Yeah the Constellation Class is an off the shelf hull design that as it was pre designed was supposed to save time and money enabling the speedy replacement of the failed LCS programme, then the U.S. Navy decided to change everything on it, completely negating the time and cost saving efficiencies. Never underestimate the ability of Naval Bureaucracy to completely screw up any chance of things arriving on time and within budget.
You forgot congress, they helped this disaster happen. Congress mandated most of the equipment be built in the USA and have the Aegis combat system. Once they changed the combat system, it was over and it's basically a completely new ship.
@@joe-yy2bqehh not really true, aegis is technically just the CIC infrastructure which is just internal components. But you are more likely referring to the SPY-6 phassed array radar system. Which for the most part only changes the mast and the bridge a little. Changing the superstructure isn't really changing the ship. Though the Constellation also changes the Bow hull significantly, which does make it much more of a brand new design. But I wouldn't label Aegis as the cause for that either. The original FREMM definately wouldn't have a weapons loadout the USN wants, using different systems like Exocet and different SAMs too(astral I think).
@@jeremyO9F911O2 I was referring to once they changed the combat system it was the beginning of the end. The combat system, the sensors, the radar, power requirements, layout, etc. it never stopped. It's a completely different ship at this point. Everything has to make in the USA and has to have part commonality with the fleet. There's no point picking a foreign design if you're going to change everything anyway.....the whole endeavor made zero sense. They had to change the hull to adjust for the Great lakes, The max draft is 26 ft, And the base design is 29 ft.
@@joe-yy2bq I didn't think the great lakes had anything to do with Aegis. I also don't think they would need to change as much as you think just because it's being built in the USA. I mean most NATO ships use the same and turbine engines, heck even China copies the engine design. When we talk about a thing being US built this really only refers to location and workforce. The design itself doesn't necessarily have to change too. Again I actually agree it's basically become a different ship, I just disagree that it's a different ship because Aegis.
@@bishal-max in terms of tonnage, Type 26 is comparable to Vishakapatnam Class , and Vishakapatnam Class wins by a fair margin in terms of capabilities. Nilgiri is lighter at 6700 tons, but still a close match.
If the UK wants more ships then more Type 26s aren't the right idea, any increase in the type 26 order will not be delivered until 2035. If we want to increase our hull numbers then the only way to do so quickly is to buy more Type 31s.
@@regarded9702 type 31s would only really be effective in the gulf or Hormuz having them be stationed at HMS Bahrain. Type 26s will have the range to help in any future conflicts in the Pacific with the US. Plus seen as we only have 2 military shipyards we would have to sacrifice building the Type 26s to make up the numbers with Type 31s, our shipbuilding capacity has atrophied horribly the only way, I can see, to compete with China and even France builds ships faster than us, is to outsource some parts to Korea.
The USN Constellation class is 9 years behind schedule. The Type 26 was selected by Australia for the Royal Australian Navy. It had to be redesigned for the RAN because it was under armed for the RAN requirements. These modifications have taken the weight up to 10,000 tons. The original order of 9 has been cut to 6. And the RAN is now looking for a replacement General Purpose Frigate to the replace the ANZAC frigates currently in service. The new frigate order for the RAN will be 12. This will take the RAN up to a destroyer / frigate squadron to 26 ships by the end of the 2030s.
I knew a little bit about Australians considered the (original) Type 26 design to be under-armed and demanded it to be redesigned and up-armed, but I didn't know about its displacement is now 10,000 tons. Not to be nosy but would it have been better to get one of the Japanese or South Korean designs which have been proven, already in service, and would have very likely been cheaper as well! If manning is a concern, the stretched version of the new JMSDF Mogami-class will be highly automated and require small (~ 50) crew.
@@qtdcanadathe Mogami Class is likely to be chosen for the eleven ship replacement of the ANZAC Class ( hopefully with the 32 cell VLS ). Currently the first three Hunter Class are being built with the original 32 VLS ( still underarmed ) but the second tranche of three are likely to be the upgunned variant with 96 VLS. We’ll have to wait and see.
