Scenario: how would you upgrade German Navy?

[Rythm]

I had an interesting discussion today with a co-worker and would like to hear some input. The scenario is as follows: You are the german minister of defence, you have the mission to develop a naval capability of a task force capable of:

*Landing an understrength brigades worth of troops, vehicles and stores anywhere in europe, africa, the caribean and the middle east as far east as the persian gulf. The brigade is to be formed in addition to current army forces and is to be a navy unit.

*capable of controlling sea lanes, EEZs and maintain force projection.

*A capability of defeating a minor or equal-strength naval task force.

*Be able to evacuate civilians from hotspots in mentioned area, also perform humanitarian missions.

*These capabilities are to be executed together with other EU or NATO forces, but also independantly.

*there are almost no budgetary restrictions, however no single ship must be bigger than 30000t due to political reasons. You may not use any kind of nuclear power or weapons. As far as possible all purchases or constructions should be handled within germany or at least within the EU.

*Training should be conducted in cooperation with other EU or NATO nations only.

*The program is to be completed no later than 2015.

Now, ho would you do it? what are the major pitfalls?

[kato]

*Landing an understrength brigades worth of troops, vehicles and stores anywhere in europe, africa, the caribean and the middle east as far east as the persian gulf. The brigade is to be formed in addition to current army forces and is to be a navy unit.


Meaning, roughly the BMVg/IABG Sea Transport Option IV (one brigade, peace-enforcement structure) - except with a concurrent landing of the entire brigade. Maybe a bit less cargo here.

Results of that scenario was that the material to be transported would total 101,700 tons, in 48,630 lane meters and 3570 TEU. Going with e.g. something along the lines of the USN/MSC T-AKR-300 class, you'd need, oh, let's say about 15-20 such ships - plus some large-scale amphibs. To have some support for your amphibious forces, and to insert them in the first place, you'll need several LPDs and LHDs at least, maybe a carrier too.
And of course you'll need real escorts for all these, and other auxiliaries.

Rough estimation: Triple the number of active ships in the Bundesmarine, and give it, oh, about 20-30 times the current budget. Might get you somewhere. Of course, building the above ships in the first place would be rather tough in only 8 years.

[mic of orion]

I had an interesting discussion today with a co-worker and would like to hear some input. The scenario is as follows: You are the german minister of defence, you have the mission to develop a naval capability of a task force capable of:

*Landing an understrength brigades worth of troops, vehicles and stores anywhere in europe, africa, the caribean and the middle east as far east as the persian gulf. The brigade is to be formed in addition to current army forces and is to be a navy unit.

*capable of controlling sea lanes, EEZs and maintain force projection.

*A capability of defeating a minor or equal-strength naval task force.

*Be able to evacuate civilians from hotspots in mentioned area, also perform humanitarian missions.

*These capabilities are to be executed together with other EU or NATO forces, but also independantly.

*there are almost no budgetary restrictions, however no single ship must be bigger than 30000t due to political reasons. You may not use any kind of nuclear power or weapons. As far as possible all purchases or constructions should be handled within germany or at least within the EU.

*Training should be conducted in cooperation with other EU or NATO nations only.

*The program is to be completed no later than 2015.

Now, ho would you do it? what are the major pitfalls?

I'd advise shop around, lol..

Well F124 frigates are quite capable ships, would Germany allow for DDG class, or this is to sensitive still. If possible I'd get 4 Destroyers, say talk to UK and France and see if they'll cooperate and share some of the technologies for there DDG program.

I'd contact Bazan of Spain and see if they'd be willing to build Amphibious Assault ship something similar to there current carrier PA11, or even better look at new Japanese Helicopter DDG.

If costs are not the issue, or I am limited to say 8-10 billion euro, than force would need to be this.

2x F125 Destroyers , (3 billion euro for 2 ships)
4x Rotterdam Class Landing ships, (1.6 billion for 4 ships)
4x Berlin class Support ships (1.2 billion euro)
4x F124 Frigates (2.8 billion)
2x Bazan designed light helicopter carriers class - (1 billion euro for 2 ships)
700-800 million remains for training and additional costs.

Simple reason. - cost

4 Rotterdam class Landing docks can carry about battalion of fully equipped troops each, not sure how good the amphibious capabilities are, I am hoping they are good, they can carry at least 4-6 NH80 helicopters.

2 Bazan light helicopter carriers can each carry about 400 troops and additional stores, as well as wing of 6 Harrier jets or 12-16 medium NH90 helicopters.

4 Berlin class support ships, - they are good and capable ships each can carry additional helicopter or even 2NH90's, 200 extra troops, stores and supplies for all brigade and fuel for entire fleet, also German Navy has 2 of this ships in service, getting 4-5 more wouldn't be a big deal.

4x F124 frigates, they are capable large and very effective ships, ugly design if you ask me, but it does its job.

2 F125 Destroyers, - most expensive part of the deal, and perhaps most important force projection, 2 of this would ensure no enemy is to small or to big.

In all you have force, of about 15 new ships all under 30 000 tons, all with in German constitution parameters and all geared for major peacekeeping operations.

And you can move about 1 large brigade (4000 men) to any hot spot, keep brigade supplied and ships giving strong Ariel cover in form on 6 Harrier jets on one Light carrier and 16 NH90 helicopters on the other.

Perhaps if budget is bigger larger carriers would be of interest something what Italy has, say 2 of these, but they are expensive beast I think in region of 2 billion euro, not sure if this would violate German constitution so I'll not even go there, or you can go for one more Rotterdam Landing Dock and redesign it a bit with the larger helicopter landing pad.

In all you could have this force for 10 billion euro + some small change.



you'd be able to deploy about:


Forgot to mention what kind of unit I'd suggest.

An Mix Mechanized Brigade, I'd use battlegroup formations, therefore it wouldn't be standard mechanized brigade but with more flexibility and response time, with one battlegroup trained entirely for peacekeeping roles, one for support and logistics and one with more robust role armed with company of L2A6 tanks.

5700 fully equipped troops
16x Leopard 2A6 MBT,
104x Boxer APC's
52x Dingo APC's
250x 5t army trucks and various other support vehicles.
52x 4x4 fenek
+ engineering battalion.

[kato]

Ah well, let's play it out the full way.

My proposed brigade would be based on a modification of the Airborne Brigades, with modifications to medium-weight similar to Jägerregiment 1:

Rough estimates for TOE (numbers largely arbitrary):
- 26 Leopard 2A6
- 78 Wiesel 1/2
- 44 GTK Boxer (nope, no Pumas here)
- 24 Heavy Engineering Vehicles (Dachs/Kodiak etc)
- 322 Light Armored Vehicles (incl. Mungo, Fennek, Dingo, Bv-206, DURO3)
- 86 Heavy Armored Trucks (Multi A1/A3 etc)
Personnel: about 300 staff, 3500 frontline, 400 specialized warfare, 800 rear echelon (5000 total).

edit:
wow, played around with those numbers a bit in my mind - and you're actually getting a decent "mixed" mech-inf regiment and a light-inf regiment out of that, plus engineers, mobile air-defense, artillery and 2x recon tacked onto the brigade as a company/battery each. works for a built-in transport/logistics bataillon as well. gotta add 18 AGM to above numbers though, for the artillery support, other than that it's pretty rounded out. (using Heer doctrine/TOE)

Amphibious ship line-up i'd recommend:

4x Schelde Enforcer 17000 LPD (carry 700+equipment each)
2x Schelde Enforcer 22000 LHD (carry 400+equipment+air-support each)
8x "Type 522" (local LCAC or EDIC build)
6x "Type 707" (702-derived cheaper RoRo/transport; carry 200 + a lot of equipment and supplies)

A regular deployment wouldn't see the entire brigade; only, say, one reinforced infantry bataillon. Surge deployment, using the "707" etc would be capable of deploying the entire brigade with supplies for three weeks or so, in a single run.
Training etc with the usual suspects of course, as established in WEU/NATO AFNORTH. Building for Schelde ships could be at mostly transferred to German yards - if the UK gets such a contract, Germany will, too.

