# Absalon Loading Pictures



## Mr_Bund (9 Mar 2006)

I found some pictures of the Absalon trial loading of vehicles ( inc Leo2A5) and I thought they may be of some interest.


----------



## Mr_Bund (9 Mar 2006)

Sorry....


----------



## cobbler (10 Mar 2006)

Nice pictures 

The Absalon looks like a great versatile ship design, perfect for small navies like for example NZ who need REAL jack-of-all-trades ships. If the timing was right NZ would probably have been well advised to have gone for 3 or 4 of these babies rather than 2 baseline Anzac's and 1 MRV.
There would probably be a requirment for them in mid-sized navies too.

I like it.

Full marks to the Danes!


----------



## BEN 621 (20 Mar 2006)

After searching & reading more about the Absalon class, this looks like class of ship Canada needs.

1. It has a Command & Control capability
2. It seems to be of the size & capability Canada needs - ie the ability to carry troops for NEO-type ops, land a task force for an East Timor-sized operation, support JTF2/CSOR, etc.
3. Well armed, and with the ability to operate large helicopters, and land troops (although no landing capability for vehicles)

It seems the Danes are being realistic & practical, and have developed a well thought-out ship.

I have this sneaking suspicion that Hillier's BHS/JSS is either going to never happen, or will become this money pit that will be a jack of all trades and master of none, that will have serious shortcomings, along with a ridiculous price tag.

Any one have any thoughts/comments on the Absalon class?


----------



## BEN 621 (20 Mar 2006)

more info/specs on the L16 Absalon class

137.6 m long, 6,300 tons displacement
9,000 naut mile range, 23 knots service speed
100 crew, total capacity for 300
900 lane metres of vehicle storage
Roll-on/Roll-off capability
2x LCP (landing craft - personnel)
2x EH-101 type helicopters
1x 127mm gun, Sea Sparrow, Harpoon, CIWS


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

BEN 621 said:
			
		

> After searching & reading more about the Absalon class, this looks like class of ship Canada needs.


While it is a capable platform what is your basis for this declaration?



> 1. It has a Command & Control capability
> 2. It seems to be of the size & capability Canada needs - ie the ability to carry troops for NEO-type ops, land a task force for an East Timor-sized operation, support JTF2/CSOR, etc.
> 3. Well armed, and with the ability to operate large helicopters, and land troops (although no landing capability for vehicles)


Agree with  1 and 2 but why would you get a platform that cannot land vehicles using its embarked landing craft? Why make yourself even more vulnerable by coming alongside?



> It seems the Danes are being realistic & practical, and have developed a well thought-out ship.


For their needs maybe.



> I have this sneaking suspicion that Hillier's BHS/JSS is either going to never happen, or will become this money pit that will be a jack of all trades and master of none, that will have serious shortcomings, along with a ridiculous price tag.


And again you base this on what? JSS and BHS are two entirely different projects. Search the forum and you will see that.



> Any one have any thoughts/comments on the Absalon class?


see above and below
[/quote]





			
				BEN 621 said:
			
		

> more info/specs on the L16 Absalon class
> 
> 137.6 m long, 6,300 tons displacement
> 9,000 naut mile range, 23 knots service speed
> ...



Again its a very nice ship but it has very little troop and vehicle lift. To make a deployment worth its while you would have to deploy a couple of JSS to carry the vehicles needed. You would also have to increase the number of escorts escorting the 2-3 HVUs. Why do this when you can embark most of it on the BHS? Personally I think given an HVU Harpoons is not very practical, because then those weapons become a force asset and depending on the situation you might force the Absalon into a SSM launching situation. Defensive weapons are fine as an NGS capability but missiles embarked to sink other ships, leave that to the escorts.


----------



## Mr_Bund (20 Mar 2006)

The Absalon has Harpoon embarked as representative of a land attack missile. I know that the Danes upgraded their harpoons with GPS for land attack(block 3?) but how capable this is, I do not know. What I do like is the modularity of the weapons systems. For example The ESSM launchers on the Absalon can be moved to one of the Flex 300 class and vs versa in a few hours, as well as any of the over 60 modules that they have procured. This idea is being extended to the new offshore patrol vessels that are now under construction. The ship can also handle Standard block IV missiles as future growth, so if you parked one off of Jutland, you may be able to protect all of  Danmark from missile attack. (I'm just trying to say that it has area defense capability) The Danes have had some problems with multi-role crew training, but these seem to have been resolved. Unfortunately, I share BEN 621's skepticism about  Hillier's BHS/JSS.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_news/news_e.asp?id=164

Still the Absalon does not meet the criteria for an Amphib as found here.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Mar 2006)

> The ESSM launchers on the Absalon can be moved to one of the Flex 300 class and vs versa in a few hours, as well as any of the over 60 modules that they have procured



Interesting.  How do they move the fire control radars?  And conduct system calibrations?