Australia's variant won't be any bigger or better armed than the UK's or Canada's. The variant you are talking about was only a proposal & had the missions bays replaced & an extended hull with an additional 64 cell Mk41 VLS module & double the number of strike missiles essentially making it a Destroyer size/armed vessel however than wasn't selected. Hunter class (AUS) loadout - 1X 32 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike Missiles. City class (UK) loadout - 2X 24 cell VLS, 1X 24 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike. River class (CAN) loadout - 1X 24 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike Missiles. Constellation class (US) loadout - 1X 32 cell MK41 VLS, 16 Naval Strike Missiles.
@@ZuulGatekeeper You are right in so much that the upgunned (96 cell ) variant has not yet been ordered, but as I understand it the modification involved was a straight removal of multi mission bay with a 64 VLS mark 41, with some removal of anti submarine sonar capability. no mention of extending the length of the vessel, but it would be a Air Warfare missile frigate better meant for offensive warfare capability. As for the current Hunter Class and the British and Canadian variants, I don’t think any of them are survivable against the overwhelming firepower of the Chinese in this region.
You should have thrown in the Australian type 26 Hunter class frigate as the is a totally superior ship than both of these ships, especially given the recently talked about upgrade of removing the flexible Mission Bay for extra 32 VLS and 16 Anti ship SSM plug in, thus making this frigate a 64 VLS ship with no reduction of the types 26 ASW capability. Having a CEAFAR 2, 6 side faced multi frequency S and L band radar with some anti stealth radar capability and a 6 sided CEAMOUNT fire control radars which can lock on up to 10 targets per face (10 x 6 faces = 60 targets FCR capability) (don't get tracks confused to lock on targets!) It's probably the best naval anti air /surface radar on the planet, and add the AEGIS network centric system, with all the other ASW capabilities the type 26 ship has to offer, like stealth electric drive and the Underwater Warfare Systems Ultra S2150 hull-mounted sonar Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and variable depth sonar, this thing is a beast.
The Poms specialty has been submarine warfare type 26 reflects this. Sounds a good tool to have in your arsenal. Bare in mind a lot of nations have subs. But very few have aircraft carriers. What's more likely mid ocean?
Subs are still the main threat when it comes to ships killing ships. Especially once one considers how drone subs / loitering AI torpedoes will change the game yet again.
Aircraft carriers are dramatically inefficient vessels. Requiring 20x crew alone, and yet can only be in one place at a time still. Yes they have a longer range, but it's still a much bigger ocean than that. Frigates aren't specifically front line fighters, but they can still trounce any tinpot navy ship or pirate at a much better cost with much higher numbers available. And they can do what subs cannot. Because for all their cheat power of destruction subs only can hide or attack with brutal force. Anything in-between they fully useless at, which is why frigates and destroyers will always be needed.
@@jeremyO9F911O2 Well, I have said that in other comments. There is no "soft power" option with subs, no search and rescue or, disaster relief, or "showing presence" type of missions.
I give the title to the Type 26 over Constellation. It has a better ocean going hull, longer range and class leading ergonomics. If that is the correct term for usability and crew comfort.
Plus if you substitute the Canadian version of the type 26 it looks even better. Plus Canada and the USA have more similar geography driving our fleet makeup.
Do like the constellation classes bow profile. Looks very pugnacious like itd be great in heavy seas. The type 26 has fair great lineage from the type 23 asw variant. End of the timezone a fighting ship needs a well trained disciplined crew to be effective. A main tenet of the Royal Navy. Now all the Royal navy needs is proper funding enough ships and crews to staff them 🫡🇬🇧🙏✊️💥👋
@@kevinshort3943 From what I've seen, the LCS came out of the same Marietta yard that got the Constellation contract, and they had basic structural issues. These yards try to run on temps/scabs who they pick up for big jobs and then lay off. That means lower quality all around, as there is no incentive to think long term. Just get it done.
