German Navy

[Falstaff]

You could fit a PicoSAR radar (already flown on it) & an EO sensor (ditto) within a 25kg limit.

Now look at that. I wasn't even aware a radar this size and weight existed. However, at just over 10km range and with the limited endurance of the S 100, it would probably be of no use regarding e.g. OTH targeting for the fancy RBS-15s.
As I see it, the problem is, a CAMCOPTER is useful for missions like we picked something up, go there and give us a picture of what's happening.
What we'd need as well is something like go to a specified patrol area near the edge of our shipboprne sensor footprint, stay on station for several hours, privide sensor data and OTH targeting, or even, in the future, attack with appropriate means (e.g. gun pod or smart 70mm rocket).
I guess if we bought S 100 or the likes due to cost reasons we'd have to live with them for quite some time.

BTW, what MALE VTOL UAVs are under consideration?

I'd like to know, too, please. Can't find that bloody article anymore.

And the hangars on the K130 definitely fit something bigger than two S100 after all.

Would they be spacious enough to house something like the Firescout or Hummingbird?

 

[kato]

Hangar door is about 2 x 2 meters as far as i can discern. Hence something halfway between CamCopter and Firescout (which would be too big, yes).

What should be considered is that the VTOL component of SAATEG is only considered the second step of the project. It will be tackled when an initial amount of MALE UAVs are procured (ie Predator B or Heron TP, starting end of next year or so). After there are a handful MALE UAV, a VTOL UAV will be selected and a similar small amount procured. Full-scale procurement of either selected system isn't planned for a couple years - especially as BWB L34 (the project group for UAVs) wants to keep the door open for a European Advanced UAV project, whose capabilities might overlap, especially with the MALE UAV.

 

[swerve]

Now look at that. I wasn't even aware a radar this size and weight existed. However, at just over 10km range and with the limited endurance of the S 100, it would probably be of no use regarding e.g. OTH targeting for the fancy RBS-15s.
As I see it, the problem is, a CAMCOPTER is useful for missions like we picked something up, go there and give us a picture of what's happening.
What we'd need as well is something like go to a specified patrol area near the edge of our shipboprne sensor footprint, stay on station for several hours, privide sensor data and OTH targeting, or even, in the future, attack with appropriate means (e.g. gun pod or smart 70mm rocket).
I guess if we bought S 100 or the likes due to cost reasons we'd have to live with them for quite some time.

All agreed. I don't suggest it as an alternative to a bigger UAV, but a gap-filler, to provide a limited capacity (e.g. for pirate-hunting), as you describe, pending the purchase of something better. Only buy the minimum, & either pass them on to the coastguard or whoever, or keep them to supplement the main UAVs, when they enter service.

Yes, the PicoSAR looks like quite a neat piece of equipment. An AESA synthetic-aperture radar weighing 10 kg - nice for smallish UAVs, eh? Selex is marketing it for UAVs & light helicopters, I believe.

But back to the German navy - what's the news on a 3rd Berlin-class?

[Edit]
Would the EADS Orka-1200 fit the hangar? Brochure

 

[Falstaff]

.
But back to the German navy - what's the news on a 3rd Berlin-class?

Well, it's to be dealt with by the budget committee next wednesday (dec. 17th) and it will most probably pass without major problems as the Marine is very satisfied with their EGVs.
Astonishingly the price tag has risen to 350 million € from a 130 million € for each of the first two ships. There are some major changes to the design regarding electronics and propulsion, and IIRC an enhanced helicopter operations capability. Kato will know more about this. But 350 million, that's a lot of money.
Apparently the German shipbuilders refused to bid for the order competing with each other. They wanted to bid as a consortium from the beginning.

 

[kato]

Capacity for third helo iirc (enlarged hangar?), and helo guidance systems that the other two are supposed to receive whenever someone prioritizes the funding for them (read: never).
All other changes are pretty much only to solve problems that have occured with the design in the first two units. That includes the propulsion system, iirc they found out that those commercial diesels aren't all they're cracked up to be.

swerve: the Orka-1200 is as wide and long as a Firescout - and almost twice as high.