Rest of navy:

10x F125 (obviously not the kind as signed on; cheap, escort-oriented instead)
4x F124 (option picked up again)
4x F123 (as-is with planned upgrades; primary ASW)
10x Type 130/130A corvettes (130A: +helo-capable hangar)

6x Type 702/702A (yes, +3)
2x Type 704 (as-is)
8x Type 212A/212B submarines (+2; as-desired)
20x Type 343-derived vessels (as-is)
3x Type 423 (as-is)
6x Type 404 (as-is)

65x MH-90 (+22 from planning)
20x CH-53GS (transfer from army)
16x PAH-2 Tiger (transfer from army)
8x P-3C (as-is)
6x Eurohawk (as-desired)

Investment would be in the range of ~25-30 billion for the above, i'd guess. ~1-2 billion extra per year in running cost. And hoping that you'd get one of the French or British carriers and their amphibs into a joint op with you, if possible.

[swerve]

Kato,

Why not get Flensburger Schiffbau Gesellschaft to build some more Point-class ro-ros? Off-the-shelf design from a German yard, should be cheaper than a 702-derived design, slightly bigger, 2600 lane-metres, deck strengthened to take nose to tail Challenger 2. Ideal, I would think.

An interesting deal. 6 ro-ro ships built to navy specifications, operated by a commercial ship management company, with a couple dedicated to navy use & the others chartered out (in practice, a lot of their charters are government work), but with the navy being able to call them up on fairly short notice. Saves some money. Anvil Point, Hurst Point, Hartland Point, Longstone, Eddystone & Beachy Head.

[contedicavour]

I agree with the need for an expansion (someone could say outright creation of) amphibious capabilities in the German Navy. A couple of LPHs (similar to HMS Ocean) and a couple of LPDs (similar to the Dutch Rotterdam) would do wonders.
However I am a bit surprised not to see any suggestions regarding SSKs. Germany seems likely to go down to 6 U212s in all at this rythm. Subs can still have a good role to support amphibious operations with cruise missiles. Nobody's interested in an extended U212 with a module for 6 VLS SCALP Naval ;) ?

cheers

[kato]

Kato,

Why not get Flensburger Schiffbau Gesellschaft to build some more Point-class ro-ros? Off-the-shelf design from a German yard, should be cheaper than a 702-derived design, slightly bigger
Actually, a 702 is as big as a Point-class (both ~21000 tons design load). Rip out the 9000-m³ resupply fuel tank and stuff like that, and you could probably load it up with 8,000 to 10,000 tons worth of... stuff, similar to the RFA ships. Strengthen the deck a bit after the UNREP gear is removed, and you could probably use it as an auxiliary helo carrier quite well. Concept would be a "cheap" copy of ETrUS (without amphibious capability), which died a couple years ago for the German Navy. I'd keep the full armament options of a 702 as well, btw (max: 2x RAM + 2x MLG27 + MGs, alternative 4x MLG27 + MGs). Cost would probably be in the range of €150-200 million per ship - yes, that's 3 times what a RoRo would cost, but with some added capability.

Plus, i didn't want to copy the RN/RFA fleet to closely :rolleyes:


Also, i'd keep it a bit more towards dry cargo transport (TEU capability) than RoRo really. Say keep it down to 1200-1500 lane meters per ship on two decks, rest towards TEU capability, and some accomodations. A one-in-all solution similar to a LPD, just without the amphibious capability.

If we'd go full division-strength for these "marines", plus reinforments, sure, then something cheaper and more towards pure RoRo and other ships towards pure dry cargo would be preferable. The brigade i laid out there wouldn't go beyond about ~10,000 lane meters / ~15,000 tons for the vehicles though. Add, say, 2,000 TEU for supplies. You could fit that on this fleet, i'd guess.
It's a bit difficult to lay this out for this scenario, since all sealift scenarios for Germany explicitly go with Army units, not Marines. Read, all RoRo/transport, no amphibious capability, since that's provided by allies. Also, Germany generally works with "strategic" scenarios, not "tactical" (and inserting Marines would be "tactical").

However I am a bit surprised not to see any suggestions regarding SSKs. Germany seems likely to go down to 6 U212s in all at this rythm. Subs can still have a good role to support amphibious operations with cruise missiles.
Hey, i gave it two additional subs, 212B with IDAS even :D

Personally, i see hunter subs with VLS tubes as a waste. Go full-out SSG, if you want that really. The German submarine force is tilted towards one primary role currently however: recon patrol. They can provide a screen against hostile subs/ships farther out from a taskforce, as is done currently "inofficially" (UNIFIL doesn't have subs, or a Type 423 either, attached - they're just there "coincidentally").
I wouldn't go with Scalp Naval either btw - keep it in the country, and finally develop the proposed Taurus 2000, a Taurus KEPD variant with the range of a Tomahawk ;)

[Rythm]

This is all very interesting, especially the structure that Kato and mic are outlining. How would the fact that there has not been an (larger scale) amphibious capability in Germany affect the creation of a German Marine brigade and new types of navy ships?

Wouldnt the F125 as proposed, be an interesting supporting element in an amphibious landing? Perhaps with double the amount of main guns for sea-to-shore bombardment?

Would it be adviceble to get EH-101 Merlin for this scenario, instead of poaching the Armys CH-53s?

What would the pros and cons be for 2 helo carriers vs 1 CVF-type proper carrier be?

[kato]

This is all very interesting, especially the structure that Kato and mic are outlining. How would the fact that there has not been an (larger scale) amphibious capability in Germany affect the creation of a German Marine brigade and new types of navy ships?
Well, technically, it's not that big of a jump. The navy currently has about two bataillons worth in naval infantry currently, though primarily for other stuff (searching ships etc). However, that naval infantry already has some of the core capabilities needed: Beachmasters (ahead scouting of beaches for landing operations), actual landing craft crews (the navy still operates two LCUs out of an original fleet of 20+, which have trained amphibious assaults with other nations), and special forces trained for "ahead operations" (covered destruction of shoreside bunkers etc).
Since the German Army and Navy already operate in close cooperation with the Netherlands (joint training etc), a lot can be "imported" from there as well, in particular in regard to LPD operation.

Wouldnt the F125 as proposed, be an interesting supporting element in an amphibious landing? Perhaps with double the amount of main guns for sea-to-shore bombardment?
Personally, i'd prefer the F125 in an entirely different role: Escort. The knocked-down F124 electronics outfit that the F125 is gonna get should be good enough for a limited theater AAW defense carrying SM2 by themselves (combine with a F124 in the taskforce, and Link 16). Add a reasonable sonar and some ASW helos, and you're good to go (primary ASW asset would remain the F123 with VDS).
And remember: If your marines are stuck to the shore in their assault, something went fubar usually. In any reasonable large-scale amphibious assault scenario (except for islands of course) your ground forces should preferably be out of regular naval artillery range within 3-4 days at most. That's how long a "land-attack F125" would be useful really, after that it's an overgrown patrol unit (which btw is its primary role as envisaged now). The latest Blohm+Voss F125 sketch has a VLS forward. And the exact final outfit, according to the contract, isn't fixed down until they're actually outfitted.

Would it be adviceble to get EH-101 Merlin for this scenario, instead of poaching the Armys CH-53s?
Sure. Or (even better) buying a joint next-generation heavy-transport helo for both, though that wouldn't be realized before 2030+. The army will need to ditch several dozen CH-53G anyway, since there's no money to upgrade them to GS standard. Pick those up, give em the upgrades, and you at least have a helo till then.