@@kevinshort3943 Government that does the bidding of corporations (defense contractors especially), the megadonors who sponsor politicians' entire careers. The dysfunction is on purpose, with governments taking their orders instead of giving them.
Modern Frigates and Destroyers have to do the Cruiser role of yesteryear. Which is one reason they are as big as WWII light and heavy cruisers. They need the endurance to run all over the planet. Destroyers have not been the cheap, cheerful and plentiful ships for a long time. No-one is willing to pay the crew costs, for having many smaller, but plentiful vessels of the past. Every ship now has to be the tier One combatant now.
The costs are wrong. Each US ship costs 1.2 billion dollars. Each British ship costs 1.3 billion pounds sterling. I suggest 'The Buzz' checks the currency exchange rates next time.
The US rejected the F-110 frigate model, which is a modified F-100 to add maximum anti-submarine capability from Navantia for political reasons with the socialist government in Spain. The F-110 is cheaper and much more powerful than the Franco-Italian model chosen. Although it is also far superior to the English model, in addition to being a proven and excellent ship. The F-110 is already under construction and the US still has time to change.
LOL , Funny ,when you look at costs , you display it costs 1.2 biilion for the constellation class, and 1.3 billion for the type 26 , yet in the explanation the constallation is 1.28 billion and the type 26 costs roughly 1.3 billion, ie they could cost exactly the same or the type 26 might be slightly cheaper(or slightly more expensive) ..... why make it look more expensive straight off ?????
I actually think that in both cases those sums are for the design and construction of the first two ships in the class. That means the number should be halved to get a rough per ship figure.
No kidding. In just abt every one of these videos the U.S has a horse in race be it fighter jets, bombers or a new nuclear powered vibrator. A M E R I C A fuck yea!!!
Unions got law pass in1965, navy has build all ship, subs, in usa, cant contract out to germany, japan , s.korea, france, italy. All can build faster, cheaper, jf.
As much as I have my issues with unions, this is actually a navy issue. One would think one would finalize the design before they started building the damn ships. That would be wrong on this case. Yes you read that right. The US Navy started building them BEFORE they finished the design.
Your video loses all credibility when you keep talking about the Constellation class frigate, while showing pictures of Arleigh Burke Class destroyers.
Well, since they are built on already proven FREMM platform I assume there shouldn't be any surprises or any (major) problems to build them on schedule. But with that said, you can always count on the goverment and bureaucracy to fuck up even the easiest of things.
@@bradulovic82no - there wasn’t enough pork-barrel money for US suppliers so the constellation class has been completely redesigned to incorporate US systems and in now over 85% new and only has 15% in common with the FREMM
Not really an apples to apples comparison. Type 26 is a dedicated ASW frigate Constellation is a GP frigate with ASW capabilities. Idiot Americans "we want a proven design after the last few screw ups" Then they redesign 85% of it, so they may as well have gone with the Type 26 - as the Aus version will be very similar to what the US wanted.
This is total nonsense the type 26 is ASW vessels and not general purposes. It is not a quiet as is made out. She cost £500 million to build. She will not carry Tomahawk or any systems like that
ASW focus but has ability to do AAW and surface warfare. Closer to £840 million per ship actually. As well as the Sea Ceptor 'mushroom farm' they will be fitted with Mk41 VLS so that the Royal Navy has the option to use weapons such as Tomahawk (which they already have stocks of for the Astute boats), ASROC for ASW and other current and future options.
@@Oxley016 shut up mate 500 million and it's not anything but a patch role in AAW defence not AAW role. The Radar and backbone are not good enough for a dedicated role. I think you have been reading too much UKDJ s**t
@@Highendaudio1 £654 million at best, up to £840 million. No need to be rude, your numbers are just very hopeful. I said it was capable of AAW, not that is was the best.
