Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other Spanish Systems videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LpSf2--Fz3IXbwChmvQqbvB Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Sea videos ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_Lr1-xIzFrM6xUHCOgetdkmp
Because the FREMM has been designed, from the drawing board, as a modular system which can more easily adapt to different requirements, weapons systems and interior equipments, and the Constellation has to adapt several US systems instead of the original ones. The Italian and the French FREMM only share 25% of the components but the ship design is common, meaning the USN can drop what they don't want and keep only what they like. The Bazan is an "As is" design, much less flexible for extensive conversions The FREMM ship is also a moderately larger ship (6900t vs 5800t), better suited for long duration cruises, ad the USN even enlarged the original hull and displacement, which was easier to do on the FREMM hull.
@@gorkarullan not really: the FREMM is one of the most expensive frigates on the market, but has been designed to be modified with relative ease to suit whatever the client desires. The USN WILL pay for technology transfer: why would Fincantieri give it away for free?
@@Leptospirosi Taking an existing design and subsequently redesigning it near 100% seems rather stupid. Power, propulsion, sensors, weapons, inner layout and the dimensions of hull itself all changed. In other words, not a FREMM by any stretch of the imagination anymore.
As a mechanic on one of these frigates,i'd like to add that there is even a room within the ship where ammo for the meroka was supposed to be stowed.Seems like they only cut back on having it on the very late stages of development.
I find it funny that the USN chose the FREMM, then proceeded to modify the hell out of it. When they could've gone with the F100 and made very few changes and actually be constructing the FFG-62 class with a COMPLETE set of plans. /smh
Because they still are, even when today there are other more modern components. This class frigates can detect a misil or any aero object a little more seconds before the Arley Burke destructors for example, becuase the Spanish engineers, intelligentment, put their system anthens (from AEGIS, etc) more high than the USA ship anthens (something simple but very ingenious at the same time too). Regards.
I have noticed you keep reposting your old videos from the Hyuga Class and then now this Alvaro De basan Frigates, Can you also do the upcoming HDC-3200 Corvette/Frigate of the Philippine Navy❤
It is not the same ship, different sensors, different software and access to different weapons. Spanish ships cannot carry long-range surface-to-air missiles or anti-ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles. As the US does not consider the ship to be a friendly nation. It can only access freely exportable technology that any nation can access.
@@luisterrats2290 Its pretty similar,as far as ships go.Manufactured by the same company,on the same shipyards,and following a lot of the lessons learned with the f100s
@@technopriest6708 Well, not the F100s from Navantia's shipyards in El Ferrol, Spain, Europe, the Hobart class from Osborne, South Australia, Oceania, in ACS's shipyards with modules built in various parts of Australia. Not the same company, not the same shipyards, not the same country, not the same continent, not even the same hemisphere. Only some hull modules where the sonar is located, due to problems with delays in deliveries by Australian companies, the part of the hull where the sonar is located was built in Spain and in the United Kingdom. It is the literal concept of being at the antipodes, at the other end of the planet. The design is from Navantia, but the construction and the systems have nothing to do with Navantia. Navantia only sells the hull plans and where part of the systems are located. The combat systems, electronics, software and weapons are contracted by the Australians, who have very different purchasing conditions to Spain, as Australia has no limitations, while Spain cannot access advanced technology systems and capabilities from the USA.
@@ser43_OLDC The F100 can only carry the ESSM and SM2 as anti-aircraft weapons and anti-ship missiles. The US has banned the purchase of SM6, SM3 and Tomahawk missiles, they are only sold if they are used in US wars and the launch must be done by a member of the US armed forces from the Spanish ship. This is done so that a country like Spain, considered a non-ally, can use these weapons against US allied countries like Morocco. The AEGIS system of the F100, unlike the rest of the AEGIS systems of other countries, when it locates an object at speeds close to Mach 10, instead of taking it as a possible threat, it takes it as a system error, preventing the use of the weapons systems. During maneuvers with the US Navy, one of the F100s was briefly installed with the software to lift this restriction. Once the test was finished, the same technicians who installed the patch reinstalled it. So for a few minutes an F100 was able to track targets at high speeds but currently no F100 or F110 will have that capability. This limitation of use of these weapons is due to software in the F100 and will be due to hardware in the F110 where their radar and guidance systems will not be able to have capacity against ballistic missiles. And the Spanish Navy is not only now, but has never bought anything, it is the Spanish government. Just as Egypt does not sell AMRAAM missiles for its F-16s, Spain is not sold anything that could give it superiority or counteract the weapons systems of the US allies in the Mediterranean area, which is where Spain has its only enemies.
Indeed, it's a game of words. Trying to not offend those thin skinned flower power pacifists inside the country. Frigate sounds more neutral than destroyer.
