German Navy

[Zoomer]

1. 8 F122s, 4, F123s and 4 (-1 cancelled) F124s will be replaced by 4 F125s, 6 (4+2, according to the article above) F126s and 6 (according to the other article above) F127s. So, like you said, the total number of ships won't change, right?

2. Do you know what is going on with the submarines? They will receive 2 T212C/Ds in 2032. I guess it will replace their 2 T212As that will be 30 years old by then. They will probably order 2 more in 2030, in order to replace the other 2 old T212As. But there are a couple of questions here. Germany offered leasing 1 or 2 T212As to Poland for their Orka program. Eventually the Poles went with the swedish offer. So, do the Germans even want submarines? On the one hand, they want to lease some of them and 2 years ago they didn't even have 1 operational sub. Even after the mid life refit, their subs are used for training purposes (i read this somewhere, but I don't have source atm). On the other hand, they wanted 8 submarines by 2020 (they only have 6).

I mean, considering how these programs are going (F125, T212), will they even replace 1 by 1 their surface units, on time?

 

[kato]

Can someone explain what is going on?
4 F125s will replace 8 F122s.
What will the 4 F126s (mks180) replace? The 4 F123s?

"Replacement" in the German Navy runs three-fold : organizationally, numbers-wise and capability-wise.

For K130, F125, MKS180, F127:

- Organizationally, K130 replaces P143 (2nd Missile Boat Squadron renamed 1st Corvette Squadron in 2006)
- Numbers-wise, K130 replace P143, with second batch in full.
- Capability-wise, K130 replaces missile boats and F122 (as patrol units).

Note: second batch will be integrated in the same squadron, .

- Organizationally, F125 replaces F122 (within 4th Frigate Squadron).
- Numbers-wise, F125 replace the first half of F122 numbers.
- Capability-wise, F125 replaces missile boats and F122 (as patrol units).

Note: P143A are not replaced numbers-wise.

- Organizationally, MKS180 will replace the P143A missile boats (7th Missile Boat Squadron deactivated 2016).
- Numbers-wise, MKS180 will provide replacement for the second half of F122 numbers, and with options for half of F123.
- Capability-wise, MKS180 replaces F123 (as ASW frigates).

Note: New squadron for MKS180 will slot into 2nd Flotilla, old squadron was in 1st Flotilla and partially reused there for Support Squadron (tenders).

- Organizationally, F127 would replace F124 and F123 (within 2nd Frigate Squadron).
- Numbers-wise, F127 would replace F124 and depending on MKS180 numbers either partially or fully replace F123.
- Capability-wise, F127 would replace F124 (as AAW frigates).

Note: Numbers tentatively announced as 6 units for F127, resulting in 14-16 frigates at that point in time; planning requirements call for 15.

 

[Zoomer]

Thanks for the exceptionally detailed answer kato! May Poseidon be with you
Any info about the submarine fleet would make me even happier!
And one last thing: Do you think the Germans will win the dutch submarine contract? Seems logical, considering the cooperation with the MKS 180.

 

[kato]

On the other hand, they wanted 8 submarines by 2020 (they only have 6).

Rotation factors for submarines in the German Navy optimize at multiples of four.

And one last thing: Do you think the Germans will win the dutch submarine contract?

The current (new) national defense strategy in the Netherlands emphasizes long-term local sourcing of supplies and support for the new submarines. TKMS offer of basically shifting a shipyard crew to the navy arsenal in Den Helder and building them there does not really meet that, and unlike their competitors they haven't really presented any plans to align support for the program with this.

From an industry politics side the Naval Group / Royal IHC bid would be the logical choice, especially considering this would stabilize Royal IHC after its recent government-supported recapitalization.

 

[Zoomer]

1. I don't get it. They want 8, but only have 6 atm. So, either they don't need 2 of them (maybe that's why they offered them for the polish Orka program) or they need 2 more asap. Indeed, they are planning to get 2 more. But in 2032! In 2035 though, their 4 older subs of the first batch will need a replacement. So, either they will never achieve the 8 sub goal or they don't really care about 2 of them. Because 4 are enough i suppose?

2. So why did they give the contract to the Dutch? Some people believe the Germans ignored their shipyards as a "punishment" for the F125 fiasco. Is this true?

