern crisis invention operations and your mentioned 'escort' dutyes, and that traditional displacement hulled vessels suits much better to it....So atleast it seems to fit my NATO conspiracy theories...:alian2

Thanks for the welcome! :finland

While I agree with the substance of what you wrote above (re: modern crisis intervention and escort which both _need_ displacement hulls), I still quite disagree with either having much to do with NATO. As for cospiracies, well I suppose they are easy to subscribe to, but usually have no substance or purpose other than to further the political scaremongering goals of dissatisfied extermists. In Finnish politics this is correct for some "right" as well as some "left" wing elements IMO, and the sinister plotter in the backgroud is either Russia or NATO/the USA depending on whose conspiracy theory one subscribes to...:rolleyes:

IMO the "escort mission" has more to do with the fact that approximately 90% of Finnish trade is conducted by sea... and until now the Finnish Defence Forces have conveniently ignored the repercussions of that fact (due to former towering soviet supremacy in the Baltic?) - namely that we _need_ a navy that can escort at least the most necessary transports from the southern Baltic safely into Finnish ports! It is of course also a question of budgeting... and that doesn't seem to be getting any better...

The crisis intervention/peace support/etc mission is in my opinion something that all western navies (not only NATO) _have to_ deal with, as we are no longer living in a clear-cut east-west cold-war world ("we'll just defend our territory and screw everything else" doesn't work - at least if we want to make the world a safer place, and this is IMO evident in the foreign policies of most western democracies). Also, and if for no other reason, then "crisis intervention" is a mission that all western navies _need_ to promote and train for in order to get parliaments to approve their funding in the "post-cold war, peace dividend era".

Defending the Finnish coast against a hypothetical invasion can be done from the air (FAF is now looking into air-to-surface weaponry for the F18s) and from land-based units (Navy coastal rangers, especially the new light coastal missiles coming into service, as well as the truck-mounted RBS-15K heavy SSM batteries along with what is left of the coastal artillery which is slowly being dismantled).

In essence (and trust me, it hurts to say this): if the Finnish Navy cannot participate effectively in multinational crisis intervention/peace support/etc ops, and cannot effectively protect our vital seaborne trade, then it serves no useful purpose today. Thankfully there are several signs that these "shortcomings" are being rectified, as they IMO should be - be it with a future membership in NATO or without it ;)

Regards, Viper75

"...In the DPRK all the people are armed and the whole country has been turned into a fortress. Its frontline area, rear and depth are an impregnable fortress. The Koreans have high pluck as they are led by Kim Jong Il, an invincible and illustrious commander. He is the best in military wisdom and insight, pluck and gut, strategy and tactics, military stratagem and commanding art. He is the most brilliant commander who has the world under his control and his decisions and orders lead the Koreans to victory..."
- Quoted on April 8th 2006 from -http://www.kcna.co.jp - the Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK (North Korea)

[contedicavour]

For Finland fast missile-carrying patrol boats with some AAW capability are clearly an indispensable asset. The Baltic in itself, and some of your neighbors' past attitudes (I mean to the East ;) ) mean that FAC(M)s are the most cost-efficient ships.
However the Baltic Sea is quite an exceptional area, hardly comparable to navies operating on Oceans or even in the Mediterranean Sea.
In more open seas FAC(M)s are vulnerable to air and submarine attacks...
The Umkhonto/57-mm AAW is good, still most helicopters carry missiles with 30-km range. While FAC(M)s may hide well in your coastline, once in the open sea they would be hopeless.

[Gollevainen]

well if put that political aspect aside, wheter its rigth or wrong to invest in crisis invention or peace keeping mission(I know the webby of this forum and he propaply wont like if we start flaming over finnish politics:rolleyes: ), I do agree whit you, the sea has always been ignored in our defensive orientations and the navy has usually been ill-equiped to its assigned role. The mentioned escort duty ecpesially have been left quite dangerously ignored state as we have discarded all ASW units that we have and relyed solely on modest ASW fits on our missile boats. A escort mission needs good ASW and AAW armament, range and endurance and even whit Umkhoto onboard, the missile boats aren't the ideal platform to execute it.