@@Oxley016, my numbers are spot on. i both train some of the crew, and I am still plugged in. The building cost is the building cost not what the government has spent otherwise submarines would be 12 billion each I hope that helps you
@@GarWhittaker Black Sea fleet is still operating and launching missile strikes on Ukraine everyday, you’re being fed lies and are clearly gullible enough to soak it up.
Yeah the Constellation Class is an off the shelf hull design that as it was pre designed was supposed to save time and money enabling the speedy replacement of the failed LCS programme, then the U.S. Navy decided to change everything on it, completely negating the time and cost saving efficiencies. Never underestimate the ability of Naval Bureaucracy to completely screw up any chance of things arriving on time and within budget.
You forgot congress, they helped this disaster happen. Congress mandated most of the equipment be built in the USA and have the Aegis combat system. Once they changed the combat system, it was over and it's basically a completely new ship.
I mean it was designed off of the FREMM but they changed both the hull and the superstructure. Not as much of a bargain as one would hope.
@@joe-yy2bqehh not really true, aegis is technically just the CIC infrastructure which is just internal components. But you are more likely referring to the SPY-6 phassed array radar system. Which for the most part only changes the mast and the bridge a little. Changing the superstructure isn't really changing the ship. Though the Constellation also changes the Bow hull significantly, which does make it much more of a brand new design. But I wouldn't label Aegis as the cause for that either.
The original FREMM definately wouldn't have a weapons loadout the USN wants, using different systems like Exocet and different SAMs too(astral I think).
@@jeremyO9F911O2 I was referring to once they changed the combat system it was the beginning of the end.
The combat system, the sensors, the radar, power requirements, layout, etc. it never stopped. It's a completely different ship at this point. Everything has to make in the USA and has to have part commonality with the fleet. There's no point picking a foreign design if you're going to change everything anyway.....the whole endeavor made zero sense.
They had to change the hull to adjust for the Great lakes, The max draft is 26 ft, And the base design is 29 ft.
@@joe-yy2bq I didn't think the great lakes had anything to do with Aegis.
I also don't think they would need to change as much as you think just because it's being built in the USA. I mean most NATO ships use the same and turbine engines, heck even China copies the engine design. When we talk about a thing being US built this really only refers to location and workforce. The design itself doesn't necessarily have to change too.
Again I actually agree it's basically become a different ship, I just disagree that it's a different ship because Aegis.
A rare case of the British ship being better also the British ship looks way better
Thats still questionable at this point
@@deadbeats7604 this was supposed to be a quick solution to fill a gap in Americas naval fleet.
Im not so sure it does look better. Reminds me of a wardrobe i once bought from IKEA.
Type 45 and Astute are very highly regarded by USN
better looking doesn't mean more effective
Nilgiri class vs type 26 would be a great comparison 😊
Type 26 will win without any doubt
@@bishal-max in terms of tonnage, Type 26 is comparable to Vishakapatnam Class , and Vishakapatnam Class wins by a fair margin in terms of capabilities.
Nilgiri is lighter at 6700 tons, but still a close match.
If the UK isn’t going to install angled flight decks on our Queen Elizabeth carriers than we need to purchase 12 Type 26 frigates at the very least.
If the UK wants more ships then more Type 26s aren't the right idea, any increase in the type 26 order will not be delivered until 2035.
If we want to increase our hull numbers then the only way to do so quickly is to buy more Type 31s.
@@regarded9702 type 31s would only really be effective in the gulf or Hormuz having them be stationed at HMS Bahrain. Type 26s will have the range to help in any future conflicts in the Pacific with the US. Plus seen as we only have 2 military shipyards we would have to sacrifice building the Type 26s to make up the numbers with Type 31s, our shipbuilding capacity has atrophied horribly the only way, I can see, to compete with China and even France builds ships faster than us, is to outsource some parts to Korea.