Great video , obviously 😊. Have you done a breakdown of the Type45 air warfare destoyer ? If you have please send a link as I'm a bit lazy 🙏. If not i think it'd be a very interesting subject. Thank you for your channel 🫡👍🏼
Thanks for your interest. We mentioned it in our Mirage III video linked below. We also plan to make a separate video for the Kfir. ruclips.net/video/r5GQez_0mgk/видео.html
@@halfonso_0871 The Israeli system is much more modern and certainly much more capable than what a Spanish ship with US systems can carry. The short and medium range missiles of the AEGIS ships are semi-actively guided and cannot attack anything that is less than a dozen miles away or flying at 30,000 feet. The ESSM and SM-2 are missiles with technology from the 1950s, the same as those carried by the frigates of the late 1960s.
@@luisterrats2290The SM-1 missile entered service in 1967, the SM-2 block IIIA entered service in the 90's. That's like comparing the Israeli Gabriel V anti-ship missile to the Gabriel I missile from 1970. The ESSM entered service in 2004 and certainly isn't a missile with technology from the 1950's. While the SM-2 block IIIA doesn't have an active radar homing seeker, it has roughly double the range of the Barak 8 and Tamir (iron dome). AEGIS-equipped ships are absolutely capable of attacking targets greater than a dozen miles away, the AN/SPY-1D(V) fire control radar is PESA rather than AESA but it has roughly the same range as the corvette version of the MF-STAR at around 300km for air targets.
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D
Please click the link to watch our other Spanish Systems videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_LpSf2--Fz3IXbwChmvQqbvB
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Sea videos
ruclips.net/p/PLEMWqyRZP_Lr1-xIzFrM6xUHCOgetdkmp
Beautiful ship! I just cannot understand why the USN did not adopt this design as the baseline for its Constellation-class.
Because the Italian one was cheaper. and because they could manufacture it in America, without having to pay for technology transfer
Because the FREMM has been designed, from the drawing board, as a modular system which can more easily adapt to different requirements, weapons systems and interior equipments, and the Constellation has to adapt several US systems instead of the original ones. The Italian and the French FREMM only share 25% of the components but the ship design is common, meaning the USN can drop what they don't want and keep only what they like. The Bazan is an "As is" design, much less flexible for extensive conversions
The FREMM ship is also a moderately larger ship (6900t vs 5800t), better suited for long duration cruises, ad the USN even enlarged the original hull and displacement, which was easier to do on the FREMM hull.
@@gorkarullan not really: the FREMM is one of the most expensive frigates on the market, but has been designed to be modified with relative ease to suit whatever the client desires.
The USN WILL pay for technology transfer: why would Fincantieri give it away for free?
@@gorkarullan Which consequently gave rise to put a lot of extra bells and whistles on that makes it more complex and expensive. Too Bad.
@@Leptospirosi Taking an existing design and subsequently redesigning it near 100% seems rather stupid. Power, propulsion, sensors, weapons, inner layout and the dimensions of hull itself all changed. In other words, not a FREMM by any stretch of the imagination anymore.
As a mechanic on one of these frigates,i'd like to add that there is even a room within the ship where ammo for the meroka was supposed to be stowed.Seems like they only cut back on having it on the very late stages of development.
Thanks for reuploading the video.
This is the frigate that the United States did NOT want, this and the next generation are the best frigates in Europe
I find it funny that the USN chose the FREMM, then proceeded to modify the hell out of it. When they could've gone with the F100 and made very few changes and actually be constructing the FFG-62 class with a COMPLETE set of plans. /smh
Still looks very modern
Because they still are, even when today there are other more modern components.
This class frigates can detect a misil or any aero object a little more seconds before the Arley Burke destructors for example, becuase the Spanish engineers, intelligentment, put their system anthens (from AEGIS, etc) more high than the USA ship anthens (something simple but very ingenious at the same time too).
Regards.
I have noticed you keep reposting your old videos from the Hyuga Class and then now this Alvaro De basan Frigates, Can you also do the upcoming HDC-3200 Corvette/Frigate of the Philippine Navy❤
Thanks for your interest. We added the HDC-3200 class to our list. We will make a video for it as soon as possible.
In australia its a destroyer, we got 3. Will watch this later to see what we got
It is not the same ship, different sensors, different software and access to different weapons.
Spanish ships cannot carry long-range surface-to-air missiles or anti-ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles. As the US does not consider the ship to be a friendly nation.
It can only access freely exportable technology that any nation can access.
@@luisterrats2290 Its pretty similar,as far as ships go.Manufactured by the same company,on the same shipyards,and following a lot of the lessons learned with the f100s
@@technopriest6708 Well, not the F100s from Navantia's shipyards in El Ferrol, Spain, Europe, the Hobart class from Osborne, South Australia, Oceania, in ACS's shipyards with modules built in various parts of Australia.