A healthy sign would be some sort of combined escort/transport gunboat type of ship than Dannes are having (absalon class), thougth maybe smaller, or more numerous class like tha Flykvisken's whit little bit bigger hull than average FACs and obtions to be fitted mine laying, mine sweeping, attack, anti-submarine and patrol dutyes...sort of mini-SRK if following the old russian ship definitions

[contedicavour]

well if put that political aspect aside, wheter its rigth or wrong to invest in crisis invention or peace keeping mission(I know the webby of this forum and he propaply wont like if we start flaming over finnish politics:rolleyes: ), I do agree whit you, the sea has always been ignored in our defensive orientations and the navy has usually been ill-equiped to its assigned role. The mentioned escort duty ecpesially have been left quite dangerously ignored state as we have discarded all ASW units that we have and relyed solely on modest ASW fits on our missile boats. A escort mission needs good ASW and AAW armament, range and endurance and even whit Umkhoto onboard, the missile boats aren't the ideal platform to execute it.

A healthy sign would be some sort of combined escort/transport gunboat type of ship than Dannes are having (absalon class), thougth maybe smaller, or more numerous class like tha Flykvisken's whit little bit bigger hull than average FACs and obtions to be fitted mine laying, mine sweeping, attack, anti-submarine and patrol dutyes...sort of mini-SRK if following the old russian ship definitions

Agree with what you say. I would buy a couple of absalon class, and even take a couple of second-hand Type 209s from Germany. I know peace treaties didn't allow Finland to take up submarines, but the USSR is dead and the Russians can't really complain if Finland takes up T209s while Russians still use Kilos in the Baltic. This would strengthen your ASW a lot. Last but not least, a few Agusta ASW helos like the NH-90s Sweden and Norway are buying would help patrol and support your FACs.

cheers

[Gollevainen]

well submarine is big investment after 60 years of absence of the type and currently its well beyond anybodys imagination...its just too huge prize when you need to set up proper infrastructure and train sufficent force to operate one...But indeed it would be the ultimate weapon for navy of our size and our hydrodynamical conditions. Tracking subs in baltic have always been difficoult task and thus providing ideal arena for small subs to manouvre. But if we ever decide to have one, perhaps it would first be a rented boat from sweeden whit swedish instructors and then the intial operational boats from same source.

Actually, we have now combinated our naval warning system whit sweden and some one has foresighted a nucleus of some sort of co-operational arragment or defence pact between our nations. Who knows, To me it sounds like sweds want to again give the burden of defending them to us while they can strip down their cold war heavy armed forces. But our defence needs are rather mutual and one cannot think that any future attack against Finland wouldn't affect sweden as well so i wont see that anyway bad solution. Some sort of combined swedish/finnish defence forces...a nice change to see some of those nice looking swedish blondes :whip:pimp in refreshment training in somewhere Swedish lappland ....

[nornavy]

As to Norwegian LPDs there are no plans. The focus is on cooperation with the Dutch. There are plans for a logistical support ship like the German Berlin class but nothing has been funded as yet.

To continue on the FAC discussion. There is a need to protect the LPDs and in condfined waters frigates are too big and clumsy. What I see as a good solution is a ship, similar to the Norwegian Hauk but better fuel capacityand with different armament to supplement existing SSM carriers
More emphasis on guns. Say a 40/57mm Bofors on the bow. A 25 - 35mm twin barreled, remotly controlled chaingun at the stern. A couple of .50cal machineguns and prehaps a pair of LMGs.
Hellfire for anti ship and Stinger for anti air. Would be perfect to give fire support to the CB 90s.