The USN Constellation class is 9 years behind schedule. The Type 26 was selected by Australia for the Royal Australian Navy. It had to be redesigned for the RAN because it was under armed for the RAN requirements. These modifications have taken the weight up to 10,000 tons. The original order of 9 has been cut to 6. And the RAN is now looking for a replacement General Purpose Frigate to the replace the ANZAC frigates currently in service. The new frigate order for the RAN will be 12. This will take the RAN up to a destroyer / frigate squadron to 26 ships by the end of the 2030s.
I knew a little bit about Australians considered the (original) Type 26 design to be under-armed and demanded it to be redesigned and up-armed, but I didn't know about its displacement is now 10,000 tons. Not to be nosy but would it have been better to get one of the Japanese or South Korean designs which have been proven, already in service, and would have very likely been cheaper as well! If manning is a concern, the stretched version of the new JMSDF Mogami-class will be highly automated and require small (~ 50) crew.
@@qtdcanadathe Mogami Class is likely to be chosen for the eleven ship replacement of the ANZAC Class ( hopefully with the 32 cell VLS ). Currently the first three Hunter Class are being built with the original 32 VLS ( still underarmed ) but the second tranche of three are likely to be the upgunned variant with 96 VLS. We’ll have to wait and see.
Australia's variant won't be any bigger or better armed than the UK's or Canada's. The variant you are talking about was only a proposal & had the missions bays replaced & an extended hull with an additional 64 cell Mk41 VLS module & double the number of strike missiles essentially making it a Destroyer size/armed vessel however than wasn't selected.
Hunter class (AUS) loadout - 1X 32 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike Missiles.
City class (UK) loadout - 2X 24 cell VLS, 1X 24 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike.
River class (CAN) loadout - 1X 24 cell MK41 VLS, 8 Naval Strike Missiles.
Constellation class (US) loadout - 1X 32 cell MK41 VLS, 16 Naval Strike Missiles.
@@ZuulGatekeeper You are right in so much that the upgunned (96 cell ) variant has not yet been ordered, but as I understand it the modification involved was a straight removal of multi mission bay with a 64 VLS mark 41, with some removal of anti submarine sonar capability. no mention of extending the length of the vessel, but it would be a Air Warfare missile frigate better meant for offensive warfare capability. As for the current Hunter Class and the British and Canadian variants, I don’t think any of them are survivable against the overwhelming firepower of the Chinese in this region.
Canada is building 15.. also more heavily armed.. including Tomahawks
You should have thrown in the Australian type 26 Hunter class frigate as the is a totally superior ship than both of these ships, especially given the recently talked about upgrade of removing the flexible Mission Bay for extra 32 VLS and 16 Anti ship SSM plug in, thus making this frigate a 64 VLS ship with no reduction of the types 26 ASW capability.
Having a CEAFAR 2, 6 side faced multi frequency S and L band radar with some anti stealth radar capability and a 6 sided CEAMOUNT fire control radars which can lock on up to 10 targets per face (10 x 6 faces = 60 targets FCR capability) (don't get tracks confused to lock on targets!)
It's probably the best naval anti air /surface radar on the planet, and add the AEGIS network centric system, with all the other ASW capabilities the type 26 ship has to offer, like stealth electric drive and the Underwater Warfare Systems Ultra S2150 hull-mounted sonar
Thales Sonar 2087 towed array and variable depth sonar, this thing is a beast.
Nice comparison. Here's another. One will actually be built, and the other won't.
Two Type 26 in the water with 3 or 4 more currently in various stages of build :)
@@Oxley016 hes talking about the constellation
@@xhydrag0br203 He's talking about both, did you pass reading comprehension at school or nah?
The Poms specialty has been submarine warfare type 26 reflects this. Sounds a good tool to have in your arsenal. Bare in mind a lot of nations have subs. But very few have aircraft carriers. What's more likely mid ocean?
Subs are still the main threat when it comes to ships killing ships. Especially once one considers how drone subs / loitering AI torpedoes will change the game yet again.
Aircraft carriers are dramatically inefficient vessels. Requiring 20x crew alone, and yet can only be in one place at a time still. Yes they have a longer range, but it's still a much bigger ocean than that.
