Portal partners
Air carrier on the Baltic. The argument about "too big for the Baltic" has just become obsolete
Author:Mariusz Dasiewicz
French aerodrome team with FS Charles De Gaulle upon completion of operations in the Atlantic, he entered the Baltic Sea and strangely "seats." Ships include shielding units and submarines. The team is to participate in regional security-related allied exercises and activities.
In the article
"Too big for the Baltic"?
The entry of such a large unit to the Baltic reminded the debate which took place in Poland a few years ago. Prior to the launch of the program, some experts convinced that the frigates were "too big for the Baltic". This accretion was described as too tight and too shallow, and its operational meaning was limited.
The Shipyard Portal was at the beginning of its position that the problem was not the size of the unit, but the lack of ability. We wrote naval officers – people who know the Baltic from the deck and from the watch, not from theoretical analyses. At the time, they pointed out clearly: if you want to defend your interests on the sea side, you must have adequate tools for threats.
Today it is clear, after Russia's invasion of Ukraine, that the Alliance operates on the Baltic with a full spectrum. This is not a geographical change. It's a change in the scale of thinking. The conclusions of such scenarios should be the starting point for the selection of ships – not the reflection that comes only after.
A team of several countries, not a symbolic presence
But returning to current events – the French airport group includes, among others, an Italian ITS destroyer Andrea Doria and French frigate next generation FS Amiral Ronarchwho joined the team still during naval trials. There are also FREMM frigates, nuclear submarines and logistics support units.
On board the aircraft carrier are stationed Rafale M aircraft, E-2C Hawkeye early warning machines and onboard helicopters. This is not a courtesy wrap or flag show. It is a fully-fledged impact group capable of acting in a demanding Baltic Sea environment.
The French team is to participate in NATO maneuvers, including actions related to the defence of maritime critical infrastructure. In the reality of the Baltic is one of the key safety components.
However, before the main part of the maneuvers began, the timetable was adjusted. The entrance to Malmö occurred earlier than originally planned, due to the forecast weather break. Areas of readiness have been designated around the unit to allow for the rapid implementation of additional security measures. The Swedish authorities stressed that the risk of an incident is assessed as very low.
It's the first aircraft carrier to visit Swedish waters. In the following days, the group will participate in the NATO Baltic Sentry mission and in the Steadfast Dart, Neptune Strike and Cold Response exercises. This is not a protocolar episode, therefore, but an element of wider activities strengthening the northern flank of the Alliance.
frigate programmes in the Baltic States. The region increases its scale, does not limit it
The Baltic has not become an ocean. It is still a water limited by spatially and saturated means of destruction. However, countries that take it seriously do not reduce ships. They increase their resilience, strengthen their air defenses and build their ability to act within allied teams.
Just look at the programs implemented in our region. Germany introduces F125 frigates into service and builds further F126 units. Denmark has maintained Iver Huitfeldt frigate lines with extensive air defense systems for years. Sweden is preparing to build new frigates under the LULEÅ programme – the successor of the Visby Corvette. Finland implements the Pohjanmaa program, resulting in four large corvettes with parameters similar to smaller frigates. On the other hand, Poland is building multipurpose frigates of the Sword.
This isn't a hull-length race. This is a consistent response to the real threats in our region – primarily in the field of air defense and the fight against submarines.
Since the countries of the region are building ships with increasing combat capabilities, and the entire group of aircraft carriers with a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier can enter the Baltic, the thesis on ships "for the large Baltic" today sounds like an echo of the former debate. The geography hasn't changed. The understanding of security has changed.
Therefore, it is worth looking at these ships on the Baltic, not from a sensational perspective, but from an analysis. It's a real test of what a marine force projection looks like today in our region. And it is precisely such scenarios that the future capabilities of the Polish Navy should be matched.
Mariusz Dasiewicz – journalist and publisher of the Shipyard Portal. He deals with the issues of the Polish Navy and shipbuilding industry. In its texts, it focuses on modernisation programs of the navy and issues related to the development of maritime security of Poland. It focuses on a factual analysis and transparency of the decision-making process.
Hello!
Referring to the opinions contained in the article, I suggest a change of perspective, instead of "too large, too small", to the question: will the aircraft carrier's shield protect him from attacking a "silent" submarine operating in the Baltic?
Of course, from the point of view of the watering activities, the entry of the aircraft carrier team changes the previous force account – NATO versus Russian Federation. The Baltic Sea, however, is a very difficult water for the activities of the ZOP of such a team, and at the same time great for its attack by submarines...
Just mention the fact of "melting" during the 2005 USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier exercises by Swedish conventional OP A-19 Gotland. This occurred in ocean waters, not in a very demanding Baltic. The Swedish ship penetrated the carrier's shield, took a lot of photos, and was additionally equipped with devices to increase the acoustic signature to make it possible to detect...