What would the pros and cons be for 2 helo carriers vs 1 CVF-type proper carrier be?
a) having two ships (and yes, that's important)
b) having ships with a different role ;)
A CVF or other full-size carrier is only really suited to one role in amphibious warfare: airborne fire support. Ok, plus command ship potentially.
A LHD commonly carries troops, usually its own amphibious insertion systems (well deck, landing craft), and actually has the proper layout to support airborne assault scenarios as well. Which are integral to an amphibious attack.

[swerve]

... The latest Blohm+Voss F125 sketch has a VLS forward. And the exact final outfit, according to the contract, isn't fixed down until they're actually outfitted.....

That's interesting. I know the Deutsche Marine pdfs can't be relied on, since they're old enough to still show F125 with 155mm gun, & I'm a bit frustrated by how vaguely defined F125 seems to be. The relatively lightly armed ship with space for 50 commandos shown in the specs I've seen seems very little for 650 mn euros. The Absalon-class seems to be more ship for less money.

Can you expand on that? Or tell me where I can find the B+V drawing?

[kato]

That's interesting. I know the Deutsche Marine pdfs can't be relied on, since they're old enough to still show F125 with 155mm gun, & I'm a bit frustrated by how vaguely defined F125 seems to be. The relatively lightly armed ship with space for 50 commandos shown in the specs I've seen seems very little for 650 mn euros. The Absalon-class seems to be more ship for less money.

Can you expand on that? Or tell me where I can find the B+V drawing?

ThyssenKrupp Marinesystems (main contractor) does it a bit tricky:
They put the new sketch up on their website as an image for their frigates in general, and leave the F125 page of their website with an old sketch (with Monarc forward still). Blohm+Voss has issued a CG image (that i can't find right now) for F125 that looks almost exactly like the "new" picture from TKMS.

New:
http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/bilder/produkte/naval_ships/frigates_1.jpg

Old:
http://www.tk-marinesystems.de/bilder/produkte/naval_ships/class%20125.jpg

The "new" version moves the RAM launcher in front of that "deckhouse" up front (which also looks like a VLS from this higher angle), and cuts the number of "boat bays" down to two. Also has 127mm Vulcano (as bought) instead of 155mm Monarc. Other than that, pretty much identical.

[swerve]

Yes, it does look like a VLS. In fact, it looks like 4 modules.

[kato]

As for the contract thing, that's something that has somehow weaseled in:

The final outfit of the ships isn't declared during the concept phase, but during the building phase. Only the "general specs" were declared during the concept phase, and a vague idea at the armament. Now some of the armament is pretty much definitive (127mm Vulcano was bought, gotta use them somewhere; 2x RAM is a given, same for MLG27; RBS-15 Mk3/Mk4 as SSM is a given, since that has been declared the "standard" missile for the German Navy), other stuff not so much (additional SAMs? number of MG/autocannon turrets? torpedoes? non-lethal outfit?). The electronics outfit is pretty much decided, since there's not much variety available if you want to support the industry - hence it'll be pretty much a watered-down F124 by electronics (different radars, that's about it). Propulsion has always been declared (CODLAG), same for the general range/endurance specs, due to requirements. Number of crew, eg, not decided. Number of patrol boats carried, not decided. And so on.

Here's yet another sketch in a newspaper btw, which uses the "old" version above with a 127mm Vulcano forward: http://www.imagehack.eu/de/uploads/3e0476c27c.jpg

[Rythm]

From a humanitarian point of view i would welcome a german build-up of this capability. Or at least an initial aquisition of a single LPD. IMHO this is a great tool for the Bundeswehr (and EU and NATO) for delivering Hopsital services to african coastal regions. Also for extraction of citizens and as a mean of force projection. Africa is something of a continent forgotten when it comes to humanitarian efforts and since noone seems willing to do much about it, the EU (a natural neighbour) should take more interest in it. Question is: would the Bundestag ever dare to comence such an adventure?

More importantly: Should Germany bother when there are so many other EU-nations that already posses these capabilities? What do you think?

[kato]

IMHO this is a great tool for the Bundeswehr (and EU and NATO) for delivering Hopsital services to african coastal regions.

No lack of capability there. The Type 702 auxiliaries are equipped to carry a containerized hospital with a staff of up to 94 medical personnel (regularly less), and 45 regular beds plus 4 intensive-care units. That's equivalent to a district hospital serving about 20,000 people in Germany btw.

Also, the Bundeswehr has decided quite a while ago that the primary out-of-area medical support is delivered using the two Med-Evac Airbusses of the Luftwaffe. Extraction is similarly supposed to be the job of the Airforce and Army (where appropriate). Unlike e.g. France, Germany has no really large amounts of expatriates in foreign countries, in particular Africa. Or at least nothing that you couldn't handle with a few Luftwaffe flights and a couple quickly chartered personnel aircraft.

Large-scale extractions are handled on a more general basis - in Lebanon, French and Italian ships extracted any kind of EU citizen. Pretty much the only combat extraction of German civilians in the last 20 years was handled by the Heer (Albania, 1997 or so). Even in a similar situation - the two Sea Kings aboard a Type 702, plus whatever other helos are in the taskforce, would probably be up to it.

[StingrayOZ]

Look at what Australia has upgraded itself to.

* 2 x 27,000t BPE's (acutally more than this because the Australia is going to overload them past the origional design specs, but this has been okayed). Really four of these would be more in keeping with germany. If A small nation of 21 million can get 2, 80 million can get atleast 4.

These can hold up to 1,200 troops or 16+ helos or upto 20 Harriers or F-35's.

* 4 or 5 destroyers. Australia has gone the F-100 path. Germany could make its own more like the t-45. Germany should get 6 atleast. 8 Would be better. Two for each LHD.
* New larger subs. Like the collins. Capable of blue water operations. 4000-5000 tons. 6 of these or 8 would be better. 2 for each LHD.
* Backed up by a few roro (4) to help move equipment etc.
* upgraded frigates and other current vessels

Proberly make germany only of the most powerful non nuclear navy out there. Don't see the political will tho. People would complain if germany launched 4 carriers, 8 destroyers and 8 submarines in 7 years. She could do it.

[Waylander]

You cannot compare a country like Australia, an island continent in amazonia, with a country like germany, a much more continental country with just some hundred km of baltic sea and north sea coastline.

New shiny warships always look good but do we really need them?
I would support 1 or 2 Rotterdam like ships joining the fleet together with the third EGV.
We already should have enough escorts do protect them if needed.
But that's it.

More (Like the mentioned capability to land a brigade) are much too much.
For what?
Just for the feeling of having a nice powerfull navy?
Additional money is much more needed in other sectors of our Bundeswehr.

BTW, I would really doubt that we are able to deploy 4000 troops worth of intervention forces with the mentioned equipment right now without much preparation...

[contedicavour]

One thing I would restore though would be some naval interdiction capability from land based aircrafts. No need for 50 Tornado IDS with Kormoran, but still one dedicated squadron with recon/anti-shipping capability would be quite interesting even for faraway peacekeeping missions. The Orions bought second hand from Holland are a bit too slow and defenceless vs enemy fighters.

cheers

[Waylander]

We didn't lose our complete anti-ship capability.

It is right that the MGF 2 has been disbanded but the task has been transferred to the AG 51 (Recce-Wing) in Jagel, Schlesweig-Holstein.

So AG 51 has now two mission profiles. Additional to their normal Recce operations they train for anti-ship operations with Kormoran 2 and HARM.
Many of the former MFG 2 pilots were absorbed into AG 51.

So we nearly have what you want. :D

For current and possible near to middle future naval threats this (Together with the other navy assets) should be enough to secure our coasts.

[contedicavour]

We didn't lose our complete anti-ship capability.

It is right that the MGF 2 has been disbanded but the task has been transferred to the AG 51 (Recce-Wing) in Jagel, Schlesweig-Holstein.

So AG 51 has now two mission profiles. Additional to their normal Recce operations they train for anti-ship operations with Kormoran 2 and HARM.
Many of the former MFG 2 pilots were absorbed into AG 51.