 

[swerve]

swerve: the Orka-1200 is as wide and long as a Firescout - and almost twice as high.

Are you sure? The quoted height is clearly wrong. It's well over twice the height of the Cabri G2 on which Orka 1200 is based, which is quoted as 2.37 metres - and as you can see from this picture, there's no reason to doubt that. Compare with this picture of the Orka 1200 and you see that it's the same size. The post with information on is a useful reference, since the text on it should be near eye height. If we use the Cabri height, & accept the other numbers, then we find that the Orka 1200 is somewhat smaller in every dimension than the Firescout. I wondered if it was enough smaller to fit.

Orka-1200 Firescout
Length- airframe: 6.22m
Blades folded: 7.0m
Rotor diameter: 7.2m 8.4m
Height: (2.37m) 2.9m
Max T/O weight: 680 kg 1160 kg

I suspect the quoted height of 5.4m for the Orka 1200 is a misprint, & should be 2.4m. The lengths are probably on the same basis.

 

[kato]

Well if they could shave off half a meter in height (minimize landing gear? ... that radar dome would be in the way though), it would probably be about ideal.

That's about the dimensions they're looking for in a VTOL UAV though.

 

[swerve]

Then AFAIK there's nothing on the market that fits, except the much smaller models (e.g. Camcopter, Skeldar, Sharc) which are stated not to meet the requirement. Oops! Bad planning?

That takes us back to where I started: better have something than nothing, until you can (years from now, when it's been designed & built) get something that both fits and does what's wanted.

 

[kato]

Nah, the planning is fine - there was originally supposed to be a design handed out to the industry to develop specifically for the K130. Back in 1998, when K130 was approved. This drone design funding however was part of the big round of projects scrapped from K130 (along with e.g. also Polyphem). Now they've decided they want that capability after all, and are looking around the market first of course, instead of issuing a tendering process specifically for their requirements.

 

[MConrads]

Hi,

the real question (no one could yet answer me) is not how large the hangar doors are but how large the hangar itself is. Someone involved in the testing of Camcopter said, that the hangar easily accommodated two drones and the command & control hardware. But that doesn´t really say anything.

One has to remember that the K130 was designed to house two SEAMOS drones (basically modern day DASH drones).

SPECIFICATIONS:
body length : 2.8 metres
body width: 1.5 metres
height: 2.5 metres
empty weight: 610 kg
payload maximum weight: 140 kg
maximum take-off weight: 1,100 kg
cruising speed: 150 km/hour
ceiling: 4,000 metres
endurance: in excess of 4 hours

With a height of 2.5 m these would not have fit through the installed hangar doors as well. At least according to these Thales CGIs, the originally envisioned hangar doors were much larger. My guess is that they simply weren´t installed for cost reasons (same as the bow thruster) but can be added later.

Still if someone knows anything about the hangar size I would greatly appreciate that.

Regards.

 

[Falstaff]

As expected, the budget committee has approved 330 bln € for the acquisition of a 3rd EVG yesterday.
I hope we won't see the usual over-budget and over-time problems in this rather simple piece of engineering and building, given it's only a modestly evolved design.

 

[kato]

... million, not billion. Up from 150 ea for the first two iirc.

As for over-budget, note that the BWB pretty much only signs fixed-price contracts anymore. With stiff requirements regarding delivery, punishments for breaking etc. They already got a pretty good deal out of the K130 contract due to using that, with the yard forced to refit the corvettes for free with extra equipment including bow thrusters.

 

[Falstaff]

... million, not billion.

Ermm... I certainly wrote this intentionally for reasons I can't reveal for some reasons. Cough!

Even with contracts like these there are some things that can go wrong. I just hope they will make it in time and on budget and not say a year before delievery that they need to renegotiate. You know what I'm referring to. Although you're right, the risk mainly is with the manufacturers.