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Mar 2006)

If they are crewing that ship with 100, they must be standing 1 in 2 on a permanent basis, especially if that figure includes aircrew and aircraft maintenance.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Mar 2006)

I don't see how this ship even comes close to what Gen HILLIER is talking about.


----------



## Cloud Cover (24 Mar 2006)

Does this ship side unload, or would they have to back the truck and trailer out when unloading- lets say onto a mexefloat?  :-\


----------



## Mr_Bund (24 Mar 2006)

It only Loads or unloads from the rear. The smaller door is used for minelaying, or to stream a VDS.(salmon, I believe).
The ship also uses 'plug and play' interfaces to the radar and other electronics systems. I will post a better synopsis this weekend, when I find my back issue to Jane's IDR, which did a good writeup on the program.


----------



## BEN 621 (5 Jul 2006)

Reviving this topic... some issues eating away at me, Ex-Dragoon.

- I'm all for the defence spending and proposals recently announced (JSS for now, what about this mythical BHS?), but is Canada realistically going to be able to participate in a full-out amphibious assault? I don't see any government having the political will or the public support to participate in one.
- In order to justify a full bore amphibious assault ship, we would need a massive expenditure on AAV type vehicles, LCAC's for armour, artillery, supplies, etc.
- As well, to justify the expense of purchasing the ships and related equipment, we would need a partly-, if not fully- dedicated combined arms force to fill the boat; with the manpower shortage the CF is currently experiencing and faces in the future, where are we going to knit this force? Not to mention navy crews for 3x JSS as well as ?x BHS.
- From the sounds of it, JSS is a totally new & untried concept; this Canada Day Defence Industry article expresses serious doubts about Canada being able to successfully merge an AOR type platform with an amhibious/transport capability:

"Canada's Joint Support Ships, in contrast, conform to no known ship type in their breadth of required functions, and are based on no pre-existing class. The firms competing for the design are not world leaders in similar ship classes like amphibious assault ships or LPDs. Nor does the depth of Canadian design and build experience in related efforts give cause for optimism; quite the reverse. Indeed, the JSS' breadth of functions alone suggests a difficult project for any entity or country to undertake, and little hope of much beyond mediocrity in all functions due to the required trade-offs.

The Canadian Forces may succeed in the end, and if so we at DID would be happy to apologize. Indeed, we would be pleased to run an article here explaining why they believe they can succeed, and what steps they have taken to address their approach's inherent risks and performance trade-offs.

For the project's critics appear to have the high ground when they suggest that JSS is set up to become a budget-eating failure, and recommend that Canada replace the unweildy JSS idea with a conventional oiler or two plus a few HSV rapid deployment vessels like the ones the USA is gravitating toward. Or recommend the LPD-17 San Antonio Class amphibious support ship as an alternative. Or even recommend a larger number of smaller Dutch/Spanish Rotterdam Class LPDs, plus the USA's versatile new T-AKE supply ships

Those kinds of risk reduction strategies would leverage successful R&D efforts, and spend more money on cutting steel and floating boats. As opposed to pursuing paper visions that risk sucking up vast resources and producing inferior products - or no products as all." 

(http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/06/canada-issues-rfp-for-cdn-29b-joint-support-ship-project/index.php)

IMHO (and this all my posts were meant to be & to explore other's ideas), the most desirable option for the CF & navy would be to realistic look at our current and future capabilites & tasks, budget/equipment/manpower constraints and requirements, and examine a cost-effective, relevant, manageable and combat effective solution to naval at-sea replenishment, task force command & control, sealift & power projection.
Would this not be better addressed by a mixed fleet of 2-3 dedicated AOR's, 1-2 of Absalon or San Antonio LPD-type vessels, and a Canadian owned & operated commercial roll-on/roll-off vessel that can be leased as required for the once in a decade (?) need to move a battle group+ worth of vehicles, equipment, weapons & supplies?
I'm sure this would present a more realistic & affordable means to fulfill our naval sealift & replenishment needs.

Ear muffs are on for the blast I'm anticipating, but eager to hear opinions. I'll hold off on voicing my opinions on airlift, reserve restructure, bringing back a parachute/light battalion, helicopters, et al to see how I fare on this one.... :


----------



## Sub_Guy (5 Jul 2006)

Concur!  I agree, build dedicated AOR's.  Our budget is too small for this type of shenanigans, we could buy an already proven design and build it in Canada.  No need to waste money on R&D.   As for a BHS, sure it will look spiffy in Halifax, but when would we use it?  The sheer logistics behind it, it would either have to scoot up to Montreal to pick up troops/kit, or we would have to ship everything down east.  i guess PPCLI guys wouldn't have much to worry about, because I doubt they would send the BHS over to Prince Rupert to pick the guys up, it could pick them up in Thunder bay though!....... We don't need a BHS, that money could be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (5 Jul 2006)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't see how this ship even comes close to what Gen HILLIER is talking about.