So we nearly have what you want. :D

For current and possible near to middle future naval threats this (Together with the other navy assets) should be enough to secure our coasts.

Ah this is good news :) What range does the Kormo 2 have by the way vs the 35km of the Kormo 1 ? It's a shame the Italian air force didn't buy the K-2...

cheers

[Waylander]

As long as I know 40km+.

Mabe Kato knows more. :)

[kato]

"Over 40 km" is what i've seen as well. Btw, the entire current stock of Kormoran 2 will hit the end of their shelf life between 2010 (official) and 2015 (likely extension).

Afaik, the Navy doesn't have any anti-surface missiles for the Orions, and didn't have any for the Breguet Atlantiques recently either. The Atlantiques had 60s era AS.30 only afaik (no Exocet capability iirc), which could also be fired from Starfighters. Not too sure whether the Atlantiques were ever modified to carry Kormoran as well, wouldn't be a surprise though. The Dutch P-3C are only configured for Harpoon afaik, so nothing available there.

Germany originally proposed six Tornadoes from AG51 for UNIFIL iirc, based out of Cyprus. Breguet Atlantiques (SIGINT, not MPA version) were deployed to Kenya for OEF to recon off the coast of Somalia.

[Rythm]

Waylander ( and Kato) where do you see the most urgent need for the Bundeswehr? What capabillities are missing IYHO?

[Waylander]

Do you mean for the whole Bundeswehr or just for the Navy?

And you shouldn't put Kato into brackets. He is defenitely much better informed about current and past Bundeswehr TOEs and OrBats. :)

For the whole Bundeswehr there are several things which are needed.
Without ranking...

- CSAR. The current timeframe for a real CSAR capability introduction is ridicilous.
- Battlefield management systems.
- Active and passive protection systems for vehicles. MUSS on Puma is a good step forward and the new Diehl systems looks promising, so I am a bit optimistic on that.
- Communication systems. Networked warfare capabilities. I am no fan of the sometimes overreliance on that, like for example the US Army shows it sometimes, but we defenitely lack behind in this too much.
- In the end introduction of new systems. It is not tolerable that soldiers get to see MG4s, GMWs, MP7s and IdZ stuff for the first time when they reach A-stan/Kosovo/etc.
- Also faster introduction of NH90 and Tiger. (May not be possible even with more money due to industry restrictions)
- Something like JDAM or at least a smaller LGBs for the Air Force. Our 2.000lbs Paveway is not what I would call well suited for CAS of ground forces.
- Maybe PSO like upgrade for the Leos. May not be as urgent as others but I don't want to send our Leos in the current version into urban areas.
- Extra hull armor for Leos. Especially with the unprotected hull ammo there is a need for it.
- Additonal funds for the new heavy lift helicopter. With the current rate of operations it is going to be a close race for our aging CH-52G(S) fleet.
- In the end the Bundeswehr is too tail heavy and has more staffs than it should have. Just have a look at how many boots on the ground the Brits or Frenchmen have...
-ROEs, ROEs, ROEs, ROEs... ;)

Just the first ideas of me. It's getting late and I need my sleep. :)

[kato]

- In the end introduction of new systems. It is not tolerable that soldiers get to see MG4s, GMWs, MP7s and IdZ stuff for the first time when they reach A-stan/Kosovo/etc.
That's actually always been standard with new equipment. Units get new equipment when they start introductory training for their tour. In my bataillon, for example, the companies got the then new G36, P8 and MP5 (my bat was generally equipped with G3, P1 and MP2 in 1999/2000) when they went to Kosovo, and kept them afterwards as the cycle would turn to the next company (which would get new equipment then). I think they actually kept that up until the whole bataillon was equipped in that manner after like 2 years.
It's not that bad a concept in my opinion. You have to retrain the soldiers for their tour anyway, since you usually pull them together from multiple units, and since a lot might not have the necessary exact ATN for their job on the tour. So you stick a 1-week introductory weapon/equipment course in front of that training, and have them train with the new stuff for the (2-3 month) lead-up time. The lead-up training is like a condensed AGA and SGA anyway (focusing on Gefechtsdienst modification and situational training for the mission area, not unlike AGA really, and a somewhat intensified SGA course for people who have to gain additional ATN; my company conducted these training courses for the duty company for Kosovo during my time there, was rather fun actually).



As for urgently needed upgrades... don't see em that much. But for a short list, just a few ideas...

- CH-53GS upgrade, definitely. Those things are falling apart. Upgrade is ongoing, but money is drained from the program for other stuff. Anyone remember when they had to ground the entire fleet a couple years ago because they ran out of spare screws that had to be specially manufactured for the CH-53?

- Prepared mobile shelter systems, for large-scale camps. I mean presorted stuff that you only have to get to a place and which can be fully deployed and assembled there within like a week by like a single company of engineers. Complete with sanitary equipment, prepped scalable comm shelters, medical shelter systems, stuff like that. That's something the Bundeswehr has been lacking both in Kosovo and Afghanistan. Systems like that are actually under procurement right now, in light of the bad experiences. In the same line, i'd like to see scalable units (within SKB?) actually trained for operating these. That is, similar to a StOV, just "mobile" with the camp. Could even have a large percentage of volunteer civilians, as long as it runs smoothly.

- New NBC decon systems (yeah, that's a private thing, cuz that was my kind of thing). The TEP-90 systems were promised for introduction in the mid 90s, were claimed to be "shortly in" around 2000, and have now again been pushed back to "procurement around 2010-2011", despite an officially stated need in that field. Ok, not that urgent, but consider that the E-Kfz system currently used is afaik about the last 7-ton MAN truck still in Bw service (they gave almost all others to the THW a couple years ago), and that the entire current TEP-70 equipment is on the sunny side of 30 years old. Also, in addition to the TEP-90, a decent tanker truck for the staff company. And not based on Multi A1, but something larger (15,000 liters min) and with light armour. Because, what occasionally gets overlooked: The NBC forces are responsible for the water supply for troops. And they've been needed used in that role both for the camps as well as for humanitarian aspects in Kosovo.

- A new mortar system. Seriously. The Wiesel 2 with 120mm mortars aren't gonna be procured for a couple more years, and until then the current mortar vehicle will be Wolf jeeps, since the M113 for that purpose have been / are being retired. And a lot of infantry units don't even have the Wolf-carried mortars.

- A6M upgrades for all Leo 2A6 in the tank fleet (that's 125 tanks btw). Upgrade of those last 50 Leo 2A4 to A5 standard minimum.

- Procurement of Fennek Artillery Observer variant (there are exactly 4 of these vehicles in the BW), and in particular sped-up development and immediate procurement of the Fennek JFST variant (joint forward observer: artillery observer + forward air controller) to supplant them.

- Speeding up procurement of the roughly 500 missing Mungos (out of 760 total planned, only about 260 are in service - and the units that get them are considered the first ones to go anywhere if it turns hot, paratroopers and airmobile light infantry).

- Buying enough Multi A3, DURO3, and other armoured cargo vehicles to at least outfit the out-of-area troops 120%. In particular Multi A3 with EADS TransProtec personnel transport shelters (of which the BW now has about 15) would be important for Afghanistan as large-capacity replacements for the overworked Fuchs APCs now used to shuttle around soldiers (e.g. to airports).

- The airforce should lease a small number of An-124 and Il-76 (currently they tend to charter them). Not as many as some people think, i'd say 2-3 An-124 and 4-6 Il-76 would be enough. Pretty much only what you need to maintain supply flow with Afghanistan (and Kosovo and Bosnia to some extent), while maybe having 1-2 left over each for when you hit a more urgent deployment. Sure, the A310 MRTT are nice, but there aren't exactly enough of them to go around.