 

[Onkel]

I´d like to know something more about the "MSK-Plattforms". I know they´re former Minehunters but I don´t know what was changed apart from removal of the Minehunting-equipment. Does anybody know how they´re meant to be used?

 

[MarcH]

German Frigate Rheinland-Pfalz defends freighter - 9 pirates arrested.
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/0,1518,611098,00.html

 

[kato]

I´d like to know something more about the "MSK-Plattforms". I know they´re former Minehunters but I don´t know what was changed apart from removal of the Minehunting-equipment. Does anybody know how they´re meant to be used?

The "Type 332A" ships afaik only had some sort of planning/support room and equipment installed in the drone hangar, with an easy way to convert them back to their original purpose. They also carry a 14-men "force protection squad" of the MSK, and typically temporarily mount their heavier equipment (such as a 40mm GMG).
The ships are meant to provide a sea-side protection unit to harbours (especially foreign ones), i.e. a mobile unit from which inspection boats can be launched while giving them fire support, as well as to serve as a protection unit for heavier navy units entering or exiting a harbour (and hence not necessarily being at full defensive readiness). At least in exercises so far, both the above things have been trained.

I suspect that choosing MCMV hulls for the role was done quite deliberately; for the tasks above, especially inspections both in harbour and outside (in the future also using drones derived from MCM drones), as well as possible underwater EOD tasks, the system is of course suited best. The ships still carry their mine-hunting sonar and the basic drone gear, just no drones.

 

[Spacearrow99]

So, the Deutsche Marine will procure the following ships.

A first batch of 4 K125 frigates
6 medium surface combat ships the 131 corvettes
2 Joint Support Ships
A 3rd Berlin class replenishment ship
A new project the multi mission ship
2 more U212A class SSKs

 

[kato]

SSKs: building
F125: ordered
AOR: ordered

everything else nothing fixed down.

 

[kato]

Future Planned German Navy Layout according to the "Navy Target Structure 2025+"
(ZVM 2025+)

Taskforce Intervention Ops:
- 5 FF/FS, 2 SSK, 2 JSS 400, 1 EGV, 2 MZES, 1 Tanker, (3 MPA), (MPE), (SOTG)

Taskforce Stabilization Ops:
- 6 FF/FS, 1 SSK, 3 MCMV, 1 EGV, 1 MZES, 1 Tanker, (3 MPA), (MPE)

These taskforces are what the German Navy wants to field at any time - i.e. without the ships assigned to other tasks or in maintenance. Intervention Ops are limited to a 6-month deployment, Stabilization Ops need to be kept up indefinitely. As a result, both have differing "rotation factors", i.e. numbers of ships required to maintain the above LoA.

Note: The Stabilization Taskforce can be split for two parallel operations.

Rotation factors are named as:
- surface, F125 : 2.5 for stabilization
- surface, all other : 1.5 for intervention, 3.0 for stabilization
- submarines : 2.0 for intervention, 4.0 for stabilization

Now for the fun:

In a rather clever move (think budget decisions), the document does not apply the rotation factors itself. Instead it only gives an indication ("more", "less" etc) in comparison to the 2008 fleet numbers.

But if we calculate it ourselves:

With Rotation Factors applied:
Intervention - 7.5 FF/FS, 4 SSK, 3 JSS 400, 1.5 EGV, 3 MZES, 1.5 Tanker
Stabilization - 17.2 FF/FS, 4 SSK, 9 MCMV, 3 EGV, 3 MZES, 3 Tanker

(note: 4 F125 = 1.6 FF/FS in taskforce with factor 2.5, other 4.4 ships with factor 3.0 => results in 17.2 total)

Combined OOB: 24.7 FF/FS, 8 SSK, 9 MCMV, 3 JSS 400, 6 MZES, 4.5 EGV, 4.5 Tanker

This obviously is a maximum approach. Some playing with the rotation factors already gets at least the combat ships in line with the currently planned numbers - 22 FF/FS, 6 SSK. But the approach to the support units is a rather vast increase compared to current orders.

