First Launch

Yes, this has already popped up on a number of forums; i'm summarizing and extending a bit here.

Last week, IDAS was test-fired for the first time from a submarine.

The German submarine U33 launched the missile while submerged from a torpedo tube, which then unfolded its wings, started the rocket motor and surfaced to go into a controlled flight. After 1500 meters flight the missile picked up the signature of a target drone flying nearby, and on confirmation by the controlling WSO successfully intercepted and destroyed it.

IDAS is the first system worldwide that can maintain fibre-optic guidance while breaking through the surface. Introduction of the missile is planned for around 2014.

Unlike a number of other experimental systems, the missile does not employ a real autonomous seeker of its own; instead, it is "interactive". This means it has an IR sensor, whose image is piped through the fibre-optic cable to the controlling submarine. The submarine's staff and computers evaluate the picture received, and can control the missile based on this.

Also unlike other sub-launched missile systems, IDAS does not employ a container underwater. The missile is directly soft-launched from a torpedo tube (quad-packed in a 21-inch tube), activating its own rocket motor while still underwater. This - in theory - even gives it something of a "stealthing" capability, as the missile would not necessarily have to surface near the submarine. With a mission range stated somewhere around 12 nm (due to the small size of the missile) for standard missions, there are limits to that of course.

IDAS is intended to provide submerged submarines with a short-range fibre-optic guided all-aspect missile for surface, air and land targets. Through the above sensor/cable instead of an autonomous seeker, the missile could also to a limited extent be used as a recon drone surveying the theater before destroying a target found, allowing targets of opportunity, in-flight target reprioritization or mission termination.

The US Navy has called the IDAS development - and in particular potential future proliferation - "dangerous", as it gives submerged submarines an active counter to airborne ASW assets.

Germany already had a similar system planned back in the 90s - Triton, derived from the Polyphem fibre-optic missile. Both Polyphem and Triton died about 5 years ago, with Triton never making it off the drawing boards. That IDAS is now actually being tested like this spells some better fortune for this time around.

Basis See Conference, Pt5 : Industry Implementations

Speeches by:
Kai Horten : ATLAS ELEKTRONIK
Dirk Malgowski : Surface Ship Division, TKMS
Hermann J. Janssen : NAVTEC CONSULT

A number of more or less - rather less - solid proposals from the industry, to finalize this short series of posts.

"Meko Multirole Auxiliary"

TKMS offers this concept "for open discussion in MoD", not as "JSS proposal". Arguably, multi-role/mixed-capability ships with dual amphibious/logistics roles have been gaining market share lately. Examples given are the LPD for Portugal, LHD for South Africa or Canada's JSS.
Externally, the proposal looks remarkably close to the LHD offered by TKMS in the South African tender, i.e. the MHD150.

The Meko Multirole Auxiliary takes Nolting's suggestion of modularization, by offering a triple-role ship with multi-mission modules - TKMS suggests a role change would be possible "within 48 hours", and the modules would use "already introduced standard systems". The three roles to be assumed by this ship would be RAS, LHD and sealift.

• - RAS role: 6,440t fuel, 600t cargo including ammunition, 3 helos
• - LHD role: 750 troops, 650 lm, 870t cargo, 440t fuel, 14 helos
• - Sealift role: 2,500 lm, 500t fuel, 2,500t dry cargo

Such a role change looks rather hefty - though, especially regarding this mix, there's already a decade of experience in the Bundeswehr with the A310 MRTT, which also uses a palletized module system to switch from transport to tanker. A ship of this size would be a far larger application of this of course.


"Trans Sea Lifter"

Another, entirely different concept is proposed by consulting company NAVTEC CONSULT. It proposes a very large system for the Basis See application sealift/transport in a modular framework.

Trans Sea Lifter would be a large SWATH ship. Multiple modules would be carried forward of superstructure. The dimensions are implied with a beam of around 50-60 meters, length in the example with three modules seems to be around 150-180 meters.

The loaded modules would essentially be FloFlo swimming sub-units. Module examples given would be e.g. lighter transport, dry cargo, command, armament.

A number of examples for application are given:

• - transport modules, which themselves can be submerged for FloFlo (for transport and landing operations with lighters and LCUs/LCACs)
• - multiple low-draft swimming base/support modules that can be brought into disaster areas and operate there independantly
• - mothership/tender role in CSW operations to transport and supply small littoral combat surface units or submarines
• - command/medical/logistics role in supporting land forces by using specialized modules for these applications
  
• - modular system for air/surface theater warfare, including protective armament for entire Basis See task force

Especially the last one seems rather far-fetched. According to Janssen, it's only in the conception phase yet, primarily for commercial applications.

Lead from Sea

A number of "Lead from Sea" experiments with command-facility frigates have been going on for the past two years, and are being continued. The positive aspect of this is obvious: It's a cheap, simple solution.
These experiments are primarily intended for small footprint operations; an example situation from last year was leading land units from a F123 frigate to evacuate 50 civilians from a coastal nation.

Horten sees current potential as "Lead from Sea" platforms in those Bundeswehr ships that already have command facilities - the F123 and F124 frigates, the EGV AORs, and the A404 tenders (which house the staff of their squadrons).

In the near future, in particular F125 shows good promise of furthering the approach, as the new CMS being developed by ATLAS for it will be capable of integrating full air/surface awareness for such command facilities; as a first, there'll also be the possibility of integrating AWACS and DCRC into the overall picture through Link 16 interfaces.

ATLAS proposes a containerized proving concept, to be mounted aboard an EGV. The EGV currently possesses basic C2 facilities and Link 11 datalinks; the containerized system would add a Link 16 datalink, upgrade the Link 11, add a air/surface surveillance radar, and add a standard Army C2 system (as has been done in the frigate experiments).

ATLAS sees a number of potential synergy effects for future "Lead from Sea" systems by integrating current more or less experimental software offered by them; such as the ADLER interface that will be used on F125 to tie the 127mm gun into the Army Artillery C3 systems, the MiLiPos protocol integration system that allows exchanging data between different-protocol (Navy, Army, Airforce) command systems via Link 16, or the LexxWar asymmetric combat system that was used in trials last year.

Basis See Conference, Pt4 : Sealift Concepts

Speaches by:
Rüdiger Kloevekorn : Steria Mummert Consulting
Christian Eckel : Surface Ship Division, TKMS

Two speaches that deal with the sealift options available to Germany. Kloevekorn mostly talks about GGSS, Eckel presents some options on GMSV.

As a short introduction: The current system for GGSS used by the Bundeswehr is the ARK contract jointly with Denmark. Under ARK, four RoRo ships are under pre-charter contracts and available as needed to the two nations with a pre-fixed cost limit. However, the ARK contract will end in 2011.

The Bundeswehr has hence looked into 2012+ options for sealift, and Steria Mummert Consulting, along with two other companies, has drafted a study for this at the request of the Bundeswehr.

Some results from this study are presented by Kloevekorn at this conference.

The study takes as its basis a "reasonable" maximum usage of sea transport; for Germany, that means concurrent transport for three different operations in a 30-day timeframe. The three scenarios looked into were apparently a NATO NRF operation, a Military Evacuation Operation, and the rotation of a peace-keeping contingent. The equipment requirements for these operations were given by the Bundeswehr.

Based upon this, an operational need was worked out, with a variation due to the possibility of using different European ports in different distances to the mission theaters - in particular with NRF a definitive option. Effectively, the Bundeswehr needs between 8000 and 13500 lanemeters RoRo sealift (3-5 ships with 2500-3000 lanemeters), plus 1200 TEU for the NRF operation and 70 TEU for the rotation.

As part of the study, a number of options are explored. The container transport would be a case for commercial transport - regular transport lines for the (long pre-planned) rotation operation, and a chartered container transport for the NRF operation.

For the sealift, not surprisingly, a continuation of ARK is suggested. It is concluded that an ARK transport - calling in all pre-contracted ships for 30 days - has similar costs to a commercial charter option. However, ARK adds the security of having the ships available as needed, and provides an upper cost limit. It's suggested that potentially a third German ship should be added to ARK, bringing the total to five ships. Additionally, a pre-charter option for two similar-sized RoRos is suggested to provide an extra 5000 lm, and the formation of a government or Bundeswehr agency that would secure long-term pre-charter contracts (to avoid costly short-term charter) is recommended.

Two alternatives are given. The first would be the option that the Royal Navy took - building (5) ships for the Bundeswehr itself, and then chartering them out through a public-private subcompany to increase cost effectiveness. The second alternative is a purely German version of ARK, implemented together with the German industry (an option if Denmark bows out of ARK, unlikely).