 

[kato]

1. I don't get it. They want 8, but only have 6 atm. So, either they don't need 2 of them (maybe that's why they offered them for the polish Orka program) or they need 2 more asap. Indeed, they are planning to get 2 more. But in 2032! In 2035 though, their 4 older subs of the first batch will need a replacement. So, either they will never achieve the 8 sub goal or they don't really care about 2 of them. Because 4 are enough i suppose?

• Originally there were four (plus a number of older U206A). Plans were for a second batch of four to replace the U206A, while hoping for a third batch for a total of 12. Since the budget at the time was not sufficient for that they ordered two in 2006 and basically pushed back further procurement. Four further U206 were kept in service.
• The 2011 reorganization of the Bundeswehr lowered the number of the submarine force to six. As a consequence all U206 were immediately retired without replacement. Since the Navy still wants two more they wrote them into their own "future concept of the Navy" (like the whole Bundeswehr always has some multi-billion projects on the backburner in case money appears from somewhere).
• The main contention between 6 and 8 is the length of deployments.
  • 8 (2x4) are needed to maintain two simultaneous continuous deployments with units rotating.
  • 6 (1x4+0.5x4) are needed to maintain one continuous deployment and one simultaneous "immediate readiness" deployment up to 6 months in line with NATO requirements.
• Since there is no ongoing continuous deployment (for submarines) at the moment or for the foreseeable near future the continuous deployment can be scaled down to immediate readiness, thus freeing up two submarines.
• The 212CD procurement with Norway will maintain the existing number of six.

2. So why did they give the contract to the Dutch?

The contract was not "given to the Dutch", Damen is merely a general contractor in the deal and provides its design.

The ships will be built entirely on German shipyards owned by Lürssen. Of the multi-billion contract 80% stays in Germany, about 15% goes to France and 5% to other countries including the Netherlands.

 

[kato]

6 (4+2, according to the article above) F126s

P.S. on that article: The article has an entirely wrong basis.

The "10 billion Euro" is not for defence procurement of whatever the Bundeswehr wants. It is for procurement of projects throughout the federal government for which preferably framework contracts already exist and where either options can be called upon earlier or deliveries started earlier in order to provide investment into companies. Requirement is that this investment would be made in 2020 or 2021. Explicitly named are "digitalisation projects in administration, security procurement, defence procurement" in that order.

One example where the Bundeswehr may exercise such options are e.g. procurement of about 1500 not-yet-called-upon HX2 unprotected trucks for the army from Rheinmetall MAN which were slated as deliveries within a framework contract between 2017 and 2024 (900 out of 2400 bought yet). That one's worth 500 million in itself. There are a few other similar framework contract that i can see being exercised now, and which might come up to a low-billion Euro figure altogether.

I suspect a large amount of money might also flow towards BWI, the Bundeswehr's recently re-nationalized 5,000-man pseudo-"civilian" IT supplier. Examples there would be a follow-on to the Medical Service Digitalisation project which ends 2020, quite likely a well-funded starter project on cloud infrastructure and perhaps a wider buy of D-LBO Battle Management Systems (unlikely, currently planned IOC for VJTF 2023).

There may be some leeway with creative contracting - the Federal Police did that buying three COTS 86m OPVs in 2016 from the last similar stimulus package, which after delivery in 2019 they're now rebuilding from their regular budget. But exercising warship options for a contract not even started yet for delivery in 2030+ is really not what this project covers.

 

[Zoomer]

Thanks for the info kato!

Some more questions:

1. Is Naval Group proposing a Scorpene or a Barracuda variant for the dutch competition?

2. Why is Germany so obsessed with NATO and doesn't push for european defence integration? Especially in the Navy. For example, could choose a FREMM design for their F126s and Aster missiles for standardisation with Italy and France.

 

[kato]

Q1 should be in the Dutch Navy thread. Conventional Barracuda derivative confirmed last November, anyway.

As for Q2:

• At the time nothing would have stopped Naval Group or Fincantieri from bidding in the MKS180 tender with an appropriate design (which they don't have).
• Switching to SAAM or PAAMS would require a bit more than just switching out the VLS. It's also quite a bit higher-priced than staying with Mk41 and ESSM/SM-2. Cost issue might in the future of course change with F127 and BMD plans from a quick glance at SM-3 unit costs. On a side note on the lower end there's also significant mission overlap between Aster 15 and (German-produced) RAM Block II.