Additionally, a number of 60 onboard helicopters (up from 43 current) and 25 surveillance drones is explicitly called for in the document, as well as three ELINT ships. There is no explicit rotation factor for the MPA, but the document indicates that more than the current 8 will be needed to maintain the above LoA - applying the same factor as for surface vessels results in 13.5 MPA needed.

---

Notation as used by ZVM 2025+:

FF (frigate) by German dictum denotes a surface unit with 3D warfare capability and helos.
FS (corvette) by German dictum denotes a surface unit with 2D warfare capability and VTOL drones.
SSK (submarine) is equivalent to a Type 212A plus potential land attack capability (including with tactical missiles!)
JSS 400 (joint support ship) is a LPD-/LHD-type amphibious ship transporting 400 troops
MZES (multipurpose ship) is a small LSL-like vessel* with primary supply and MCM function
EGV (taskforce supply ship) is a Berlin-class AOR.
MPA (maritime patrol aircraft) is a MPA or MMA and will receive naval strike functionality**.
MPE (maritime protection element) means naval infantry (MSK). May include "guard vessels" similar to the function the Type 332A fill now.
SOTG (special operations taskgroup) should be obvious.
Tankers (obvious) may receive additional capabilities, such as modular container space and helo deck.

*- alternative possibilities: either a ("small") ship with a docking well, a semi-submersible FloFlo transport or a large transport ship with heavy duty cranes. MZES is supposed to transport and operationally deploy LCUs and 150-ton MCM drones, as well as helicopters, and would be used as a transport backup to JSS 400. MZES will also take over some mainline MCM duties from the MCMV, in particular overseas.

**- after Kormoran 2 on Tornado is out of service; until then, liaison with airforce to provide airborne naval strike capability for intervention forces.

 

[kato]

Let's go for some more numbers cracking...

We know from the above that the German Navy wants 24.7 FF/FS.

Scenario 1 (the cheap option):

• Assumption: Stabilization forces are assigned a single FF to take care of 3D capability.
• Assumption: Intervention forces are assigned mostly FF
• Resulting forces:
  • Stabilization : 6 ships : 1.6 F125, 1.0 FF, 3.4 FS
  • Intervention : 5 ships : 4.0 FF, 1.0 FS
• Required OOB : 9 FF, 4 F125, 11.7 FS
• Additional Planning : +2.0 FF, +0.7 FS (compared to current OOB)

Scenario 2 (the scaled option):

• Assumption: Stabilization forces are assigned two FF to take care of 3D capability.
• Assumption: Corvettes stay similar to planning
• Resulting forces:
  • Stabilization : 6 ships : 1.6 F125, 2.0 FF, 2.4 FS
  • Intervention : 5 ships : 3.0 FF, 2.0 FS
• Required OOB : 10.5 FF, 4 F125, 10.2 FS
• Additional Planning : +3.5 FF, -0.8 FS (compared to current OOB)

Scenario 3 (the high-intensity option):

• Assumption: Intervention forces only run FF
• Assumption: Stabilization forces receive one FF
• Resulting forces:
  • Stabilization : 6 ships : 1.6 F125, 1.0 FF, 3.4 FS
  • Intervention : 5 ships : 5.0 FF
• Required OOB : 10.5 FF, 4 F125, 10.2 FS
• Additional Planning : +3.5 FF, -0.8 FS (compared to current OOB)

Observations:
- In either of the above 3 scenarios, the 11 corvettes that the current planning is procuring will be about "just right" with some extra air in all but the first.
- In Scenario 1 we'll probably have to finetune the rotation factor for K131 a bit (doable).
- In either of the above 3 scenarios, we see a notable or significant increase in frigates

My personal opinion is that the Navy is hoping for a 6- to 8-ship F123 successor program. The first F123 will be about 30 years old in 2025. With that in mind, it's extremely probably that for a post-2025 layout, the Navy will be playing with a F123 successor. Presumably they'll cite that they lost 4 frigates with the F122->F125 succession.

Edit: sidenote - the list tag isn't working for me?