- The navy should think about procuring a number of decent mid-sized fast patrol boats, instead of converting minehunters for that purpose. Just hand a contract to Lürssen, and they'll happily buy you a handful 200-ton boats for the purpose. A 23-knot, 600-ton boat with 40 people aboard and a single 27mm plus a few HMGs for armament isn't exactly the right thing for the purpose. If we hadn't sold those Albatros to Tunisia (and, well, if they weren't 35 years old), those would probably have been the prime conversion candidates.

- the third - and potentially a fourth - Type 702 EGV should be a real priority for the navy. and by priority i don't mean "commissioning in 2011". also, a few other auxiliaries (notably Westerwald and the two oilers) need replacement in the next decade, and at least Westerwald (a large ammunition and dry cargo transport) shouldn't be replaced by another EGV - different roles and different mission approach. replacing the oilers with EGVs should be done cautiously too - the 9,000-ton fuel tank of the EGVs has proven to be a bit small to support entire taskforces (or at least i seem to remember such complaints from the OEF mission). I'd rather see the entire second round procurement of the EGVs (including the third) a bit scaled up anyway, to something like 25,000 to 30,000 tons with at least a 12,000-ton fuel tank.

- "Soldat im Einsatz" procurement on a large scale would be nice (that's the scaled-down, cheap version of IdZ). give it like 10,000 squad units minimum, plus say another 2,000 IdZ squad units, and i'd be fine with it.

[Waylander]

I am not talking about getting your new equipment/weapons when you enter the deployment training.
I talk of seeing a MG4 for the first time when you step out of the plane in A-stan.

- The prepared camps are actually a really good idea. Remember the problem with the camp during the Kongo mission...

- How could I forget the 120mm mortars. I would even say that additional light 81mm mortars for the infantry are a good idea. Everybody is talking about new mission profiles for the Bundeswehr but when it comes to mortars it seems like we haven't learned any lessons from Iraq or A-stan.

- Only 125 remaining A6 (Or do you mean A5?)? I thought that only 60 have been upgraded to A6M standard (With twenty of them being leased to the Canucks. Can you imagine in what condition we get them back after their tour in A-stan...;) ).
I would also like to see not only the A4s getting upgraded to A5 standard but the current A5s to something like the PSO. That they still have the shorter gun is a plus for such an upgrade.

- Why not getting some C-17s (Or is the production line already closed?)? Even if we would need to cut numbers of A400M. Buy them with self defense systems and so we are able to get them into hotter landing spots. We will only be able to use parts of our future A400M fleet and it will be the same problem with leased An-124s and Il-76s.

- I am not even sure were it is planned to use the Fennek as FAO and were the Puma? :confused:
I would like to see the Pumas getting attached to the armoured/mech formations. We often enough had our FAOs fighting for their live with their Marders. The MG3 or GMW of a Fennek is not going to help much in such a situation.

- I totally support your ideas about the navy and IdZ/Soldat im Einsatz procurements with the patrol boats being a little bit less important. :)

[kato]

- The prepared camps are actually a really good idea. Remember the problem with the camp during the Kongo mission...
Well, they are taking steps for that. Also with airmobile medical camps and stuff like that that might be needed. BwPlan 2008 lists 24 airmobile medical camps of various sizes to be in service by the end of 2007 (LL-Rettungszentrum, LL-Rettungszentrum leicht, LL-Rettungsstation), plus according to BwPlan the same systems in general, non-airmobile versions at 56 units. "Modular Medical Units" were originally planned with 478 million euro to be spent between 2005 and 2015, that has been bumped down to 366 million euro between 2006 and 2015 now.
Iirc, the main procurement is two projects for scalable deployable camps ("Feldlager, luftverladbar, modular" and "Feldlager für Stabilisierungsoperationen") with capacities up to 5,000/6,000 soldiers each. The first project is supposed to be realized by 2008, the second, larger one by 2012.

- Only 125 remaining A6 (Or do you mean A5?)? I thought that only 60 have been upgraded to A6M standard (With twenty of them being leased to the Canucks. Can you imagine in what condition we get them back after their tour in A-stan...;) ).
I would also like to see not only the A4s getting upgraded to A5 standard but the current A5s to something like the PSO. That they still have the shorter gun is a plus for such an upgrade.
Afaik the Bundeswehr currently has planning for 50 Leopard 2A4, 225 Leopard 2A5 and 125 Leopard 2A6, with the 2A6 slowly being brought up to A6M standard. PSO is far too heavy for my liking. Sure, it's a big armor upgrade - but 15 tons extra armour? Sacrifing mobility for that? Remember, the SLT-56 Franziska ("SaZgM schwer") tank transporter already had to be modified for the 2A5 and 2A6 (new max payload: 59.7 tons). With a Leo 2A6 on the back, it weighs 98.2 tons, i.e. MLC 100. Modifying it for a PSO, and with that as a payload, it would probably go to MLC 120, if not MLC 130. Most bridges in Germany usually max out at MLC100, with maybe a handful capable of MLC120, single-way. You'd probably need new rail transport cars as well to accomodate a 75-ton PSO. Now think about how you'd get that PSO to Kosovo.

- Why not getting some C-17s (Or is the production line already closed?)? Even if we would need to cut numbers of A400M. Buy them with self defense systems and so we are able to get them into hotter landing spots. We will only be able to use parts of our future A400M fleet and it will be the same problem with leased An-124s and Il-76s.
Canada just bought four C-17. They are planning to spend $3 billion on those four, including support, equipment, and training (and are already facing cost overruns iirc). We're spending $12 billion on 40 A400M (including the entire development program). My proposition would be to lease or outright buy An-124 (as long-range, heavy-payload lifters), and lease Il-76 until A400M become available.

- I am not even sure were it is planned to use the Fennek as FAO and were the Puma? :confused:
Actually, artillery units themselves only got Marders as an interim solution to replace the M113 OPTRONIC, when the M113 was well... canned widely across the Bundeswehr. PzGren use Marder since, well, they just fit there (after the BeobPz based on the Jaguar was trashed - somewhat of a "long-term" interim solution). Afaik, Fennek AB and JFST are supposed to replace all old M113 OPTRONIC, while Puma AB go where the BeobPz was used (primarily PzGren).

- I totally support your ideas about the navy and IdZ/Soldat im Einsatz procurements with the patrol boats being a little bit less important. :)
The conversion of those four minehunters is currently ongoing, and two other minehunters have been placed in UNIFIL to replace Gepards. It's a somewhat current issue :(

[Waylander]

As long as I know the numbers are vice versa.
225 Leo IIA6 and 125 A5.

And as long as I know the PSO is MLC 70 with ready ammo but without reserve ammo in the hull.

Buying An-124 is ok for me IF we can be sure to get the spare parts we need. I don't want to rely on russia for this.
And I want to get them with self defense packages like some of our A400M.
This is not doable with leased AN-124.

And the Marder ABs are not part of the PzGren units but are attached to every Pz or PzGren company by the artillery bn of the brigade.
So it had nothing to do with our PzGren.
They are normally in use by the artillery bns and are manned by arty men.
Be it a Pz company (2 Pz platoons, 1 PzGren platoon, attached support...) or a PzGren (Vice Versa) company had nothing to do with were a Marder is attached.

During my time the M114 OPTRONIC was already phased out. But I can just say that the arty guys were very happy about the plus on armor and firepower the Marder gave to them.

[Big-E]

I'd start building a few carriers... it's not like they can't afford it.

[swerve]

...Buying An-124 is ok for me IF we can be sure to get the spare parts we need. I don't want to rely on russia for this.
And I want to get them with self defense packages like some of our A400M.
This is not doable with leased AN-124.....

Difficulty with buying An-124 is that it is not currently in production. The existing operators are unlikely to want to sell: some would like to add more, but are unable to because of the closed production line. The line is intact, but they're not likely to be willing to restart it for 3 or 4 new aircraft unless the buyer pays the start-up costs (they don't have the money), which would make the aircraft expensive.

