Scenario: how would you upgrade German Navy?

As long as I know 40km+.

Mabe Kato knows more.

"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.

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

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.

Waylander said:

- 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.

Click to expand...

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.

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?
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.

Waylander said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

- 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

- 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.

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

- I am not even sure were it is planned to use the Fennek as FAO and were the Puma?

Click to expand...

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).

Waylander said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

Waylander said:

...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.....

Click to expand...

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.

Big-E said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

kato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 .

Muraena

.

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


.

kato said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

.


what about frigates ??

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



.

harryriedl said:

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 .

Click to expand...

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.

Waylander said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Big-E said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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