[Viper75]

Ok, so we'll drop the politics ;)

IMO what the Finnish Navy should be going for in terms of platform mix (capable of escort, peace support as well as traditional invasion defence) is:

- the 4 new Hamina class FACs, but with the hull partially rebuilt (a new section cut in, lenghtening the ships to approximately 70 meters - allowing both a full ASW suite (VDS+torpedoes) and longer endurance, and maybe also a second, gun-based CIWS aft in addition to the bow 57mm) as well as upgrading the new Umkhonto-IR SAMs to the extended range version (Umkhonto-NG, radar guided) as soon as Denel gets them developed, in effect making them fully escort capable corvettes without making them too large for littoral ops.
- the 4 already operational, ASW capable FACs (the Rauma class) but with an upgrade (MLU), with new ASW armament (torpedoes) as the highest priority. If possible, also change the 40mm Bofors to new 57mm mk3 for more AAW range and firepower.
- the 2 "being upgraded during the next few years" Hameenmaa class minelayers (If for some reason money and political will was available I would actually stop the upgrade, and take all the systems that they will get and buy 2 new hulls for them, maybe something closer to a real "escort frigate" including a helo hangar and facilities for boarding teams and several RIBs, and leave the minelayers pretty much as they are, but oh well..)
- changing 4-6 of the new NH90 helos to "maritime" versions (maybe with both an ASW (sonobuoys,VDS+torpedo) and ASuW (Hellfire etc) capability

The sub option would be optimal in terms of some capabilities, it has been studied and discussed, but the fact remains that the money to start the "silent service" up from scratch (training, logistics, rescue facilities...) after 60 years is not and probably will not be available.

Well, that's my "two cents". Now I'm off for a vacation, so see you later! :cool:

Regards, Viper 75

[Sea Toby]

Ireland appears to be buying a MEKO 200 MRV, about half the size of Denmark's Absalon class. Its more of an OPV rather than a frigate. I wonder if these would fit with Finland's plans in the future.

Main dimensions:
Length over everything 121.00 m
KWL lengthens 109.00 m
Width 17.00 m
Depth 4.40 m
Displacement 3,900 t
Range 8,000 Nm
Sea endurance 30 days

Drive system:
2 high-speed diesel engines ever 5,200 KW
2 drive shafts with variable-pitch propellers
Maximum speed > 22 kn

Crew:
Altogether 150 + 10

Helicopter:
optionally

The MEKO® 200 MRV is conceived according to the same guidelines and principles as for the MEKO® 100 the OPV. It is a multi-role ship with a large range, a long sea endurance and a high flexibility, which is suitable for a whole set of employments. Compared to the MEKO® 100 OPV the MEKO® 200 MRV is clearly larger and has therefore more area for equipment and personnel.

Additionally to it the MEKO® has 200 MRV the following characteristics:

* Better seakeeping
* Larger range and sea endurance of over 8000 Seemeilen/30 days
* Higher availability with longer enterprise on high lake
* Larger on-board command possibilities due to:
o Two 30-Knoten/8-Personen-Boote
o An additional 9-m/25-kn-Boot with communication systems for an employment with larger range, larger commands and evacuation
* Reservoir at deck for oceanographic, hydrographic and environmental protection containers
* Reservoir at deck for wheeled vehicles (in accordance with manufacturer data corrosion damages do not need to be feared in the case of short time transportation from up to 30 days, if routine maintenance work is accomplished) with the following advantages:
o All devices can remain equipped with ammunition filled up and, so that they can be taken after arrival immediately in enterprise
o No fire and danger of explosion under deck
o No necessity for explosion-proof ventilation in taken off charge deck
o Vehicle weapons can be used as additional defensive weapons
* Congestion and enterprise at deck of:
o Operated by remote control mine clearing/minelaying equipment
o Drones and unmanned underwater crafts
* Exact, dynamic positioning without “heading” (two variable-pitch propellers, bow thruster, two from each other independent rudders)
* Schwerlastkran (20 t/18 m range), option on 50t/18m
* Larger training possibilities for up to 150 cadets with large Briefing and training areas, practical demonstration of ship devices for training purposes
* Medical training in the ship military hospital:
o Large military hospital with full operating room and at least 4 intensive beds.
o Overall capacity 15 beds
o Additional containerized Feldlazerett in congestion on the charge deck
o Congestion possibility for 1 LCVP or 2 LCU under abolishment 9 m of the boat

Those multi-role-in-corrodes the MEKO® 200 MRV can be classified as follows, whereby the individual forms of application can overlap themselves: Peacekeaping measures, transportation by sea, disaster control operation and evacuation.