Order enough to kick-start the line, & take a punt on more sales to those currently busy operators by paying the start-up costs in return for a slice of future revenue, & you could buy some, but it's a gamble. BTW, for a bit more money, you could get the westernised version dusted off, with Rolls-Royce engines, etc., which would ease spares worries. Might be able to source much of the rest from Ukraine.

[Rythm]

I'd start building a few carriers... it's not like they can't afford it.

From what Waylander & Kato are saying, i reckon thats exactly the problem. One must not forget the horrendus cost of re-unification with the eastern part.

[kato]

And as long as I know the PSO is MLC 70 with ready ammo but without reserve ammo in the hull.
Hmm, all i've seen is the statement of "75-ton full weight". Let's say that's actually the usual exaggeration, and it's anywhere between 72-74 tons. The reserve ammo weighs about 900 kg or something (40 rounds x 22.5 kg). Still above MLC70 for the PSO itself, and close to MLC110 for SLT-56 + PSO.

And the Marder ABs are not part of the PzGren units but are attached to every Pz or PzGren company by the artillery bn of the brigade.
So it had nothing to do with our PzGren.
I meant that more along the lines that they might put the Puma AB in the PzGren/Pz Brigades (arty units), and the Fennek AB into the other brigades. That is put Pumas in all artillery units of Divs 1/10/13, Fennek into the artillery units of DLO and the D/F Brigade (which already uses Fennek AB btw). Like that.
The GebJgBde, when it gets reinstated (should now be inactive without M109?), would probably rather use Fennek as well.

[harryriedl]

Actually, a 702 is as big as a Point-class (both ~21000 tons design load). Rip out the 9000-m³ resupply fuel tank and stuff like that, and you could probably load it up with 8,000 to 10,000 tons worth of... stuff, similar to the RFA ships. Strengthen the deck a bit after the UNREP gear is removed, and you could probably use it as an auxiliary helo carrier quite well. Concept would be a "cheap" copy of ETrUS (without amphibious capability), which died a couple years ago for the German Navy. I'd keep the full armament options of a 702 as well, btw (max: 2x RAM + 2x MLG27 + MGs, alternative 4x MLG27 + MGs). Cost would probably be in the range of €150-200 million per ship - yes, that's 3 times what a RoRo would cost, but with some added capability.



sounds much more like a Argus type ship as that operated as an LPH for the Kosovo op. sounds like a good idea but would a lengthen version be better [28,000 so a similar size to Argus] to so it could almost act like a CAN JSS so havening shipping space a perhaps space for fuel and other kit to increase it felxablitiy .

[nero]

.

anybody thought about the MURAENA system being developed by HDW???


.

[Waylander]

Hmm, all i've seen is the statement of "75-ton full weight". Let's say that's actually the usual exaggeration, and it's anywhere between 72-74 tons. The reserve ammo weighs about 900 kg or something (40 rounds x 22.5 kg). Still above MLC70 for the PSO itself, and close to MLC110 for SLT-56 + PSO.


I meant that more along the lines that they might put the Puma AB in the PzGren/Pz Brigades (arty units), and the Fennek AB into the other brigades. That is put Pumas in all artillery units of Divs 1/10/13, Fennek into the artillery units of DLO and the D/F Brigade (which already uses Fennek AB btw). Like that.
The GebJgBde, when it gets reinstated (should now be inactive without M109?), would probably rather use Fennek as well.

Ah now I understand. I think we were on the same road but didn't recognize it. :)

As for the PSO. My data is that you use an A5 as the base with 59,5 tons. The PSO kit weights 6 tons without the shield. This makes it actually 3 tons too heavy because the border for MLC 70 is ca. 63 tons.
Nothing is finalized yet and I think they are working hard on finding a way to get down with the weight.
I don't find something about loosing the reserve ammo so I might have been a little bit confused there... :)

MLC70 is the golden rule because of the mentioned Elefant transporters (They can handle everything up to MLC70 as long as I know) and the Panzerschnellbrücke

Maybe you meant the Strv122B with your 75 tons. I have read this number for this swedish upgrade under development which also aims at improving MOUT capabilities.

[nero]

.


what about frigates ??

what is the best oiprtion for frigates for german navy ??



.

[kato]

sounds much more like a Argus type ship as that operated as an LPH for the Kosovo op. sounds like a good idea but would a lengthen version be better [28,000 so a similar size to Argus] to so it could almost act like a CAN JSS so havening shipping space a perhaps space for fuel and other kit to increase it felxablitiy .

I'd figure you could rebuild it like this:
- create space for a two-deck "flexible deck" like on an Absalon (could be good for up to 400-600 lane meters easily by my estimate); sacrifice resupply fuel tank and other storage space there for that, and rearrange internally to get space for that; that kinda space would be enough to carry some 40-50 heavy-load (15-ton) trucks, or, depending on arrangement, a company of heavy armored vehicles + 30-40 lighter vehicles.
- keep the rear container space (in front of the superstructure) to retain capability for MERZ medical center or other, similar loads (accomodations?)
- rip out the current large-scale UNREP gear, and strengthen the deck there; perhaps retain a lighter UNREP gear version for auxiliary purposes. put two auxiliary helo spots in that area (area is easily big enough, and open enough). the ship would regularly keep carrying its two Sea Kings (or other heavy helo) on the rear flight deck with hangar, but could field two additional helos from this auxiliary flight deck for operations where it's needed. forward auxiliary spots, with the right retaining arrangements, could also be used for additional container spots.

I'd guess you could transport an entire (light) infantry bataillon or similar with that kind of arrangement, plus have a small LPH for humanitarian or airborne operations, with the additional medical capability through MERZ, or a humanitarian transport by moving containers instead of vehicles.
No amphibious capability, but that's what i had real LPDs for in the line-up. Sort of as an in-between between the full-scale amphibious fleet (LPDs, LPHs) and a raw (chartered) transport capability with commercial freighters - something that you can deploy on most current naval deployments (backing up a 702 EGV or oiler and a taskforce with humanitarian/airborne capability). In particular for "secondary" taskforces, since navies (including the German Navy) today tend to be involved in multiple taskforces/engagements at a time.

MLC70 is the golden rule because of the mentioned Elefant transporters (They can handle everything up to MLC70 as long as I know) and the Panzerschnellbrücke
59.75 tons max afaik, exactly tailored to the 2A6, with the latest trailer modification (original SLT-50 Elefant handled 50 ton, new SLT-56 trailer handled 56 ton for the Leopard 2A4).
I think the PSB-2 wouldn't be that much of a problem, since it's still under development. And since it can already handle MLC100 wheeled vehicles, it'd probably only be an issue of strengthening it somewhat structurally to handle MLC80 (or so) tracked vehicles.
Personally, i think the problem with Elefant going beyond MLC100 loaded would be the bigger issue.

[Waylander]

Do you need to push your oneliners into every thread?

Maybe you could first elaborate which you think would fit best and why or ask some questions regarding the german defense situation, policy and capabilities of the shipbuilding industry.

[Tasman]

I'd start building a few carriers... it's not like they can't afford it.

I have gained the impression from other members that finance is a problem for the German armed forces so I think the cost of carriers would be prohibitive as they would be at the expense of equipment more urgently needed in areas like the army.

If aviation capable vessels are needed I think an amphibious ship like the Navantia BPE would be a better option than a carrier as this type would provide a huge boost for the amphibious force and would provide a platform for attack and transport helos. However, the cost of these ships might be better spent in the areas suggested by Kato and Waylander. As Germany has no plans, AFAIK, to participate in the JSF program it would require a major shift in thinking to purchase the F-35B so I would expect attack helos would operate from any German LHD to provide close support for troops operating as part of the amphibious force.

Cheers

[contedicavour]

I wouldn't say financing is a problem, the German budget deficit has been wiped out by the very strong economic recovery and the increase in VAT.