Eckel, a board member of the Surface Ship Division of TKMS, looks into GSMV primarily. GGSS is well-secured through ARK. GMSV is a clear capability lack, and the already noticed option of GMSV providing a shuttle service between a seabourne logistics base and land forces is also mentioned by him.

He sees three potential options for GMSV. The first one is, rather simply, international pooling - i.e. using Allied assets, or joint GMSV operation with Allies. The second option is a domestic design, for which TKMS offers their "innovative system engineering model" of course.

The third option is a bit more interesting - piggybacking on foreign projects. Of course TKMS isn't exactly happy about this option. However, he goes to the extent of naming examples that Germany could hop into - i.e. the French Mistral, the rather widespread Schelde Enforcer, and the Canadian JSS.

The selection of these in particular is somewhat interesting - i'd personally suspect the following reasons: Mistral to appease the government's idea of a "French-German motor" in Europe; Schelde Enforcer because those would at least provide construction contracts for the German industry; and the Canadian JSS because TKMS is already involved in that.

Part 5, the final part, will delve into GMSV a bit further, with some proposals.

Basis See Conference, Pt3 : The Other Services

Speaches by:
Brig-Gen. Markus Kneip : Army C4I/CD&E Staff Division Leader; 2006 commander of ISAF Regional Command North
Brig-Gen. Jochen Both : Airforce C4I/CD&E Staff Division Leader
Brig-Gen. Heinrich Geppert : General of Future Development of the Joint Support Service (SKB)
Col.(Med) Bernd Mattiesen : Medical Service CD&E Staff Branch Leader

Now for the other side. The other four branches of the Bundeswehr get to present their view of Basis See too.

Kneip levels some criticism at the concept. The Navy has a level of ambition of leading up to 1000 ground soldiers from a Basis See command center for example; Kneip thinks that's way too much ambition. He also criticizes the basic issue of Supporting and Supported Commander - in his opinion, the Army commander of the ground troops should in almost all situations be the Supported Commander, with the Navy commander taking a back seat.

However, in his opinion, Basis See still offers a flexible instrument for short missions. Realistic missions named by him are in particular evacuation, extraction, and early entry. Basis See, in his opinion, is inefficient when land bases are operated in parallel.

The airforce sees limited application for the "Lead from Sea" concept of Basis See. There's particular potential for strategic Reach Back for Airforce assets, i.e. relaying tactical information between in-theater airborne assets and strategic C4ISTAR assets. Other applications are seen for example in limited theater C2 e.g. in Evacuation Operations, however a more widely applied maritime C2 infrastructure is seen as not necessary for the airforce, which would use land bases anyway.

Geppert doesn't show any criticism at all; he sees a demand for integration of the Joint Support Service's assets though, i.e. for "Lead from Sea" in particular interfaces to Military Intelligence and the Strategic Reconnaissance Command.

GMSV, the amphibious component, is similarly disputed. The Airforce of course thinks that such a component is not needed in an allied framework, since the Airforce would be the primary supplier of strategic and tactical transport. Geppert, however, sees GMSV as "reasonable", as long as the cost/effect factors are evaluated beforehand.

GGSS, the sealift component, is not in question. Both airforce and SKB think it's necessary and important, especially for logistics.

Mattiesen expands a bit on the medical side of Basis See. For him, the medical chain is important, and navy components of this chain - such as a sea-based hospital - need to have relay capability to land-based and home-based assets worked out. For the Medical Branch, their navy components - such as the MERZ containerized hospital onboard the EGVs - are primarily useful in early entry and similar missions. The primary component for the Medical Branch for longer missions however is StratAirMedEvac by their excellently-equipped A310 MedEvacs.

There is only a limited possibility for the airforce to base its assets on navy platforms. Examples named by Both there are primarily CSAR in Special Operation, but of course also specialized MedEvac helicopters.

The Joint Support Service sees the Basis See concept as "supportable" with their own forces - these would be e.g. logistics, military police, military intelligence etc. The Joint Support Service according to Geppert has apparently already started an internal evaluation of how to fit force packages to Basis See in comparison to the current land-based approach.

Part 4 will present a sealift study done for the Bundeswehr.