Welcome to DefenceTalk.com Forum!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

German Navy

Discussion in 'Navy & Maritime' started by gf0012-aust, Feb 14, 2017.

Share This Page

  1. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Have had issues with the submarine force (Which I gather is down to lack of spares stocked??) and now surface combatants.. Not a good time for German shipbuilding. Any idea what is going on there? With systems used these days and for a nation that designs and builds as many ships both civil and military as Germany I'm surprised such stuff ups could happen (Apparently over weight and has a list that cant yet be solved). Hell they have computer programs that can work that all out for you if you enter the correct details..... Best of luck t you guys.
     
  2. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,479
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Australia
    Computer programmes (I assume you mean ‘approved stability instrument’) can only ‘work that out’ if the underlying data is correct. The data comes from the measurement of the ship (including precise tank capacities and weights) combined with light ship verification and an inclining experiment. This should have been done before the ship when to sea. However, given the amount of kit that is added to these ships it could be a weight distribution issue of ‘mobile kit’.

    Noting this is a First of class vessel and has new systems some problems can be expected. I do find the list issue troubling as this should have been resolved. However, this is a press report and looking at the bollocks comments made in respect to the ‘shaft leak’ on the QE I plan to refrain from comment until more information is available.
     
    Volkodav and ngatimozart like this.
  3. vonnoobie

    vonnoobie Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2015
    Messages:
    868
    Likes Received:
    9
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Cheers for the clarifications, New things learnt today :) .

    And yep is fair to hold off, Does appear to be not uncommon for such things to take years at times to sort out but once thats done I'm sure she will be a very good ship.
     
  4. Volkodav

    Volkodav Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,575
    Likes Received:
    112
    Well Austal still haven't solved the list problem on the Armidales and that's a much simpler platform. I suspect some of the issues being encountered in Germany relate to the reduced building tempo and cost cutting eroding their knowledge and skill base.
     
  5. alexsa

    alexsa Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,479
    Likes Received:
    152
    Location:
    Australia
    Smaller platforms can be tricky as weight cock ups are harder to cater for.... but the inclining experiment should identify the underlying characteristics of the as built vessel in its light load condition (noting the initial inclining should have been done in that condition). Mobile weights and poor in service stability data can cause ongoing issue for vessels that are not equipped with ballast to correct the impact of poorly defined loads. Cargo ships can get away will ill defined weights (noting cargo declarations have been a work of fiction in the past) due to their ballast systems (noting incorrect weights does result in a whole bunch of other undesireabe impacts). Balls up the weight of a major item of kit on an ACPB (such as assuming you know the weight of the boats...... but not checking) and I suspect it will be difficult to correct.

    On the latter, this is speculation as I don’t have access to information on the ACPB issues.
     
  6. hauritz

    hauritz Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    40
    It seems so weird hearing about the problems being experienced by the German shipbuilding industry.

    The latest would seem to be the F-125.

    German Navy’s new state-of-the-art warship in trouble
    The Germans are getting a lot of bad press about this.

    Perhaps this is why the German's missed out on being shortlisted for SEA5000 and didn't even submit for the Canadian frigate program.
     
  7. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,042
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Possibly but the CSC tender structure along with Canada’s glacial procurement of military kit are more plausible reasons.
     
  8. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Germany
    They aren't really any new problems. The Navy is just refusing to take a semi-finished ship this time. The F-124 were only taken on condition of a free immediate refurbishing in the shipyard after commissioning, the K-130 got free upgrades to the tune of millions each to compensate for defects and the F-125 rejection of commissioning is due to a similar extend of non-functionality in the last ship commissioned - the A-702 AOR Bonn - which the Navy supposedly regrets taking over as they did.

    The defects cited are usually not in the ship itself btw but in subcontracted parts provided by the cheapest bidder.

    The higher weight and the inclining are within the range of design specs and won't be addressed in any way. There are some hints that there may be some attempt to get financial compensation out of it since the higher dryweight directly affects operating costs (fuel).

    The flameproof coating cited in particular is not a current problem; during construction (... around 2013, before the ship was launched) the coating was applied the wrong way and had to be scraped off and reapplied. Happens. In other countries too.