Not the same company, not the same shipyards, not the same country, not the same continent, not even the same hemisphere.
Only some hull modules where the sonar is located, due to problems with delays in deliveries by Australian companies, the part of the hull where the sonar is located was built in Spain and in the United Kingdom.
It is the literal concept of being at the antipodes, at the other end of the planet.
The design is from Navantia, but the construction and the systems have nothing to do with Navantia. Navantia only sells the hull plans and where part of the systems are located. The combat systems, electronics, software and weapons are contracted by the Australians, who have very different purchasing conditions to Spain, as Australia has no limitations, while Spain cannot access advanced technology systems and capabilities from the USA.
@@luisterrats2290The f100 can carry all of those missiles. other thing is that the Spanish navy haven’t bought those systems
@@ser43_OLDC The F100 can only carry the ESSM and SM2 as anti-aircraft weapons and anti-ship missiles. The US has banned the purchase of SM6, SM3 and Tomahawk missiles, they are only sold if they are used in US wars and the launch must be done by a member of the US armed forces from the Spanish ship. This is done so that a country like Spain, considered a non-ally, can use these weapons against US allied countries like Morocco.
The AEGIS system of the F100, unlike the rest of the AEGIS systems of other countries, when it locates an object at speeds close to Mach 10, instead of taking it as a possible threat, it takes it as a system error, preventing the use of the weapons systems.
During maneuvers with the US Navy, one of the F100s was briefly installed with the software to lift this restriction. Once the test was finished, the same technicians who installed the patch reinstalled it. So for a few minutes an F100 was able to track targets at high speeds but currently no F100 or F110 will have that capability.
This limitation of use of these weapons is due to software in the F100 and will be due to hardware in the F110 where their radar and guidance systems will not be able to have capacity against ballistic missiles.
And the Spanish Navy is not only now, but has never bought anything, it is the Spanish government.
Just as Egypt does not sell AMRAAM missiles for its F-16s, Spain is not sold anything that could give it superiority or counteract the weapons systems of the US allies in the Mediterranean area, which is where Spain has its only enemies.
It's a destroyer that self-identifies as a frigate
Indeed, it's a game of words. Trying to not offend those thin skinned flower power pacifists inside the country. Frigate sounds more neutral than destroyer.
The destroyer that wanted to be a frigate
Can you do a video about Turkish navy's İstanbul class frigate as well? Thanks.
Thanks for your interest. We are already working on the Istif class. But, finding footage and info is too hard.
@@WeaponDetective thanks bro. Appreciate the hard work.
*Good video*
Was this ship design an alternative for the Constellation-class (FFG-62)
Great video , obviously 😊. Have you done a breakdown of the Type45 air warfare destoyer ? If you have please send a link as I'm a bit lazy 🙏. If not i think it'd be a very interesting subject. Thank you for your channel 🫡👍🏼
Thanks. We have no Type 45 video. We added to our list. We will make a video as soon as possible.
The [lack of] beauty is in the eye of the beholder but to me the F100 and the AWD's are very hard on the eye
Love your videos, do the kfir next!
Thanks for your interest. We mentioned it in our Mirage III video linked below. We also plan to make a separate video for the Kfir.
ruclips.net/video/r5GQez_0mgk/видео.html
repost?
Yes
🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩🇮🇩💪👍
tecnicamente esta serie son destructores oero en España se les denomina fragatas.semantica
Aegis allready OLD - so stop look 80s Design...Look At Saar6
Please, dont compare an AEGIS destroyer/frigate with a corvette, its idiotic
You're comparing a destroyer that was commissioned in 2002 to a corvette that was commissioned in 2020
@@halfonso_0871 The Israeli system is much more modern and certainly much more capable than what a Spanish ship with US systems can carry.
The short and medium range missiles of the AEGIS ships are semi-actively guided and cannot attack anything that is less than a dozen miles away or flying at 30,000 feet.
The ESSM and SM-2 are missiles with technology from the 1950s, the same as those carried by the frigates of the late 1960s.
@@BENKYism It is a frigate, and play de same role
@@luisterrats2290The SM-1 missile entered service in 1967, the SM-2 block IIIA entered service in the 90's. That's like comparing the Israeli Gabriel V anti-ship missile to the Gabriel I missile from 1970. The ESSM entered service in 2004 and certainly isn't a missile with technology from the 1950's. While the SM-2 block IIIA doesn't have an active radar homing seeker, it has roughly double the range of the Barak 8 and Tamir (iron dome). AEGIS-equipped ships are absolutely capable of attacking targets greater than a dozen miles away, the AN/SPY-1D(V) fire control radar is PESA rather than AESA but it has roughly the same range as the corvette version of the MF-STAR at around 300km for air targets.