It doesn't. I toured her when she was here in Halifax...nice ship but it's too small for what we are looking for....try this x4 times the size....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jul 2006)

> I'm all for the defence spending and proposals recently announced (JSS for now, what about this mythical BHS?), but is Canada realistically going to be able to participate in a full-out amphibious assault? I don't see any government having the political will or the public support to participate in one.



Despite no announcement yet, I expect the Conservatives will eventually get around to it. I think though people are under the impression the BHS is suppose to be the size of a Nimitz class carrier, it's not.



> In order to justify a full bore amphibious assault ship, we would need a massive expenditure on AAV type vehicles, LCAC's for armour, artillery, supplies, etc.


While all the above is nice why do you feel we need a massive expenditure? Having an amphib does not mean we need LCACs nor does it mean AAVs, artillery and supplies we generally have anyways. You can always preposition the equipment onboard but as soldier coming from god-knows-where to either Halifax, Esquilmalt or some other port, would you not rather have the equipment you know that works vice getting something you might not be able to test until its too late?



> As well, to justify the expense of purchasing the ships and related equipment, we would need a partly-, if not fully- dedicated combined arms force to fill the boat; with the manpower shortage the CF is currently experiencing and faces in the future, where are we going to knit this force? Not to mention navy crews for 3x JSS as well as ?x BHS.


If you search you will find this is going to be trialed this fall, I know FSTO has been keeping the forum very well informed on this topic. As for crews, the 3 JSS will have crews from the current AORs and ideally by the time the BHS enters service we will be able to address the manpower shortages that not only the Navy faces but the entire CF.



> From the sounds of it, JSS is a totally new & untried concept; this Canada Day Defence Industry article expresses serious doubts about Canada being able to successfully merge an AOR type platform with an amhibious/transport capability


Are there not teething problems in every new approach to warfare. The sealift capability the JSS is providing is not that extravagant at all  with all things considered. The JSS will be an AOR through and through with a little more sea lift capability then its predecessors.



> Would this not be better addressed by a mixed fleet of 2-3 dedicated AOR's, 1-2 of Absalon or San Antonio LPD-type vessels, and a Canadian owned & operated commercial roll-on/roll-off vessel that can be leased as required for the once in a decade (?) need to move a battle group+ worth of vehicles, equipment, weapons & supplies?



Again as I said above the JSS will be the fleet AORs with some sea lift capability. The Absalon class is too small IMO to fulfill the BHS wishes of the CDS. You suggest the San Antonio class LPD but don't seem to favour the idea of a BHS. What do you think the San Antonio would be? Personally, while they are nice ships I think they are out of our league. The Absalon are far too small to meet our needs. As I have stated before in many previous posts,the Gallacia/Rotterdam class would suit our needs perfectly. My only concern is its built to mercantile vice naval standards.



> As for a BHS, sure it will look spiffy in Halifax, but when would we use it?


Considering most naval operations of the future will involve some sort of amphibious operations and littoral warfare, I think its smart we get on the band wagon, better now then too late. Look how long it took for us to get SSMs and Standards SAMs, and this was at the height of the Cold War. Irresponsible thinking and neglect. Lets not let that carry over into the 21st century.


----------



## cobbler (6 Jul 2006)

> Would this not be better addressed by a mixed fleet of 2-3 dedicated AOR's, 1-2 of Absalon or *San Antonio LPD-type vessels*, and a Canadian owned & operated commercial roll-on/roll-off vessel that can be leased as required for the once in a decade (?) need to move a battle group+ worth of vehicles, equipment, weapons & supplies?



Do you realise that  a San Antonio would be more expensive and manpower intensive than the BHS, and would be able to carry fewer troops, less equipment, and fewer helos?

The SA LPD's are perfect.... If you are the USN and already have a very impressive fleet of varied amphibious and sea-transportation vessels, and the funds and manpower to support it.

As for commercial vessels, they are rarely, if ever available at short notice, they are useless in wartorn areas or for humanitarian relief where there may be no port facilities. You cannot send them everywhere you need to and you cannot use them as C&C ships.

You are not always going to have months to prepare for a deployment, and often you will have to move equipment from ship to shore. Relying on leased transport just doesn't cut it.


----------