Greetings, I wish you good thoughts.
Mr. Marku,
Thank you for your very factual comment. I agree that, in the Baltic Sea, the key issue is not the size of the ship itself, but its vulnerability to the activities of submarines and the effectiveness of the ZOP cover. The Baltic indeed remains a reservoir requiring sound propagation, water layering and limited maneuvering space.
The example of your 2005 exercise with USS Ronald Reagan and the Swedish ship type Gotland is known and often cited in the case study. It shows that even large airport groups are not "untouchable", and submarines – especially conventional ones – are a real threat.
At the same time, it is worth remembering that the exercises are conducted under controlled conditions, and the modern capabilities of the ZOP – especially in the field of active low frequency sonars, multistatic activities and integration of maritime aviation – are qualitatively different today than two decades ago. This process of changes was described in detail in the Kamil Sadowski Shipyard Portal in an analysis devoted to the capabilities of ZOP frigate program Miecznik https://portalstoczowy.pl/fregaty-multi-purpose-measuring-measuring-possibility-marine-war-rp-fighting-submarine-sop/. The development of CAPTAS sonars, network acoustic detection and interaction with maritime aviation significantly changes the risk account – also on the demanding watering of our Baltic.
My thesis did not concern the safety of the aircraft carrier as such, but the argument "too big for the Baltic". The problem over the years was not the size of the platform, but the lack of adequate capabilities – primarily in the field of air defense and the ZOP.
It is in this context program MIecznik is fundamental.
Greetings and thanks for the substantive polemic.
Mariusz Dasiewicz
The problem is not the size of the hull, but the possibility of easily detecting/finding the carrier on a fairly small basin of the Baltic Sea. And the possibility of destroying it with, for example, rockets fired from the mainland.
Oh, but rhetorical. The aircraft carrier group entered the Baltic to take part in the exercises and it is therefore expected that the aircraft carriers are adequate for the Baltic and therefore the frigates are also adequate. By following this lead, destroyers and cruisers, since they are smaller than aircraft carriers, should be adequate for the Baltic... No, it doesn't work that way.
It's very nice that they came. Let them also practice on the Baltic just in case, and it is a nice signal from allies. However, as long as aircraft can operate from land bases that NATO has in its vicinity without a hitch, aircraft carriers do not have much reason to be. A lot of bad things would have to happen if an allied aircraft carrier had a real need to swim through Sund; although such scenarios should be counted on, so let them practice.
I don't question the Navy's need for a frigate. Only that the visit of the French (or Italians with their destroyer) is not a solid argument here. Similarly, it is doubtful to recall the largest German or Danish frigates — These also have the North Sea under their care. In turn, Swedes and Finns build ships a little smaller than Wichra and et consortes, although larger than they had before.
It is also wrong to recall a discussion more than a decade ago, because the reality has changed since then. It is not only about the international situation: At the bottom of the Baltic, at most there were power and telecommunications cables, while the pipeline to Denmark and beyond Norway or offshore wind farms was not yet planned.
With all the sympathy for our frigate, the argument doesn't make sense.
And so far, we have a lot of screaming and assurances about submarines.
How it was to be considered and selected what was best for over and terrible for the opponent.
And from the information they're getting through, nothing's even started yet, and there's already some savings and a cancellation of the possibility of having subvisible maneuvering missiles on ships.
I guess they're the strength and the fear of the enemy, not torpedoes that are standard equipment.
I'm sorry, but the author doesn't understand what it means to be too big. Now there's peace and it's not just technical depth issues dive But the point of operation. If someone asks the question that the aircraft carrier influenced the baltic, it says that the term died, that means they did not understand that sentence.
I'm sorry, but the author doesn't understand what it means to be too big. Now there's peace and it's not just technical depth issues dive But the point of operation. If someone asks the question that the aircraft carrier influenced the baltic, it says that the term died, that means they did not understand that sentence. amen
No knowledge of what a Chinese does in terms of combating airfielders and what Ukrainians are currently doing at Black Sea which is bigger than ours.
What specific operational capabilities are presented by large ships beyond what can be achieved by a combination of small water vessels, traditional hunter killer submarines, and land-based means of destruction? The aircraft carriers are not too large for the Baltic for physical size reasons, just because the aircraft from land bases already at this point is able to perform all the tasks of conservation of the waters over the Baltic that would be entrusted to the specialised and expensive maintenance of ships. Germany, Denmark, France are building large units due to operations in the North Sea, the Arctic Sea and the Atlantic Sea, where it is difficult to place a battery of anti-ship missiles on the shore covering the entire width of the water. If the MW in Poland has no ambition to operate outside the Danish straits, large waterships are a completely unnecessary expense whose role can be taken over by Grippeny with RBS15 and several batteries on trucks