Frigates aren't specifically front line fighters, but they can still trounce any tinpot navy ship or pirate at a much better cost with much higher numbers available. And they can do what subs cannot. Because for all their cheat power of destruction subs only can hide or attack with brutal force. Anything in-between they fully useless at, which is why frigates and destroyers will always be needed.
@@jeremyO9F911O2 Well, I have said that in other comments. There is no "soft power" option with subs, no search and rescue or, disaster relief, or "showing presence" type of missions.
I give the title to the Type 26 over Constellation. It has a better ocean going hull, longer range and class leading ergonomics. If that is the correct term for usability and crew comfort.
Plus if you substitute the Canadian version of the type 26 it looks even better. Plus Canada and the USA have more similar geography driving our fleet makeup.
When you talk about a ship and show pics, it would be great to actually show the correct pic.
The ship shown at 7:16 is not a Constallation class frigate. The same at 7:35.
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates
The official surface speed is quoted as being better than 26 knots
Really you should be comparing the Canadian version of the type 26 aka CFSC. Longer and better armed.
Do like the constellation classes bow profile. Looks very pugnacious like itd be great in heavy seas. The type 26 has fair great lineage from the type 23 asw variant. End of the timezone a fighting ship needs a well trained disciplined crew to be effective. A main tenet of the Royal Navy. Now all the Royal navy needs is proper funding enough ships and crews to staff them 🫡🇬🇧🙏✊️💥👋
The last type 31 will be commissioned before the first Constellation hits the water, thanks to America's dysfunctional shipbuilding industry.
@@MichaelK.-xl2qk they have to fix a lot of things and get our ship building back to where it was during the Cold War.
Pretty sure it's the fault of their dysfunctional government, rather than the ship builders
@@kevinshort3943 From what I've seen, the LCS came out of the same Marietta yard that got the Constellation contract, and they had basic structural issues. These yards try to run on temps/scabs who they pick up for big jobs and then lay off. That means lower quality all around, as there is no incentive to think long term. Just get it done.
@@kevinshort3943 Government that does the bidding of corporations (defense contractors especially), the megadonors who sponsor politicians' entire careers. The dysfunction is on purpose, with governments taking their orders instead of giving them.
7.000 tons has to be a destroyer surely
Warships are more commonly categorised by role than tonnage as in recent years. Frigates are optimised for ASW, Destoyers for AAW.
@@garyyoung3179 but they are aaw and asw armed heavily so they seem to be destroyers to me
Modern Frigates and Destroyers have to do the Cruiser role of yesteryear. Which is one reason they are as big as WWII light and heavy cruisers. They need the endurance to run all over the planet. Destroyers have not been the cheap, cheerful and plentiful ships for a long time. No-one is willing to pay the crew costs, for having many smaller, but plentiful vessels of the past. Every ship now has to be the tier One combatant now.
@@Yandarval I still think they called a destroyer a frigate to make it sound more reasonable there clearly destroyers
@@ExploreTheUKWithMe more to do with getting things past the politicians. Frigates and destroyers sound cheaper than cruisers.
"and anti-warfare capabilities..."
A.i. videos are my favorite 😆
The costs are wrong. Each US ship costs 1.2 billion dollars. Each British ship costs 1.3 billion pounds sterling. I suggest 'The Buzz' checks the currency exchange rates next time.
The US rejected the F-110 frigate model, which is a modified F-100 to add maximum anti-submarine capability from Navantia for political reasons with the socialist government in Spain. The F-110 is cheaper and much more powerful than the Franco-Italian model chosen. Although it is also far superior to the English model, in addition to being a proven and excellent ship. The F-110 is already under construction and the US still has time to change.
LOL , Funny ,when you look at costs , you display it costs 1.2 biilion for the constellation class, and 1.3 billion for the type 26 , yet in the explanation the constallation is 1.28 billion and the type 26 costs roughly 1.3 billion, ie they could cost exactly the same or the type 26 might be slightly cheaper(or slightly more expensive) ..... why make it look more expensive straight off ?????