 

[Todjaeger]

As for Q2:

• At the time nothing would have stopped Naval Group or Fincantieri from bidding in the MKS180 tender with an appropriate design (which they don't have).
• Switching to SAAM or PAAMS would require a bit more than just switching out the VLS. It's also quite a bit higher-priced than staying with Mk41 and ESSM/SM-2. Cost issue might in the future of course change with F127 and BMD plans from a quick glance at SM-3 unit costs. On a side note on the lower end there's also significant mission overlap between Aster 15 and (German-produced) RAM Block II.

Also Germany is an ESSM consortium member, so I would imagine that there is some sort of German aerospace/industrial involvement, as opposed to 'just' importing either Aster 15 or Aster 30. Germany could, of course, switch which family of air defence missiles it fields, but it would need to make a deliberate decision to do so, as that would involve much more than 'just' changing the munitions in inventory. Due to the costs involved, there would need to be an advantage to Germany to make such a switch before it would happen,

 

[kato]

Also Germany is an ESSM consortium member, so I would imagine that there is some sort of German aerospace/industrial involvement, as opposed to 'just' importing either Aster 15 or Aster 30.

German company TDW GmbH builds the warheads for all ESSM missiles produced by Raytheon ESSM Co, including those bought by the US and other countries. TDW also - with regard to just surface-to-air activities - builds the warheads for RAM, CAMM/Sea Ceptor and Mistral (since 2005) as well as PAC-2 and PAC-3 LE. They wouldn't exactly go broke if Germany didn't buy ESSM. Small company though, annual turnover is only around 40 million.

TDW GmbH itself though is a subsidiary of the German branch of MBDA, which also builds and sells Aster through a joint venture of its French and Italian branches.

 

[Zoomer]

I think having one missile like the Aster 15 for all surface to air roles and adding boosters for your desirable range is the way to go. It greatly simplifies logistics (since the German Navy is not gonna fight anybody with F125s and F126s) although the Sylver VLS system needs a redesign (it needs quad-pack). Add your autocanons in stealth towers and your ship is undetectable too. You can't do that with SeaRAM.
Also, like you said, there is no problem with the Aster and TDW.

 

[StobieWan]

They could, but why negotiate a new commercial agreement and set up additional production facilities, then go to the expense of integrating a new missile into the inventory ? What benefits does this bring and do they outweigh the drawbacks ?

Right now, the workshare for Aster is settled so there won't be any additional commercial benefit,and all Aster missiles are produced centrally - the cost/benefit pieces don't line up as far as I can see.

 

[kato]

What benefits does this bring and do they outweigh the drawbacks ?

Especially considering one drawback is that you'd then need an additional weapon system onboard - for those functions RAM fills that Aster 15 doesn't.

RAM, in German defensive layering, is not just used as an anti-missile weapon, but can also be used in defensive "sector-clearing" of surface targets and small/slow air targets. That's why the default layout always includes 40+ RAM in ready-to-fire position, and why Germany retains the larger proper RAM launchers tied into the weapons management system as opposed to the autonomous SeaRAM solution.

While this function could be filled with other systems (Sea Spear comes to mind as filling pretty much that function), RAM has the benefit of being a single multi-mode missile with full fire-and-forget capability, minimal sensor integration requirement and small footprint onboard the ship.


I mentioned above with regard to anti-air missiles that the cost factor might swing towards Aster for F127 in the future. This is solely due to an anticipated BMD focus for F127. For simple Layer 2 ESSM Block 2 are considerably cheaper than Aster 15, for Layer 3 SM-2 Block IIIB roughly ties equal with Aster 30 Block 1. And realistically that's unlikely to change much.

 

[walter]

Bundestag approves budget MKS 180 (17/06/20)

Today, the budget committee of the German parliament approved the budget for the German MKS 180 frigates. This makes the contract the last step to be taken for the largest order ever for Damen and Thales.


Bondsdag keurt budget MKS 180 goed

(it's in Dutch)

So good news for Damen and Thales

 

[kato]

Today, the budget committee of the German parliament approved the budget for the German MKS 180 frigates.

However, the budget committee also passed a caveat: For all navy surface ship contracts the government has to report quarterly on which sub-contractors are involved to what extent.