The whole point is that defence planners are focusing on what is really relevant for Germany's armed forces. That includes IMO a strenghtening of rapid reaction forces deployable around the world. No need for aircraft carriers, since Germany will most probably always act with its European or NATO allies (even leaving aside the US, between the UK, France, Italy and Spain there will always be a carrier available to provide some air cover). However A400Ms, big LPDs and LHDs, more NH90 and Tiger helos would certainly help.

cheers

[Waylander]

No it just means that we are within the 3% percent new debts border of EU for the first time in years... ;)

And this has virtually nothing to do with the Bundeswehr. It is chronically underfunden and there is just a big gap between what is needed and what is available.

[tatra]

Sell the F122 to Greece and other nations, and buy some more K-130 and F-125.

[Waylander]

It is already planned to outphase the F122s. The F125 is the replacement for them.

[kato]

Sell the F122 to Greece and other nations

doubt we could even sell them for that much money. by the time the F125 replace them (planned 2013-2016 timeframe), the F122 will be between 25 and 30 years old. Plus Greece is rather interested in FREMM to replace its own "F122" (Kortenaer/Standard-class frigates). Around the same timeframe, France will get rid of some older units, same for the UK. Customer nations tend to go towards new units right now, especially traditional markets for German ships (Greece, Turkey), or have just obtained new ships (South America, Asia). We've already shafted off our older FACs to Tunisia for next to nothing, and i trust that that trend will continue.

And this has virtually nothing to do with the Bundeswehr. It is chronically underfunden and there is just a big gap between what is needed and what is available.

You could also look at it from the other way around of course... the Bundeswehr demands have chronically been too high for the budget ;)

[Waylander]

Muhahahahaha, yeah you got it. :D

[contedicavour]

doubt we could even sell them for that much money. by the time the F125 replace them (planned 2013-2016 timeframe), the F122 will be between 25 and 30 years old. Plus Greece is rather interested in FREMM to replace its own "F122" (Kortenaer/Standard-class frigates). Around the same timeframe, France will get rid of some older units, same for the UK. Customer nations tend to go towards new units right now, especially traditional markets for German ships (Greece, Turkey), or have just obtained new ships (South America, Asia). We've already shafted off our older FACs to Tunisia for next to nothing, and i trust that that trend will continue.



You could also look at it from the other way around of course... the Bundeswehr demands have chronically been too high for the budget ;)

If plans remain to replace 8 Bremen with 4 F125, then we may start seeing the first Bremen/F122 on the used market around 2010. It is true that the first French Leygues and Italian Maestrale will also appear around that timeframe, but there still is quite a market for these standard FFGs with Sea sparrow and Harpoons and good ASW... (i) Pakistan (ii) Thailand (iii) Egypt (iv) Brazil ...

Regarding the German budget, folks you're being too humble ;) the deficit hasn't just come below 3%, it is almost disappearing (latest estimates talk of 1%). In such a situation (which is likely to remain for a while given very strong exports despite a too strong euro) the defence ministry is bound to receive some extra funding if it shouts loud enough.

cheers

[harryriedl]

I'd figure you could rebuild it like this:
- create space for a two-deck "flexible deck" like on an Absalon (could be good for up to 400-600 lane meters easily by my estimate); sacrifice resupply fuel tank and other storage space there for that, and rearrange internally to get space for that; that kinda space would be enough to carry some 40-50 heavy-load (15-ton) trucks, or, depending on arrangement, a company of heavy armored vehicles + 30-40 lighter vehicles.
- keep the rear container space (in front of the superstructure) to retain capability for MERZ medical center or other, similar loads (accomodations?)
- rip out the current large-scale UNREP gear, and strengthen the deck there; perhaps retain a lighter UNREP gear version for auxiliary purposes. put two auxiliary helo spots in that area (area is easily big enough, and open enough). the ship would regularly keep carrying its two Sea Kings (or other heavy helo) on the rear flight deck with hangar, but could field two additional helos from this auxiliary flight deck for operations where it's needed. forward auxiliary spots, with the right retaining arrangements, could also be used for additional container spots.

I'd guess you could transport an entire (light) infantry bataillon or similar with that kind of arrangement, plus have a small LPH for humanitarian or airborne operations, with the additional medical capability through MERZ, or a humanitarian transport by moving containers instead of vehicles.
No amphibious capability, but that's what i had real LPDs for in the line-up. Sort of as an in-between between the full-scale amphibious fleet (LPDs, LPHs) and a raw (chartered) transport capability with commercial freighters - something that you can deploy on most current naval deployments (backing up a 702 EGV or oiler and a taskforce with humanitarian/airborne capability). In particular for "secondary" taskforces, since navies (including the German Navy) today tend to be involved in multiple taskforces/engagements at a time.




nice idea i just have a few questions about it
one is the placement of the axillary hanger deck in front of the superstructure i image in that it increases the risk of flight ops much more than a typical system as the wind on deck pushes the helos towrdes the superstructure rather than if it was mounted on the stern. when trying to land and the on deck [dose any one have any images of helo which is landing in front of a large superstructure not a carrier superstructure but much larger] i imagine that that would cause problems in creating the Axillary hanger deck in front of the superstructure and i think the UNREP gear would have to be deleted as it would conflict with the helo ops.
i like the modularizes kit as it makes it very versatile

[kato]

If plans remain to replace 8 Bremen with 4 F125, then we may start seeing the first Bremen/F122 on the used market around 2010. It is true that the first French Leygues and Italian Maestrale will also appear around that timeframe, but there still is quite a market for these standard FFGs with Sea sparrow and Harpoons and good ASW... (i) Pakistan (ii) Thailand (iii) Egypt (iv) Brazil ...
The F122 will receive a limited MLU over the next 3-4 years (as crazy as that sounds, being decommissioned soon after). They'll receive Link 16, a new/upgraded C3 systems, and new navigation systems. The first F125 is planned to commission 2013-2014, the last 2016-2017. Presumably 2 F122 will decommission for each F125 that commissions, in close time relationship at least. So, the first not before 2012-2013.
The Harpoon missiles of the F122 will be reused for the F125 btw (as interim solution until the RBS-15 Mk 4 is out), same for the RAM launchers (and the other half there can promptly go to the Type 702 AORs, since those didn't get any to save money). And of course the helos will remain in the fleet. All to save money. The SeaSparrow Mk29 launchers won't be upgraded btw, and will decommission with the ships (since there are no other German Ships with Mk29).
And yeah, Pakistan is one of the markets i thought would remain. However, both Pakistan and Egypt are classic "donation navies" (as in, get the ships donated, mostly from the US). Not much money to make there anyway. Brazil - i dunno, replacing the Niterois or the Type 22 with ships that were built just 5 years later? We could maybe get that market with Meko A200s, but i doubt the F122 would be attractive there. Bulgaria could go for one or two F122. Malaysia too for a few, depends on how it develops there (shortcut the Kedah to six units, buy 4 F122 as interim?). Depending on the situation, Venezuela might also open up. Thailand - does Thailand have money at all?