Bias.
@@EnglishScripter troll
@@alangunningham5667 I mean sure, but I was saying the video is bias not you..
Most likely done to enhance the click bait because the Type 26 has the better performance numbers on the image. Why compare otherwise?
I actually think that in both cases those sums are for the design and construction of the first two ships in the class. That means the number should be halved to get a rough per ship figure.
America has way too many new projects
No kidding. In just abt every one of these videos the U.S has a horse in race be it fighter jets, bombers or a new nuclear powered vibrator. A M E R I C A fuck yea!!!
And yet still no universal health service!
Unions got law pass in1965, navy has build all ship, subs, in usa, cant contract out to germany, japan , s.korea, france, italy. All can build faster, cheaper, jf.
As much as I have my issues with unions, this is actually a navy issue. One would think one would finalize the design before they started building the damn ships. That would be wrong on this case. Yes you read that right. The US Navy started building them BEFORE they finished the design.
Your video loses all credibility when you keep talking about the Constellation class frigate, while showing pictures of Arleigh Burke Class destroyers.
Ah, the curse of stock footage.
Most of the ship photos seem to be old OH Perry class frigates.
@@kevinw2592 Yeah, I posted my comment before I finished watching the video. They ended up using Perry shots too.
Can the US actually get any of these built? The Navy is as broken as the US gov. Can't get anything done in a timely matter.
Well, since they are built on already proven FREMM platform I assume there shouldn't be any surprises or any (major) problems to build them on schedule. But with that said, you can always count on the goverment and bureaucracy to fuck up even the easiest of things.
The class is authoizied with the lead ship under construction
@@bradulovic82They started building them before they finished the design or even finalized the specs. That work for you.
Hello Moscow 👋🇷🇺💩🤡🧚♀️
@@bradulovic82no - there wasn’t enough pork-barrel money for US suppliers so the constellation class has been completely redesigned to incorporate US systems and in now over 85% new and only has 15% in common with the FREMM
Not really an apples to apples comparison.
Type 26 is a dedicated ASW frigate
Constellation is a GP frigate with ASW capabilities.
Idiot Americans "we want a proven design after the last few screw ups"
Then they redesign 85% of it, so they may as well have gone with the Type 26 - as the Aus version will be very similar to what the US wanted.
This is total nonsense the type 26 is ASW vessels and not general purposes.
It is not a quiet as is made out. She cost £500 million to build.
She will not carry Tomahawk or any systems like that
ASW focus but has ability to do AAW and surface warfare.
Closer to £840 million per ship actually.
As well as the Sea Ceptor 'mushroom farm' they will be fitted with Mk41 VLS so that the Royal Navy has the option to use weapons such as Tomahawk (which they already have stocks of for the Astute boats), ASROC for ASW and other current and future options.
@@Oxley016 shut up mate 500 million and it's not anything but a patch role in AAW defence not AAW role. The Radar and backbone are not good enough for a dedicated role. I think you have been reading too much UKDJ s**t
@@Highendaudio1 £654 million at best, up to £840 million. No need to be rude, your numbers are just very hopeful. I said it was capable of AAW, not that is was the best.
@@Oxley016, my numbers are spot on. i both train some of the crew, and I am still plugged in. The building cost is the building cost not what the government has spent otherwise submarines would be 12 billion each I hope that helps you
@@Highendaudio1 Source: trust me bro.
Россия всё равно всех победит!
Lol Russia's navy is a laughing stock...RAN AWAY from the Ukrainian navy even tho they didn't have one 😂😂
@@GarWhittaker Black Sea fleet is still operating and launching missile strikes on Ukraine everyday, you’re being fed lies and are clearly gullible enough to soak it up.
@@GarWhittaker
TELL THAT TO THE UKRAINIANS
@@IanGreenaway-u3h Tell the Ukrainians that they have battered the Russia navy and embarrassed them.. think they know that.
try payin attention