Link (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://212.72.173.53/de/page.php%3Fpage_id%3DPG-215&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DThe%2BMEKO%25C2%25AE%2B200%2BMRV%26hl %3Den%26hs%3DchU%26lr%3D%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official)

Images are attached

[Gollevainen]

Well I pretty much agree with you Viper, but I think some sort of single hull solution would be more easily approved by the eduskunta. So basicly a bit smaller than the Absalom to fullfill the roles of escort, fast transport, training and minelaying. Berhaps a 4-5 hulls with each having dedicated role (selected from the above) in peacetime but the option for formability in wartime. To complete them a smaller common hull (bit larger than standart flex, but smaller than Visby) to fullfill the roles of missilefac, minesweeper and offshore patrol boat for coastguard...

The helicopter is essential, I whis our armed forces would really start realizing the benefits of helicopters in our situation and adopt the flexipility. Our navy should have it's own helicopter fleet accompanied by modern martimate survellance aircrafts.

Mutta nauti lomasta viper, ja hyvaa kesaa muutenkin;)

[contedicavour]

Ok, so we'll drop the politics ;)

IMO what the Finnish Navy should be going for in terms of platform mix (capable of escort, peace support as well as traditional invasion defence) is:

- the 4 new Hamina class FACs, but with the hull partially rebuilt (a new section cut in, lenghtening the ships to approximately 70 meters - allowing both a full ASW suite (VDS+torpedoes) and longer endurance, and maybe also a second, gun-based CIWS aft in addition to the bow 57mm) as well as upgrading the new Umkhonto-IR SAMs to the extended range version (Umkhonto-NG, radar guided) as soon as Denel gets them developed, in effect making them fully escort capable corvettes without making them too large for littoral ops.
- the 4 already operational, ASW capable FACs (the Rauma class) but with an upgrade (MLU), with new ASW armament (torpedoes) as the highest priority. If possible, also change the 40mm Bofors to new 57mm mk3 for more AAW range and firepower.
- the 2 "being upgraded during the next few years" Hameenmaa class minelayers (If for some reason money and political will was available I would actually stop the upgrade, and take all the systems that they will get and buy 2 new hulls for them, maybe something closer to a real "escort frigate" including a helo hangar and facilities for boarding teams and several RIBs, and leave the minelayers pretty much as they are, but oh well..)
- changing 4-6 of the new NH90 helos to "maritime" versions (maybe with both an ASW (sonobuoys,VDS+torpedo) and ASuW (Hellfire etc) capability

The sub option would be optimal in terms of some capabilities, it has been studied and discussed, but the fact remains that the money to start the "silent service" up from scratch (training, logistics, rescue facilities...) after 60 years is not and probably will not be available.

Well, that's my "two cents". Now I'm off for a vacation, so see you later! :cool:

Regards, Viper 75

How about buying some Swedish Visby stealth corvettes ? would be better than spending on enlarging the Hamina...
Operating jointly with Sweden 1 or 2 SSKs (before Singapore takes all the Vastergotland being deleted) and a couple of Visby would be a very cost efficient buy. A bit like the cooperation between Belgium and Holland.

cheers

[Grand Danois]

Thought it was worth flagging that the Danish Parliaments Committee of Finances confirmed and signed the use of the last 4.3 billion DKK for a total sum of 4.7 billion DKK for three 6,200 t FFG's this very day. :)

1 USD = 6.1 DKK, which makes for 783 million USD.

Cheers!

EDIT: And first now I find an article in English with regards to the new ships. Saves me the trouble of explaining them ;).

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/0622_PatrolShips.htm

[Sea Toby]

The new Danish frigates look impressive. They should complement with the Absaloms well. It appears Denmark is increasing their capabilities for out of theater operations. Good for them.

[contedicavour]

Thought it was worth flagging that the Danish Parliaments Committee of Finances confirmed and signed the use of the last 4.3 billion DKK for a total sum of 4.7 billion DKK for three 6,200 t FFG's this very day. :)

1 USD = 6.1 DKK, which makes for 783 million USD.

Cheers!

EDIT: And first now I find an article in English with regards to the new ships. Saves me the trouble of explaining them ;).