Regarding the German budget, folks you're being too humble ;) the deficit hasn't just come below 3%, it is almost disappearing (latest estimates talk of 1%). In such a situation (which is likely to remain for a while given very strong exports despite a too strong euro) the defence ministry is bound to receive some extra funding if it shouts loud enough.
And they do, and they get it. They just went ahead and said "we want 1 billion extra". So, of course, they only got 600 million or so (with a long planned increase of 300 million included). Should teach em to ask for 2 billion next time :rolleyes:
Long-term budget planning in Germany has the aim of pushing the deficit to literally zero - current intention is pushing for 0-0.5% deficit in 2009, and 0.5% profit in 2011. The defence ministry, economy ministry and the transport ministry are the ones that put a crimp in that planning, by demanding increases in their budgets.
You could also see it like this: In 2007, total income for the budget was 214 billion, plus 22 billion in deficit (10% of the budget). The same year, the defence ministry got 28.4 billion euro, or about 12% of the budget. It's not that bad, but it's not the priority in giving away money. Priority is to get the deficit gone. Completely.

nice idea i just have a few questions about it
one is the placement of the axillary hanger deck in front of the superstructure i image in that it increases the risk of flight ops much more than a typical system as the wind on deck pushes the helos towrdes the superstructure rather than if it was mounted on the stern. when trying to land and the on deck [dose any one have any images of helo which is landing in front of a large superstructure not a carrier superstructure but much larger] i imagine that that would cause problems in creating the Axillary hanger deck in front of the superstructure and i think the UNREP gear would have to be deleted as it would conflict with the helo ops.
i like the modularizes kit as it makes it very versatile
The forward deck wouldn't be directly in front of the superstructure, but about 30-40 meters away from the superstructure towards the bow. If you'd raise the flight deck itself by say 5-6 meters above the weather deck, there wouldn't be that much issue with the UNREP gear, or the containers between the superstructure and the flight deck either, interfering.
There have been flight deck arrangements on other ships which seriously hurt my head just to look at. For example the French Ouragan TCDs, which have a aft flight spot above the rear tank deck (with standard approach path), and another flight spot on top of the superstructure (with an island like on a carrier placed next to it). To have them both operable at the same time, the forward flight spot has a diagonal approach part from 45 degrees starboard aft, and a third flight spot next to the island is marked auxiliary-only - since you can't approach it without overflying the other two or risking crashing into the island.

[Waylander]

@Contedicavour
The Harpoons from the F122s are going to be used on the F125s till the decision about the new successor for a AShM is ready.

And in Germany it is not that easy for the Bundeswehr just to cry loud enough. Their lobby tends to zero and this is the problem.

[swerve]

...
There have been flight deck arrangements on other ships which seriously hurt my head just to look at. For example the French Ouragan TCDs, which have a aft flight spot above the rear tank deck (with standard approach path), and another flight spot on top of the superstructure (with an island like on a carrier placed next to it). To have them both operable at the same time, the forward flight spot has a diagonal approach part from 45 degrees starboard aft, and a third flight spot next to the island is marked auxiliary-only - since you can't approach it without overflying the other two or risking crashing into the island.

And they've managed to operate for 40 years like that.

[contedicavour]

Reading the posts above I do realize that a F122 in 2012 would be available for export without the harpoons, without the RAMs... hmmph that would leave them available only as donations, I agree. Germany may better just sink them or make museums out of them just to make sure they do not kill the possibility of new build meko 200 or k 130 being exported :rolleyes:
When the USN made tens of OHPs available for next to nothing it almost killed the new FFG market for a long while...
Still, a good bunch of Leygues, Bremen and Maestrale will be good news for poorer navies in the 2012-15 time frame. For ASW those FFGs will still be good ships even in 2012. Readding some SSMs shouldn't be a problem. They will however be hopelessly outdated in AAW. Unless you can launch ESSM from the mk29 launchers ??

cheers

[kato]

They will however be hopelessly outdated in AAW. Unless you can launch ESSM from the mk29 launchers ??
You can, it's been tested. However, e.g. for the Bremen, removing the entire forward deckhouse (with the Mk29) and replacing it with a low-range SAM VLS might be attractive. Say a 32-cell Quadrax VLS for Umkhonto or Crotale VT1 placed there (space-wise, should be no problem). Add some medium-range SSM, like used Exocet Block 2 or Gabriel III or something, or leave the space as "fitted-for", and this might be attractive cost-wise to a lot of navies. As a AAW vessel useless with that, but for pure self-defence with a modern SAM, it would make up for at least the removed RAM.
edit: and probably be cheaper than buying ESSM, or taking the hassle with US export restrictions.

[nero]

You can, it's been tested. However, e.g. for the Bremen, removing the entire forward deckhouse (with the Mk29) and replacing it with a low-range SAM VLS might be attractive. Say a 32-cell Quadrax VLS for Umkhonto or Crotale VT1 placed there (space-wise, should be no problem). Add some medium-range SSM, like used Exocet Block 2 or Gabriel III or something, or leave the space as "fitted-for", and this might be attractive cost-wise to a lot of navies. As a AAW vessel useless with that, but for pure self-defence with a modern SAM, it would make up for at least the removed RAM.
edit: and probably be cheaper than buying ESSM, or taking the hassle with US export restrictions.



THE new MURAENA system developed by HDW is interesting

Muraena is another innovative idea for littoral and counter terror warfare is proposed by HDW for submarines. The system is a hoistable, mast-mounted automatic gun designed specifically for submarines. HDW expects to complete the system development by 2007. The unique design enables the submarine to use lethal force without having to surface, therefore maintaining the element of surprise. The hoistable mast, designed by Gabler Maschinebau, is fitted wit a Mauser 30mm automatic gun (RMK 30x230) from Rheinmetall Waffe Munition (Mauser Werke) without having to surface. The gun can be operated from periscope depth, enabling the submarine to remain underwater and not expose itself to hostile small arms, RPG or missile fire. The gun is accommodated in the submarine's super structure, in a pressure-tight container and can be hoisted hydraulically like a snorkel. For a gun of this calibre to be installed on top of a hoistable mast, it is essential for it to be recoilless. The gun has already been tested on a light armored vehicle.


.

[kato]

THE new MURAENA system developed by HDW is interesting

Muraena is another innovative idea for littoral and counter terror warfare is proposed by HDW for submarines. The system is a hoistable, mast-mounted automatic gun designed specifically for submarines.

And completely useless for 99% of the tasks a submarine is supposed to do. With IDAS i at least see the purpose - defense against helos hunting you. Muraena has also been proposed for AA gun purposes (with a whopping range around 1.5 km only of course) when they were trying to find some use for it. Useless waste of space.

[contedicavour]

And completely useless for 99% of the tasks a submarine is supposed to do. With IDAS i at least see the purpose - defense against helos hunting you. Muraena has also been proposed for AA gun purposes (with a whopping range around 1.5 km only of course) when they were trying to find some use for it. Useless waste of space.

I agree that there aren't enough SSKs around for them to play a "patrol boat" role shooting with machine guns !? Patrolling missions close to shore should be left to surface ships and helicopters. The SSKs should be left to focus on ASW and anti-shipping. With increased autonomy (submerged) thanks to AIP even the need for short range SAMs is debatable.

cheers

[kato]

I agree that there aren't enough SSKs around for them to play a "patrol boat" role shooting with machine guns !?

I don't think Muraena could even enable a patrol boat role. It's sort of similar to a towed array, a separate torpedo-shaped body that is deployed to the surface, and from there then extends the gun above the water (... would also presumably not be possible in anything beyond sea state 2). I doubt you could "drag" that all that well, and it would force you into a stationary - albeit concealed - position when deployed, never a good thing for a sub.

IDAS is supposed to be multi-role, with a light anti-ship capability as well. It won't take up precious space in the sail however (since it would be quad-packed in a torpedo body canister), and the part that goes to the surface is not considered "retrieving-worthy" (since other than the missile itself that's just the fibre-optic cable).

[contedicavour]

I don't think Muraena could even enable a patrol boat role. It's sort of similar to a towed array, a separate torpedo-shaped body that is deployed to the surface, and from there then extends the gun above the water (... would also presumably not be possible in anything beyond sea state 2). I doubt you could "drag" that all that well, and it would force you into a stationary - albeit concealed - position when deployed, never a good thing for a sub.

IDAS is supposed to be multi-role, with a light anti-ship capability as well. It won't take up precious space in the sail however (since it would be quad-packed in a torpedo body canister), and the part that goes to the surface is not considered "retrieving-worthy" (since other than the missile itself that's just the fibre-optic cable).

Interesting. Still for anti-shipping I'd use a torpedo ;) and I wouldn't use a SSK against targets ashore.

cheers