    The primary rejection issues supposedly are problems with the CMS and its integration both on sensor and effector side and primarily software-sided. Some minor issues supposedly persist in some secondary systems (food cooling, freshwater plants), but these would not have led to rejection in this way.
     
  9. ngatimozart

    ngatimozart Super Moderator Staff Member Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,892
    Likes Received:
    266
    Location:
    In the rum store
    ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems has been barred from bidding for the next generation of German naval frigates. This also affects Lurssen because they were in a partnership with ThyssenKrupp to bid and build the FFGs. It's ThyssenKrupp's history of cost over runs, build delays, accusations of bribery against it and problems with the lead ship of the F125 class that have the caused the German Defence Ministry's action in banning it.

    ThyssenKrupp blocked from warship tender
     
    Jezza and Cadredave like this.
  10. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Germany
    The fact that TKMS proposed a 4 billion EUR project when the budget was 3.5 billion also played a role.

    Lürssen remains in the run as they also partner up with Damen as a second contender in the same tender.
     
  11. John Fedup

    John Fedup Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2013
    Messages:
    3,042
    Likes Received:
    77
    Location:
    Vancouver and Toronto
    Is 4 billion € really out of line for four ships? The CSC will likely be in the 2 billion CDN range per ship (if we are lucky).
     
  12. hauritz

    hauritz Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    818
    Likes Received:
    40
    I was surprised that the MEKO 400 or a variant of the F-125 wasn't considered for Australia's future frigate.

    I am somewhat less surprised now.

    Obviously as far back as early last year Australia decided it wanted nothing to do with them.
     
  13. swerve

    swerve Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2006
    Messages:
    6,817
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Reading, Berkshire
    Depends on the ships, doesn't it? I presume that the Germany navy didn't pluck its numbers out of thin air.
     
  14. kato

    kato Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,003
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Germany
    Well, technically they did :D

    MKS180 was branded as design-to-cost, with originally a price set as a fixed "55% of F125 per unit". This was revised upwards to "the same as a F125, not including inflation" when modularity came into play in 2014, and was then revised when in 2015 the Navy broadened the mission, demanding basically a larger F125 plus VLS - that pushed it to "one third more than a F125, plus inflation".
    There was again a minor increase in 2017 when some changes in equipment were taken into account, coming to about 50 million per ship expected cost increase.

    Problem is that TKMS doesn't really do design-to-cost the way. They pluck a number that's broadly in the range - at the upper end of course - and throw it at the customer, relying on their lobbying at work. What they tried here basically was that the Navy had pinned the project as a 4 billion project in early 2017. And they went for that number. Except that the Navy number was inclusive of sales tax. TKMS' number of course wasn't, but hey, we could always claim that no one ever mentioned tax. And that VAT's that 500 million difference.
     
    swerve likes this.
  15. Systems Adict

    Systems Adict Defense Professional Verified Defense Pro

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2006
    Messages:
    917
    Likes Received:
    24
    StingrayOZ likes this.
  16. Todjaeger

    Todjaeger Potstirrer

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Messages:
    4,441
    Likes Received:
    270
    Location:
    not in New England anymore...
    I am not in a position to know, but I do wonder whether the SM-2 missile just mis-fired, or if there was also a failure on the part of the Mk 41 VLS to contain the damage. If anyone who knows more about how the VLS is supposed to function in the event of a catastrophic missile launch failure could look at the images and comment, I would appreciate it.
     
  17. StingrayOZ

    StingrayOZ Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2007
    Messages:
    2,932
    Likes Received:
    70
    Location:
    Sydney
    Looks like it exploded as it was coming out so some of the missile would have been out of the VLS.. So it exploded out across the deck, but the part that was still in the vls exploded mostly upward.

     
  18. FORBIN

    FORBIN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2018
    Messages:
    50
    Likes Received:
    20
    Location:
    FRANCE
    Württemberg F125 class
    Württemberg-class (F125) class frigat.jpg Württemberg-class (F125) class frigat - 2.jpg