With regard to MKS180 this is intended to serve as an overwatch on whether Damen fulfills its stated intention of keeping 80% of the investment in Germany and on whether Thales fulfills its stated intention of keeping 70% of their share within their German branch company.

From the article:

De totaalkosten van MKS 180 zijn begroot op 5,473 miljard euro incl BTW

This only includes the four ships as well as two mission modules for MIO, two mission modules for ASW and a simulator training center.

The armament (financially cleared), as well as additional mission modules (they'll need a couple more than that - not projected yet) is procured separately.

 

[StobieWan]

Especially considering one drawback is that you'd then need an additional weapon system onboard - for those functions RAM fills that Aster 15 doesn't.

RAM, in German defensive layering, is not just used as an anti-missile weapon, but can also be used in defensive "sector-clearing" of surface targets and small/slow air targets. That's why the default layout always includes 40+ RAM in ready-to-fire position, and why Germany retains the larger proper RAM launchers tied into the weapons management system as opposed to the autonomous SeaRAM solution.

While this function could be filled with other systems (Sea Spear comes to mind as filling pretty much that function), RAM has the benefit of being a single multi-mode missile with full fire-and-forget capability, minimal sensor integration requirement and small footprint onboard the ship.


I mentioned above with regard to anti-air missiles that the cost factor might swing towards Aster for F127 in the future. This is solely due to an anticipated BMD focus for F127. For simple Layer 2 ESSM Block 2 are considerably cheaper than Aster 15, for Layer 3 SM-2 Block IIIB roughly ties equal with Aster 30 Block 1. And realistically that's unlikely to change much.

I think Aster 15 is in a really uncomfortable place in the market- it's a full diameter missile which is effectively, Aster-30 without the booster - it can't be quad packed and the attraction of the other inner-layer missiles on the market like CAMM and ESSM to name a couple, is that you can increase your missile load out at the expense of range.

Aster-30 and onward I think looks great, although part of me tends to run with the "buy what the big dog in the yard uses" but Aster-15 just looks like an odd thing to buy and load in preference to something that quad packs. I guess there are some synergies from having one missile in two types in the inventory but I'd be struggling to justify loading vs ESSM , particularly with block 2 now being active.

 

[kato]

Aster 15 does have some advantages in rapid and agile low-altitude interception in anti-missile scenarios compared to ESSM.

Loading, at least in the French Navy, seems to be entirely dependent on VLS used.

 

[swerve]

Quantity vs quality. It looks to me as if some navies think that if a ship can carry enough Aster 15 to meet its needs, it's better to carry them than larger numbers of a missile which might not be good enough. Larger numbers are preferable if there's a threat of being overwhelmed by numbers of aircraft or missiles - as long as the larger numbers are of missiles capable of dealing with every likely threat. The balance between "Can it shoot down the most difficult hostile target?" & "Can we carry enough to shoot down all the enemies that might attack us?" can be difficult to decide.

The argument in favour of Aster 15 vs ESSM has therefore been that it's thought to be capable of shooting down some things which ESSM might not be able to stop. ESSM block 2 (I hate that way of naming new versions!) may change that, but Aster 15's been in service for almost 20 years now, since a few years before the original ESSM, let alone block 2. Hard to argue that users should have waited.

 

[kato]

The decision process is simple, at least as far as Germany currently is concerned:

a) we need a Layer 2 AAW weapon for MKS180 by about 2026.
b) the Layer 2 AAW weapons on our Mk41-equipped air defense frigates expire beginning in 2025.
c) as part of the NATO Seasparrow Consortium we co-signed development in 2015.

In this context it makes sense to procure ESSM Block II as the current default Layer 2 weapon for Mk41. Quadpack or anything like that does not enter the equation.

The decision process for F127 will be more interesting, think for a procurement in 15 years:

a) the previously used Layer 3 AAW weapon hasn't been in production for ages and is in the process of being phased out of spare parts supply.
b) the Layer 2 AAW weapons procured more recently will be good to use for another 5 years after the system we're planning on is introduced.

In this context other systems may get a look for the then new AAW frigates. If another system is chosen ESSM Block 2 can be concentrated for MKS180 supply, and provided necessary possibly be replaced in the next MLU of the ships.