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/NavyNews/2006/0622_PatrolShips.htm

Wow what is most amazing is that if SM-2 bl-III are bought, Denmark will have fleet air defense for the first time ever. The number of Harpoons is also amazing, normally 8 are enough.
Abandoning SSK capability in exchange for these mini-destroyers is definitively a good choice :)

cheers

[Grand Danois]

Wow what is most amazing is that if SM-2 bl-III are bought, Denmark will have fleet air defense for the first time ever. The number of Harpoons is also amazing, normally 8 are enough.
Abandoning SSK capability in exchange for these mini-destroyers is definitively a good choice :)

cheers

Well, the rationale for 16 Harpoon blk II's is that they have a limited land-attack capability, so they are not meant for anti-shipping only.

The final decision on VLS launchers and radars should be revealed over this summer. Exciting! :) The Sylver is AFAIK still in the competition*. Decision on actual missiles as Standard 2 or Aster 30 and TLAM or Scalp Naval will be made post 2009. But is of course dependant on choice of VLS.

These frigates and the Absalons are the replacement for 3 corvettes, a FAC sqn and a submarine sqn. I we had not gotten these surface ships, i suppose we would have gone for a sqn of A-26's from the thread started by ratmuff.

* I haven't seen any official announcements wrt the choice of VLS, but word around the campfire is that the Mk41 has actually been chosen...

[Sea Toby]

It appears the Danish navy, along with the Belgium navy, has learned its lessons about naval aviation, the usage of helicopters with its warships and patrol ships. The Nils Juels class of corvettes didn't have space for helicopter capability, something I'm sure the Danish navy missed when operating in peacekeeping missions far from home.

I'm still interested in what a Norwegian logistic support ship will resemble. If not a multi-role ship, and not an amphibious ship, I presume this ship will be more of a ro-ro freighter. I'm of the opinion Norway would do well following New Zealand's example of converting a ro-ro passenger ferry for around the price of $100 million American.

[Grand Danois]

The Danish Navy still has a dozen Flykevisten (sorry for the spelling if it is wrong ;) ) FACs right ? I am aware the ships can be turned into MCMVs and other support roles, but they are still basically modern modular FACs.

cheers

I totally missed out on the FAC discussion. ;) So to clear up.

The Flyvefisken ("The Flying Fish") class is different from our decommisioned Willemoes FAC's in that they have longer endurance and are modular, so they're not classic FAC's. They can do MCM, patrol and environmental tasks.

The endurance (and size) allows for them to participate in international units like SNMCMG 1 as MCM's like in STEADFAST JAGUAR, clear up jettisoned air-ground munitions like ALLIED HARVEST or patrol the Gibraltar as part of ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR.

I think only a few is used in the FAC role and some doubles up in the environmental role and they are used mainly close to Denmark.

[contedicavour]

Well, the rationale for 16 Harpoon blk II's is that they have a limited land-attack capability, so they are not meant for anti-shipping only.

The final decision on VLS launchers and radars should be revealed over this summer. Exciting! :) The Sylver is AFAIK still in the competition*. Decision on actual missiles as Standard 2 or Aster 30 and TLAM or Scalp Naval will be made post 2009. But is of course dependant on choice of VLS.

These frigates and the Absalons are the replacement for 3 corvettes, a FAC sqn and a submarine sqn. I we had not gotten these surface ships, i suppose we would have gone for a sqn of A-26's from the thread started by ratmuff.

* I haven't seen any official announcements wrt the choice of VLS, but word around the campfire is that the Mk41 has actually been chosen...

Ok thanks for the information. I'll be following this closely, it is one of those rare commercial battles between Mk41/ESSM/SM-2 and Sylver/Aster ... even though I agree with you Mk41 starts with a huge advantage (isn't it used on Absalons and Flyvefisken on special modules ?)
Anyway excellent choice and way more useful than a SSK squadron, even if it had been these impressive A26.

cheers

[Musashi_kenshin]

I was just wondering. Can the cuts in the navies also be seen as a positive sign of the strength and security of the region?

In the Far East, countries are increasing spending because they're unsure of each other. Whereas in Europe, the threats have gone so there's no need to have such a large capability any more. Really only the UK and France can afford to run large navies (Germany isn't interested) - it's ridiculous for every country on the coast to need a blue-water capability.