Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Denmark Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Interesting article about the current state of The Royal Danish Navy
Schackleford    12/25/2006 6:29:27 AM
Printed in Jyllandsposten a few days ago by a naval historian, the article describes the state of our navy. My apologies to those contributors who do not speak read Danish. http://www.jp.dk/arkiv:aid=4147904
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Schackleford       12/25/2006 6:30:27 AM
Damned links....
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       12/27/2006 11:50:03 AM
He's right that the number of platforms are too low and that subs and territorial defense suffers. However, there is not the manpower around to man more. It should also be noted that the Navy is doing well with the resources available.
 
The decommisioning of the subs hurt, though. They would be expensive in procurement, but easy on manpower -  and provide a lot of what he percieve to be lost...
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       12/27/2006 2:04:19 PM
I couldn't disagree more.:
 
1. He does not mention the Thetis class frigates - which are combat ships dispite their classification as fisheries protection vessels.
2. The new "patrol" frigates are considerably more capable vessels than the Niels Iuel class.
3. The Absalon class is not only a replacement for the Falster-class minelayers, it is a far more flexible vessel.
4. The small vessels are abundant: They are in the naval Home Guard.
5. Mine warfare is probaly the largest issue in the Baltic - and discounting mine vessels as warships is beyond me.
6. The new arctic patrollers are immense different from the Adlek class
7. About gun caliber: There more ways to kill a cat, than blast it out.
 
It is true the navy is going through a transformation, and as it is moving away from pure coastal defence, there is nothing strange in increasing the size of the vessels.
Secondly the emphasis is on surveillance of the waters, which calls for more and especially lightly armed vessels.
 
I'm sorry; but the author has not understood ANYTHING.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    Submarines   12/27/2006 2:08:10 PM
I have elsewhere - many years ago - argued for the submarines.
The problem is that the decision to disband submarines as a weapon cannot be said to have been taken lightly.
I don't think we've been told anything near the whole truth - and their ability to operate in the Baltic.
 
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       12/27/2006 2:14:22 PM

As far as numbers are concerned he is right that numbers are too small. I disagree that you can compare with past numbers - and thhus I agree with you that capability matter moe than numbers - but numbers are getting really low. I would like the subs back - for long range patrol (north atlantic) and expeditionary tasks

Anyhow, we don't have the people to man numerous vessels.

addendum

Thetis can take care of themselves but are by no means first ratings - imv they lack speed, sensors and aspects of signature management to mention some shortcomings. The same goes for the cutter (Agdlek) replacements.

Home Guard vessels instead of missile vessels - not sure I agree.


 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    TAC II   12/27/2006 2:34:09 PM
Do You really belive the Russian Baltic Fleet will get into range of Danish waters in wartime - in its present state????
 
Quote    Reply

TAC II       12/27/2006 2:41:11 PM
You know I don't. But we'll have really, really few combatants in the future.

Do You really belive the Russian Baltic Fleet will get into range of Danish waters in wartime - in its present state????



 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       12/28/2006 8:42:26 AM
TAC:
 
Few in relation to what? The need, future needs, training, casualty replacement??
 
Thetis class weak in armament? In relation to what? To the opposition they are likely to meet? In relation to other frigates?
 
As to numbers: What really  counts in training are days at sea with the right equipment. We have little use for Flyvefisken-class that are beaching themselves by beer cans thrown overboard.
As for firepower: The units have typically been small and many due to the limitations of Danish waters - if your draught is 6 meters it is severly limited where you can sail.
Furthermore it doesn't matter to me if the ships use helicopters instead of guns. The Danish navy has always done things "wrong".
As to the new arctic patrollers, it think you shaould have a look at the text of the agreement behind the new defence arrangement: Special allocation: 25 more in "Frømandskorpset" - strangely enough just about the capacity of the rescue/assault boat. They should have been called L not P; but my contention is also that the Absalons should have been named M and not L (I can understand the Flyvefisken-class - it would be hell tochange pennant number constantly) and we will have to se if the new "patrollers" won't be called F - occationally they hit the right letter in the box.
 
What I consider far more exiting is the trend of operating on a higher command level: If the new Baltic nation (and to some extend Poland) are going to progress beyond mere anti-smuggling coastal patrol, their units need to be integrated under a proper fighting command. I think You should notice the new staff under SOK: Søværnets taktiske stab - true they might get some training sending out ships to keep bloodshed down in remote quartes; but my guess is that the true task is to prepare higher level operations in the North Atlantic and the Baltic - It will mean the Yanks on occation relinquish broadstripe commands at sea - which they hate - but that is the trend. And god help us to prevent them from mucking about in the Baltic and north of Iceland.
As to crew - I sincerely hope modern technology will allow a rationalisation of crew.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics