Thank you for including metric figures! And I highly doubt that the F126 can run only 26 kn. Germany's armed forces are notorious for understating the capabilities of their weapons systems. E.g the frigates of the F122 type. Their top speed was stated at 29 kn. But when I was in the Bundeswehr, one of my superiors who served on an F122 frigate stated they could easily do 33 kn.
That is standard procedure from old times, when knowing the speed of your enemy was important. The speed numbers they come out with is the official speed of the ship. For example the Norwegian frigates, when they was launched, they was stated they only did 26 knots, we know they do 28 knots (Wikipedia says 27 knots), or the Norwegian skjold class that was supposed to do 60 knots, have been clocked to 68 knots. The old Oslo class was supposed to do 25 knots, but they could do more than 30 knots.
The Frigates are small ships is a somewhat recent idea and that destroyers are big missile platforms is even more recent. The US Navy called their big AA missile cruisers "frigates" till 1975. Some of those frigates were even nuclear powered. Historical the terms frigate and cruisers are different names for the same idea anyway.
Australia is doing the same, their new planned Hunter-Class frigates will displace roughly 1000 tons more than their Hobart-Class destroyers, their naming system seems largely arbitrary
@@julesdebeckker627 Not that arbitrary if you look into history. The role of the cruising warship has just gone back to the designation "Frigate" while the "(armored) cruiser" just isn´t a thing anymore. Today we have the typical frigates and the large cruising role frigates for long and far deployments. Something that was done by the light cruisers until ww2.
British Aerospace seemed to have designed a frigate that works for the UK, Canada and Australia and easily tweeked to personal wants of each country being of a modular design of the T26
Other countries can’t afford to waste massive amounts of money like the U.S. Navy, among others, does. How many more Constellations could we have built for what was spent on the LCS classes and the Zumwalts? At least this time they had the good sense to build on an existing design already in service.
Yes but don't forget the Burkes, subs and carriers being pumped out. US definitely needs to cut back unnecessary spending to afford construction of systems / weapons needed and infrastructure. Better to have that big stick than to need it.
While an existing design is less risky. The USN could have built advanced frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, had it focused on near peer powers, as opposed to littoral combat, and land attack for counter terrorism.
Except in a way they didn't, The US has made so many changes from the base design that its basically a new design, Part of the reason the date has been pushed back to 2029..
No "frigate" is 10K tonnes displacement! Thats putting it into the heavy destroyer/cruiser bracket. And, as is typical of German designs, woefully underarmed.
What are you talking about? Her main purpose is ASW ! German designs are „underarmed“.? So this must be the main reason, why the USN requests one of our „underarmed“ F124 frigates for joining one of there CSG. By the way, I was a submarine CO and I was commanding the Mecklenburg Vorpommern, an „underarmed“ F123 frigate!
It's called a frigate because destroyers are too expensive. And it's supposed to be adaptable to fulfill different mission profiles via specialized mission modules that can be changed at port. So she's supposed to fill many roles and thus fails to excell at any. I especially find her severely lacking in the VLS department.
@@mikebuchner7781Dieser Eindruck existiert ua. aufgrund der F125 Schiffe. Mit einigem Recht wird sich hier gefragt, wieso so teure und so große Schiffe soo geringe Bewaffnung haben, das sie selbst für die vorgesehene Rolle in Stabilisierungsmissionen nur eingeschränkt geeignet sind. Es werden auch gerne die Korvetten herangezogen, welche verglichen mit den Israelischen Saar Korvetten ( die ja auf dem gleichen Schiff basieren ) aussehen wie Spielzeuge. Die allgemein bekannte Designphilosophie ist nun mal die Amerikanische. Und nach dieser sind unsere Schiffe lächerlich bestückt im VLS Bereich. Man kann vor und Nachteile diskutieren bei der F125 stimme ich Kritikern aber zu, dort wurde Konzeptionell und daraufhin Wirkmitteltechnisch ein Fehler gemacht.
I think it’s the armament that decides it’s rating. Over 100 missile tubes, cruiser. Over 50 missile tubes, destroyer. Over 25 missile tubes, frigate. Like armoured vehicles which have become massive due to trying to be everything for everyone so too have warships. The Germans seem to have developed a general support and patrol ship with good short duration self defence capabilities. But just because it’s called a warship doesn’t mean it is a ship of war.
As far as I know, the frigate F126 was developed with modularity in design. A ship that doesn't have to have everything on board, but where functions are distributed on other platforms. In other words, submarines, air and ship defense via unmanned systems and the ship itself as a secure operations center with a powerful data link. It should be able to be used for long-term missions against pirates in foreign waters, which is why these ships rely exclusively on defense.
The F125 is better suited for anti-piracy. The F126 can do that, but is actually more combat capable, having VLS tubes and more modern Anti-Ship missiles.
@@00yiggdrasill00 It's another case of high level corruption in Germany. Germany has one of the highest military budgets, yet their armed forces lack everything. It's all due to corruption and overstuffed bureaucracy. Like the recent H145m helicopter purchase, where they suddenly pay 3 times the price per helicopter than the previous units they bought. Same with this embarrassment of a "warship" . It's meant to push as much money in the right pockets as possible, while delivering a ship that doesn't do anything right. It's supposed to be a transport ship for peace keeping operations. But it lacks the range and cargo capacity for a transport ship. It's so lightly armed, it can't defend itself against a threat greater than Somali pirates. It's also meant to support amphibious special operations, but it doesn't have the means to actually support special operations on shore. It's a product of corruption and misappropriation of military funds, which is the norm in Germany.
@@eddgar-ce3md wait, that's supposed to be a transport ship!? I would not say it's unarmed (though more missiles would be better) but yes it's a bit light given its size, if it could fill it's role I could understand...but isn't it designated as a frigate?. I would believe you. I've heard many stories of the German military lacking in training and equipment, and being notably below the European standard, all over the place. It's really a terrible thing. you are surrounded by allies but severely lack the ability to provide second line support. Given the world is steadily going to grow more dangerous before it settles again I really hope you sort this out, because not only does it make you unable to help allies, it makes you a tempting target to discard if things go wrong.
Destroyers are perceived as to be too expensive, so it's easier to get funding for a so called frigate. Doesn't really make much sense, since the design and cost stays the same, but this is how it works over here. Oh, and classification aside, she's woefully underarmed for her size and planned costs of 1.25 billion € per unit!
They call it a frigate for two reasons: 1) Destroyer, or "Zerstörer" in German has a very aggressive ring to it. Something politics tend to avoid these days. 2) The last three "Zerstörer" of the German Navy were named Rommel, Lütjens and Moelders. Putting new ones into service with different names would acknowledge that to be a fuckup of epic proportions and reusing these names is entirely out of question.
It's easiest to consider "frigate" as the term for "multipurpose warship". These ships will have a far wider mission profile than the traditional destroyer role, and their size is a result of classic ship design evolution (remember the times when destroyers were ~2.000 tonnes?)
The reason is simple enough. Legislatures and Parliaments are more ready to sign off on expending money on ships designated "destroyers" and "frigates" than they would be if you were to call these ships by what their weight and capabilities would say they actually are. As a US citizen, a 10,000 ton Arleigh Burke "destroyer" class carries the firepower, displacement and is filling the role of a WWII-era Heavy Cruiser; likewise, the 7,300 ton Constellation class "frigate" class appear to be setting up in at least some of the roles of a Light Cruiser. The classifications are all just an effort to lull the taxpayers paying for them into false sense of economy and scale.
@@funkybuddha2448 The Ticonderoga cruiser is designed to stay close to carriers and provide air defence for the entire carrier strike group. The Type 26 frigate is designed to sail ahead of the carrier strike group and hunt down enemy submarines. It’s missiles are not for area defence. Also when have you ever seen a Ticonderoga carry 496 missiles?
@@MasterCheeks-2552 lol obviously it wouldn't because the ESSM range is kinda short.. but they -could-.... just like the Type 26 -could- carry a full loadout of ESSM's I was just pointing out that your original comment was slightly ridiculous. Now apply your own reasoning to your original comment
@@petes8746 the "class" is absolutely meaningless these days. the type 26 with full missile load modification will be the same weight and have the same number of missiles as a cruiser. The name attached is completely irrelevant now. It's nothing to do by weight or armaments.
There is no such thing as a "super" frigate. They're just frigates. No need for drama. Ship designations do not require "super," "mega," "giga," or any other bombastic prefixes. Having studied military science since 1979, all the dramatic prefixes people put in front of everything now days drives me nuts. Reality is what it is. It does not need sensationalism.
To call a naval vessel of more than 10000 tons a "frigate" seems to be quite an understatement. In fact German surface combatants grew bigger and bigger over time but the German navy appears to be reluctant to change designation.
I could live with "heavy" (or light) to kinda say "we are actually in the other class due to the weight, but the armament does not meet the requirements", but Super actually says nothing.. .it could be super modern, or be super flexible, or super comfortable.
@mammutMK2 Unfortunately, modern ship designations do not conform to any weight parameters. Burke class destroyers are the same displacement as WW 2 light cruisers, and many modern destroyers' displacement is equal to WW 2 heavy cruisers. Heavy and light could be used for similar ships of different displacement or weapon loads, but really, navies around the world have abandoned any standardization of designations.
Well, at least it gives you an idea on what type of ship it compares to. When the US decided that Sweden and Norway had no clue about littoral combat and tried to come up with a super-corvette, they called it "littoral combat ship". That may not be as hyperbolic as "super-corvette" would have been, but it was, in all aspects, the intent.
The Type-126 isn’t a frigate it’s a destroyer being called a frigate. Like the Japanese “Helicopter destroyer,” is an amphib or light aircraft carrier, not a destroyer.
@@ALWH1314That's why the German navy had several destroyer classes postwar? And now when the war is even longer over they are concerned for a ship class name? I call that nonsense!
The Taiwan-made “Tuo Chiang-Class” stealth corvette is a twin-hulled patrol and wave-piercing catamaran Ship, with a full load displacement of 700 tons and a top speed of over 44 knots (81.5 kilometers per hour). It is highly maneuverable, has strong firepower, and is radar-stealthed, making it highly survivable in high-intensity combat environments. The ship's main weapons are as follows: * Four domestically produced anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 250 kilometers * Eight domestically produced supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 250 kilometers * Sixteen anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 30 kilometers * One Otto 76-millimeter naval gun * One Phalanx close-in weapon system * Twenty mines or depth charges * A drone landing pad
The type 126 is a beautiful ship. Shame it will only have 16 VLS. The UK's new cheap type 31 frigate at 1/4 the the cost will have 32 VLS. The Chinese Type 054A has 32 VLS, again will only cost about a third of the Type 126. The Chinese Type 055 destroyer, still cheaper than the Type 126 will have 112 VLS.
Heavy cruisers used to come in under 10,000 tons, now we call a 10,500 ton warship a frigate? How the heck does that work? Well I should not be surprised since the US released the Zumwalt, a destroyer that is larger than the battleship USS Texas.
Out of all the frigates in history the Perry class has proven to be the most capable in combat. Perry class frigates have been hit with missiles, mines, suicide bombs, air strikes and not a single one has ever been sunk by enemies.
The F-126 is not a frigate. It is a destroyer in all but name. Not sure why a NATO country would be allowed to alter a designation on a whim. The tonnage, capabilities, Tactile and strategic deterrence as well as mission parameters makes her a destroyer.
We should remember that the first time the term “Frigate” was used to describe a ship class, it was the age of sail. At that time the frigate classification described a ship which would be smaller and faster than a ship of the line, be able to sail an extended distance without replenishment, be large enough to hold a flag officer and his staff, lead an expeditionary force or commerce raiding force, and be better armed than a smaller gunship or sloop. This definition was very similar to a World War 2 Cruiser. For various reasons in the 1940s and on, the classification of Frigate was re-imagined as a warship smaller than a destroyer, with reduced range, dedicated to a role, and limited in firepower.
Yes that seems to be the mission statement for the design. So its more like a partial long range support vessel despite its aggressive looks. But that being said, its a waste of resources invested in such a large ship. Most ships just restock at a port of call.
that sounds cool and all, but you will never have that happen on a ship that size running on hydrocarbons lol not enough consumables, have to rotate crews, affect repairs, etc etc
@@patta8388 True, multi-purpose by adding mission modules (mission containers) e.g. disaster relief, ASW, modules, maritime surveillance, embargo control etc. Sounds like a great selling point, doesn't it? Please do not let this blind you. The F126 is to replace the F123 Brandenburg class, which is a pure submarine hunter. Once the F123 is decommissioned, there is no frigate class left that could do the job (F124&F125 both are only partially capable of submarine hunting(do other tasks). The F126 will most likely be used mainly as a subhunter with VLS for self-protection.
Ich würde mal annehmen das das ding mehr enthält wie sie öffentlich zugeben, würde ich zumindest so machen. Da ist so viel freier platz außen, dass ich ehrlich annehme das da noch irgendwo Raketen in massen sind oder sowas. Und wenn man ein gutes neues Kriegsschiff hat, ist das letzte was man machen sollte öffentlich sagen: "oh ja also das kann genau das und das..."
Why F126 (10,550 metric tonne) is not destroyer, but "super frigate"? The F123 Brandenburg class (Deutsche Marine) that it replaces is just 3,600 tonnes frigate. Why don't call the F126 as "destroyer" instead of "super frigate"?
I believe a lot of that weight is reserved for future-proofing + the weight of modern radar systems are just enormous as they grow more and more advanced
Interesting the Australian T26 Hunter class is 8000t. The T26 actual has 2 propulsions system which is gas/electric. Recently BAE announced it could modify the Hunter by reducing its ASW ability and modular function, and have either a 96 vls with main gun or 128 vls without. I think that as more a destroyer than a frigate.
If the Australian government goes ahead with the upgunned 96 cell VLS hunter varent that I think they will. it will be the most powerful frigate in the world. It will be already eqwiped with the best radar system CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray. And be eqwiped with Aegis combat systems. It be on par armament of US destroyers. It would be interesting to see what destroyers Australia will have for the replacement F100 class. Will they go with Navanti F110 class with 128 cell VLS or will they just build more Hunter class
the designations have basically lost meaning with with the new era of missile ships the T26 with that modification would have more firepower than a Ticonderoga lol... but they'd be the same weight, so ya, liek I said above
@@Nathan-ry3yu It won't be the best frigate in the world as it won't have a multimission bay. It might be the best destroyer in the world if it sorts out top weight issues.
A Kirov, of which there are two, is barely held together with gaffa tape and it's 1980s era sensors and weapons are served by Peasant boys from tiny villages. It's engines are good for getting it out of harbour if anything of use inside it hadn't been already sold by it's drunk obese officers
A Kirov, of which there are two, is barely held together with gaffa tape and it's 1980s era sensors and weapons are served by Peasant boys from tiny villages. It's engines are good for getting it out of harbour if anything of use inside it hadn't been already sold by it's drunk obese officers
You really need to fact check. The Hunter class is a derivative of the British Type 26 And you were showing a proposed air defense variant of the Hunter class. The German F-126 is ridiculously under armed for her size with 16 Mark 41 VLS cells. She should have 48 cells at the very least to compare with other large frigates. The British type 26 is likewise under armed with just 24 mk-41 VLS tubes for straight capability and two sets of 24 vls for the SkyCeptor. The City class and other ship classes based on her should have at least MK+41 cells in the front in addition to the 24 cells for short or medium ranged air defense missiles in the back. The American Constellation class is similarly under armed. It carries only 32 mk-41 cells and none of these are straight length. That means that the ship can't carry any tomahawk cruise missiles, or SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles. Instead, these ships, which are named after America's famous super frigates of the War of 1812, will be limited to ESSM missiles, VL+ASRoc (vertical launched rocket assisted torpedoes) and thr SM-2 Block IV. I really wish this class had 16 strike of length cells.
The F126 is underarmed because it has a different mission profile. Germany doesnt need war ships for a prolongued war at sea. If it came to a war with the russians, we'd close down the baltics (which is our job according to NATO doctrine) and that's it. And we can do that with these ships. The F126 is meant to be a multi-purpose frigate for international missions that is capable of *very* long deployments at sea, that can be refit at any port within 1-3 days with the right mission modules.
@@patta8388 may be, but having to send our strongest battleship (F124) to some little proxies is more a show of weakness then a show of force. Not mentioning the according to its definition, a frigate is the smallest unit that can defend it self... sending this F126 vessel to the red sea, it would be heavily underarmed to defend it self. So if it isn't capable for power projection or long outstanding missions, why not using the size of the F124? To me it looks like an extended F125 joke, able to impress any one especially not the Chinese or Russian, that it should do in first place.
Man when i hear "T26 Frigate" i just imagine the Turret of some poor interwar Tank slapped on an armored Raft with some dude paddling away and another one shooting
It was supposed to be a corvette, but they wanted to stuff in more and more stuff, so now it's as big as a destroyer or even cruiser. But no weapons, they forgot about those...
They have room for vls upgrades in case there is need for that. Mostly the size is because of the mission times they can endure before overhaul, the amount of additional personal they can host when configured as operation base and surveillance equipment they can store. These frigates are designed as long deployment multipurpose mission runners. And that cost space which results in tonnage.
German defense procurement can be abit of a nightmare considering the losing bidder can stall the bids. They can sort of turn end up like the Bradleys, which was late and far from the initial requirements.
Multi mission. Main function seems to be Anti-sub with long range patrol and small scale troop combat. The Australian T26 Hunter is 10,000t has room for 3 Rhib, 2 helicopter, drones or weapons.
Um.... Interesting....The 🇩🇪 "frigate" (?) Is over 10,000 tons.....And it does NOT seem to carry that much "payloads" compared to a much older 🇺🇸 Areligh Burke class at 9,600 tons!! Or have i forgot to count something in the 🇩🇪 ship??☹️
The F-126 is a bit special, it's designed for very long deployment (up to 2 years without returning back to Germany) and it has a lot of empty space for now, because there are some new weapon systems in development. And those 2 ships are made to fight different targets.
It is not really a fighting ship . It is a kind of cruiser. Long distance patrol ship, high endurance, independently operation capability and to show the flag. If times become more harsh you can install other modules. It can carry containers for special forces and host them.
Traduction: A very simple question: Why have the USA just rewarded 4 French frigates, as in 2020, the multi-mission frigates "Auvergne", "Bretagne", "Languedoc" and "Provence", with "Hook'em Awards". This award of excellence was presented this year by Vice-Admiral Ishee [C6F] to Vice-Admiral Boidevezi. Original: Une question toute bête: Pourquoi les USA viennent de récompenser 4 Frégates Françaises, comme en 2020, les frégates multimissions « Auvergne », « Bretagne », « Languedoc » et « Provence , par des "Hook’em Award". Ce prix d’excellence a été décerné cette année par le vice-amiral d’escadre Ishee [C6F] au vice-amiral d’escadre Boidevezi.
Actually it's a matter of tonnage. A navy can call them what they like but the tonnage designates what they really are. Frigates 2-5k tons, Destroyers 5-8k tons, Cruisers over 8k tons.
@@ricardosmythe2548 Old world naming conventions don't really work anymore. It's the roll they play that defines what they're called these days hence why one nations can have a frigate at 8500 tons & another at 3500 tons.
@@ZuulGatekeeper the reasons nations build 8500 ton destroter and call them frigates is to quell people at home who would seek to minimise militarization. Japan did the same with its newly converted aircraft carriers. Germany does it for the same reason. People get nervous for obvious reasons seeing either nation flexing in that regard.
@@ricardosmythe2548 Some truth in that for some nations but generally the ship is just a platform you need to look at the specific weapon & sensor loadout. What missiles & the type it carries, the types of radar & underwater detection systems. Matters not the size it's the job it's intended to perform now obviously a 8000 ton frigate is far more capable than a 3500 but they're still both frigates.
3 major drawbacks for Constellation class frigates. It has no SPG-62 CWI radars so it can't provide precision tracking and target illumination. No SPQ-9B for surface/horizon or low elevation search for sea-skimming missiles. And no hull mounted sonar. Does it even carry VL-ASROC?
@@brianjordan-5357 Not illumination, but SPY-6 can do missile communication and even do surface search. But an S-band like SPY-6 can't do precision tracking like an X-band SPG-62 radar can do nor it doesn't have the same reach of a X-band SPQ-9B radar elevated on the mast. Even on the Burke SPY-6 only plays a secondary role for missile communication and surface search, while its primary role is volumetric high elevation search.
@@brianjordan-5357 Its the same, either SPY-1 or SPY-6. Though SPY-6 can do it all as it has multiple S-band arrays/RMAs, it still can't beat an X-band radar in terms of precision.
@johnsilver9338 The AN/SPS 73(V) 18 is newer and better for long-range surface search, and the AEGIS 10 Baseline fire control can focus beams to illuminate targets. It's a second line ship meant for convoy escort and other mundane tasks. Everything I have read says it will perform as a mini Burke ship, and I've found nothing that would indicate its sensors are insufficient in any way. The new surface search radar is better than the old, and SPY-6 is much more sophisticated than the SPY-1D. Many believe that it is better than the SPY-7. We shall see. I have witnessed people saying that the F-14, F-15, and F-16, as well as the Burke class and Virginia classes, were going to underperform and be unsuccessful, along with multiple army vehicles. Those people were all wrong then, and I am sure today's engineers know what they are doing. I could be wrong. There was the Sgt. York debacle in the late 70s or early 80s, but we shall see.
Hunter class of the Royal Australian Navy is entirely different beast than the basic Type 26. The Radar suite has a capability exceeding the even Canadian version and Constellation class. The CEA manufactured radar is still top secret in that it performance is hidden and one must add the 4 x AESA fire control radars with each AESA FCR can lock on to 4 targets simultaneously 4 x 4 = each ship can engage 12 targets at once on its FCR alone. This radar has multi frequency panels per face to engage stealth at longer ranges than the traditional AESA X band radar panels.
Question from a non-Naval guy: How do these new ones keep from taking on tons of water in heavy seas? Seems like the hulls in use today are better shaped to resist rogue waves and such.
So think of it as a bottle if you keep the cap on water isn’t going in and the buoyancy prevents water from engulfing the vessel along with stabilisation, same applies to ships they have hatches that prevent water from going internally of the ship keeping in bone dry internally.
The shape of the fwd part of the hull is designed to disperse a heavy swell and cut through the water more efficiently than previous designs. With no side walks or cut throughs, the ship presents a single cell to the water. Design using positive buoyancy and on ship mechanical stabilisation makes for a platform to be confident in. I spent 5 years on Type 42s which were phased out some years ago, even these were pretty good in rough seas.
@@jonathanlegg4308 Thanks! That explains just what I wanted to know. Seems there's a lot going on under the waterline and in the controls to make this work.
You are totally missing the point, that the F126 is built modularly, so it can take mission specific modules that totally alter it's armament and capability.
That concept never worked for anyone tho. Spare modules are collecting dust in port because its way easier to simply send out a ship that is allready fitted for the mission compared to refitting another ship with the modules needed, since that would take way longer and be way more expensive. As far as im aware, all modular warships ended up using their modules permanently for that reason.
Call it a marketing scheme, destroyer sonds more expensive, so getting funding for something called frigate is easier over here. It's stupid but it obviously works.
@@Schwarzenfels The Imperial Navy kept referring to Dreadnoughts as "Ships of the Line" and mixed Battlecruisers in with Armoured Cruisers because the original bill passed to build up their fleet relied heavily on nomenclatura.
The U.S. needs some corvettes. Not as many as FFG (assuming they buy all 80), but more than the cruisers - numbering around 20. That meaning 30-50 corvettes for various littoral deployments around the world.
Don't take it wrong, but that's the way US Navy it's not on the scene cause weather condition and... ...imagining "a BIG corvette" about 3500 tons, it will be any way a BIG shame in the Navy if they encounter a bigger Legend (Bertholf) class USCG cutter 'cause US Navy have it always bigger then any one! 🤣😂🤣
USA has already a number of corvettes, the US Coast Guard cutters. LOL. ANYWAY, that will be unlikely for the U.S Navy to purchase corvettes. Simple reasons, they're so small to operate with the the U.S aircraft Naval Task group or force. US Navy is geared for open oceans and long range naval operations. Based on the experience of the Oliver Perry FFGs, having the Constellation is the wisest decision they made. Frigates are what the U.S Navy needed to compliment the destroyers and cruisers, and definitely not corvettes.
No the USA does not need Corvettes. If the USN needs to operate in littoral areas around the world, then it should buy patrol boats capable of traversing the world's oceans. More capital ships means additional expenses to a bloated pentagon budget, with no additional benefits for the USA.
@@juniorleslie4804 sorry Sir, but this means USA rules and will rule the world, instead there are a coalition of rogue states capable to create many large problems around this planet (like war in Israel by Hamas on behalf of Iran to please Russia diverting and dividing US focus on Ukraine), so US need strong forces not just to display a feared flag but to deadly strike those without fear! If the United States no longer wants the costs of leading the world, they no longer deserve it and are welcomed between european countries flock follower (forced by money as UK or incapable to lead as Germany). China is willing to give world new rules taking USA place!!! You know this way USA (+Canada) will become a poor country as all american ones, maybe south american people migrated in the States had a stronger than thought influence for the grown of this common attitude to the whole american continent or simply american people are so selfishly focused on themselves that they do not want to consider their role and duties towards the nation and the people
The F-126 is classified as a frigate for political reasons. It has similar displacement as destroyers but is armed closer to frigates. Both Germany and Japan often designate ships creativity because of what happened in WW 2 and modern humans' historical illiteracy.
The german navy only has up to frigates because the name destroyer would sound way to "aggressive" for support in the german public. So you cant compare german ship classes with international standards.
All 3 would be described as Destroyers by most navies and easily fit the description if you go by tonnage. They're called Frigates more for what they're designed to do and that's their anti-submarine capabilities. Their main job is to detect and protect carrier groups from submarines. The US and UK have destroyers with the US having 73 active Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and two active Zumwalt-class destroyers.
Why? Because you need the space and power to carry its weapons-VLS cells. The Navy needs a new "Fletcher class" destroyer-a cheap design that can be built quickly at any yard. The technology does not need to be bleeding-edge but utilizes off-the-shelf components. With the failure of the DDG-1000 and LCS programs, the US Navy owns older hulls and needs more hulls soon-not 10 years from now.
in Germany even 10K tons are called frigates, maybe the destroyers there called Destroyers will be in the range of 20 tons 😁.. but it's a pity to see that the ships are so big but toothless with minimal VLS, the ants are laughing when they see this, the majority of ships with the same tonnage above 10K are above 96 VLS... The majority of 10K weights are more than 100 VLS🙏
The only potential enemy for a real war would be russia. Their baltic fleet in particular, as germany is supposed to shut down any russian operations there according to NATO doctrine. We've got enough ships and firepower for that. The F126 is meant for long term deployments on international missions. Also capable to be refit within 1-3 days at any port with specific mission modules
It is not the size that defines a frigate, but rather its specialization in contrast to the more universal equipped destroyer. F126 is an anti-submarine warfare frigate for worldwide long-term operations. The modular concept, which means equipment with additional capabilities such as air defense or special operations, requires a large ship with a lot of space. Smaller , non modular frigates such as the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates intended for surface attack operations also only have 24 VLM cells. If you have accurate missiles you don't need much. see F22 or F35 fighter jet concept with less but deadlier missiles. We are no longer in the 20th century and do not need gun boats no longer.
Non modular ??? the ENTIRE design of type 26 and type 31 is modularity, both were designed from the with modularity from the ground up with mission bays for modularity so they can swap and change whatever they need, if thats supplies, or extra space for another helicopter, or more on board RIBS etc. The type 26 most definately IS NOT designed for surface attack she will have at most 8-16 anti ship missiles on board, the NSM i believe, she has 48VLS cells likely to be filled with quad packed sea ceptor for fleet defence but she is ENTIRELY a ground up anti submarine ship, her hull is coated in acoustic absorbing material she has 2 drives so she can switch between fast and loud and slow and steady for hunting subs hence why they each cost about £1.3 billion each.
First it's 16 cells. And yeah, it might seem to little, but if you overthing NATO strategics, where the main area für the german fleet is the baltic sea, you just don't need more vls-cells. Friendly harbours to resupply are close by, friendly air defence is near by, friendly air force is nearby. If a F 126 get's in really bad trouble with all that around itself, more vls won't safe her anymore^^
But it won't stay in the Baltic,rather doing long term operations globally to protect trade routes. And for that they really gave her too limited stock in armory and they didn't even focus on drone operations. If they would at least armored her. In total... you could probably cut the armory in half...your fighting pirate's in rubber boats...that is even something a WW1 destroyer could do and he would laugh at an rpg that would just leave a dent in the armor... imagine the shit storm breaking lose if they would shoot a harpoon at the pirate's killing everyone on that rubber boat to save some trade goods
The German Navy is considering purchasing fewer NH-90s and more helicopter drones. There would be space for a helicopter and one or two drones on each ship
@@j.m.youngquist419 well, I think that they wanted to consolidate to a fewer number of ships that were all large enough to be truly blue water. Then they wasted a few decades on the Zumwalt/LCS experiment, which failed and tied up shipyards for a few decades. The reality is that the did make frigates, the LCS are frigates by another name. Don't get caught up with frigate vs cruiser vs destroyer. Horizon class; 1 class of ships and the French designate them as frigates while the Italians designate them as Destroyers. Look at the German F126 Frigate at 10,000t while there are still classes of Destroyers in service less than 1/2 that displacement. It just isn't relevant anymore.
At 10,000+ tons they really are light cruisers regardless of what function they say they're for as they are usually sent to cruise alone and are able to handle just about everything themselves.
No more cruisers. This is a cold war era classification. Even Ticonderogas were called destroyers when they where building, just called Cruisers because of the "cruiser gap" against the USSR. Type 055, DDGX and F126 are destroyers, largest surface combatant of 2020s, 2030s and 2040s. No more cruisers, just Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes will be XXI century version of 40s to 70s Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates.
In function they are basically colonial cruisers of old. Long endurance, lightly armed, made to display the flag and maintain a national presence all over the globe, with the ability to project power in "uncivilized" regions.
@@jesusdiaz3776 That's like saying the Japanese carriers are destroyers, or the British Invincible class are "through deck cruisers". It's a political classification, not a military one. Realistically, the German ship is an under-armed, under-manned, light cruiser. It's range and tonnage, and its multi-role mission profile indicate that. It's described as a "frigate" for the same reasons that the Japanese call their carriers "destroyers". Nothing around 20,000 tonnes with a flat full-length fight desk is a "destroyer".
The German frigate has the same armament as a frigate half its size and weight though. I like the Australian upgunned varent of the type 26. They call the hunter class with 96 cell VLS. Now, that is a cruiser. It outclass the Burk class destroyers.. if they take off the main gun at the front, apparently, they can give it 128 cells. VLS
@@SigurdStormhand Why use the Japanese example. Is not the same case. Japanese classification is a joke. They call Destroyers what in a global perspective are Escort Carriers, LHDs, Destroyers and Heavy frigates, and they call Destroyers Escort their corvettes. I am talking about using the same cold war era knowledge for classified modern warships. Nomenclature changes. German F126 is a destroyer for the modern perspective; a "light-Cruiser" for a Cold War era perspective, a scout cruiser for a WW2 perspective. Even Ticos where originally destroyers, but they changed the classification because of the "cruiser gap". Ships similar to modern frigates size and fire power where called destroyers in cold war and light and scout cruisers in WW2 era. Modern Corvettes like Steregushyi or Gowind are the same size and fire power of cold war era frigates, but those CW era frigates where the same since and similar fire power of WW2 era destroyers or 20s light and protected cruisers. That's my point. Now we are in the end of a transition era for ship classification, like it was the WWII when destroyers become as big as old scout and protected cruisers, and frigates and DEs replace the interwar period destroyers. Today we don't call Arleigh Burcke a Cruiser. In the 90s people don't call a Perry class frigate a scout cruiser. With this knowledge we can even call OPVs scout cruisers, but this doesn't fit with the modern reality. Things changes. Nomenclature changes.
I understand the growing size of 'Frigates' is in part to fit a greater number of VLS, the days of the old SeaDart missiles sitting on a rail launcher with 50-80 missiles in the magazine are over, the missiles are all front-loaded in tubes now. But VLS can't be reloaded at sea therefore the temptation is to build a larger ship to fit more cells, to enable longer duration on mission. Yet this 10k ton monster 'frigate' has - 16 cells and a water-cannon? Staring down the might of the Russian Baltic Fleet (whatever that is) with a what now? If you couldn't stop the US .. err I mean our adversaries .. from popping the Nordstream 1+2 with existing assets, how will this manage with that loadout? Also this payload could have been carried on a ship with half the tonnage, so what's really going on here German internet friends? Is it true that the entire board of the procurement office has been fired? Something to do with this, or Ukr? On a positive note the ship is a real looker imo XD
Germany’s Frigate is one badass MF; fast, heavy and armed to the hull. Whereas the US piece of crap Constellation is a LW with less than half the weapons. Typical corrupt US defense company give taxpayers shit for their $$$
What is it about these site it compares Ship yet shows an Australian ship not Royal Navy, shows the specks totally different ways even US ship shows the ship it based on apart from the hull nothing is similar
Because Americans don’t know how to build ship’s anymore. Hate to say it but America’s only reason for naval dominance is because we build more. But overall the U.S. navy sucks. Our admirals are fat and slovenly, and lack spine. FFG-62 is going to be LCS part 2
that gun fires 3.4 rounds a second and can fill the air with a wall of fragmented shells to stop a dozen incoming missiles that are missed by essm's it's an EXCELLENT last line of defense when combined with more precise RIM-116 and linear classical CWIS
It still needs an ASW capability. Frigates need to be multi role warships in as small a hull as possible, and operate independently and over the horizon if necessary. The tradition that was set by Stephen Decatur.
Storage space so it is capable of long term, long distance deployments and lots of empty space for mission modules. It's a ship mostly for international missions. Those mission modules can be fit within 1-3 days in any port and give it the capability to land troops or add firepower, and anything in between
Interesting reading the comments, these frigates are not like 80’s lessons have be learnt from Falkland war, peacekeeping to today’s drones n more sophisticated missiles, submarines to fighter jets. F126 is basically fully arm destroyer but lacks some features like other 2. T26 is not straight forward but are multi mission heavy frigates base version is sub hunting, Australia is still playing with design but it has best radar with Aegis baseline 9 n well proven CEAFAR. Canada version is what US Navy should have got but US Navy is older design still impressive Aegis 10, missiles loadout. T26 is a winner not because weapons loadout but true multi mission with lager helicopter deck for CH47 Chinook but there old saying putting all eggs into one basket but this should be full size destroyer to replace Hobart class, RAN should build more of these n build Gibbs n Cox light frigates with 3inch gun like OHP.
@@Volesky1775 This one should not, because it's capable of a longer deployment and can be refitted within 2-3 days at any port with the right mission modules. It's meant for International missions and possibly shutting down any russian operations in the baltics.
The german F126 is garbage. Not as garbage as the F125 glorified patrol boat, but still. The F126 started out as a corvette design, got bigger and bigger because they couldn't make the requirements work otherwise, but the armament stayed that of a corvette while the weight is that of a cruiser. And the F125 is an anti piracy long endurance patrol boat. There is no way to sugarcoat this. The german army+navy is stuck in the year 2000, believing in forever world peace and looking to fight insurgencies, not real nations.
Just because modularity failed on the LCS, doesnt mean it'll fail on the F126. Germany loves Frigates, while the LCS program was looked down upon from congress from the get go. And the only responsibility germany has is shutting down the russian baltic fleet, which it is capable of. Other than that, they only need this kind of ship for international missions.
This ship was actually planned in the 2000s or earlier, hence it has a big focus on long deployments, anti piracy etc. That does not mean its garbage however. Appart from the option of getting more firepower through retrofitting, less firepower does not mean bad. Ships like these will always be useful, just look at the mission to fight huthi pirates in the middle east.
There is no explanation as to why these frigates are so big. The F126 is approaching cruiser displacement, but a laughable quantity of weapons. Same story as the F125. Could anyone shed light on this trend? Nobody needs videos spouting data anyone can read online.
Traditional naming conventions simply don't apply to modern warships. Historically the tonnage & size of guns it could carry defined a ships roll. Frigates were small, fast & armed with small caliber guns. They were used as patrol, scouts or escorts. Destroyers were larger, better armed with medium caliber & used mainly for fleet protection duty's. Cruisers were larger still, heavily armed & used to go out alone & hunt down enemy ships. Battleships were your heavy hitters for large scale confrontations with enemy fleets & shore bombardments. Today with the advent of missiles & other technologies even a small vessel can take down a capitol ship. Modern ships are one platform that performs all roles with different nations choosing either the name Frigate or Destroyer mostly due to role they intend it to perform & it's missile loadout. Because of this we get a huge range in ship size variation one nation may call a 2500 ton a Frigate while another's is 8500 tons. They're both still Frigates just the later has far greater endurance, range & number of missiles. The UK uses Frigate as it's main front line combat/sub hunting vessels & carry's a greater number of offensive missiles while Destroyer retains it's role as fleet protection so has a greater number of defensive missiles even though in terms of tonnage they're almost identical.
Thank you for including metric figures!
And I highly doubt that the F126 can run only 26 kn. Germany's armed forces are notorious for understating the capabilities of their weapons systems. E.g the frigates of the F122 type. Their top speed was stated at 29 kn. But when I was in the Bundeswehr, one of my superiors who served on an F122 frigate stated they could easily do 33 kn.
That is standard procedure from old times, when knowing the speed of your enemy was important. The speed numbers they come out with is the official speed of the ship. For example the Norwegian frigates, when they was launched, they was stated they only did 26 knots, we know they do 28 knots (Wikipedia says 27 knots), or the Norwegian skjold class that was supposed to do 60 knots, have been clocked to 68 knots. The old Oslo class was supposed to do 25 knots, but they could do more than 30 knots.
...and reach those 33 knots in ninety seconds. Driving a 122 was akin to driving a naval Ferrari.
26knots seems slow!
@@brianpreval5602 it us 26kn for ages now and the spec is always 26 kn. Certainly special standard spec, not the classified war or emergency spec.
all navies do this ...
Germany is using ship classifications a bit....different. Our Frigates are more akin to what others would call a Destroyer.
LOL! Well, they have a bit of history doing just that.
The Frigates are small ships is a somewhat recent idea and that destroyers are big missile platforms is even more recent. The US Navy called their big AA missile cruisers "frigates" till 1975. Some of those frigates were even nuclear powered.
Historical the terms frigate and cruisers are different names for the same idea anyway.
Australia is doing the same, their new planned Hunter-Class frigates will displace roughly 1000 tons more than their Hobart-Class destroyers, their naming system seems largely arbitrary
@@julesdebeckker627 Not that arbitrary if you look into history. The role of the cruising warship has just gone back to the designation "Frigate" while the "(armored) cruiser" just isn´t a thing anymore. Today we have the typical frigates and the large cruising role frigates for long and far deployments. Something that was done by the light cruisers until ww2.
@julesdebeckker627 Canada's new warships are similarly based off the type 26 british frigate, but they will be called river class destroyers.
British Aerospace seemed to have designed a frigate that works for the UK, Canada and Australia and easily tweeked to personal wants of each country being of a modular design of the T26
The British frigate will be more like a multirole destroyer to compliment the type 45 destroyer.
😅 British 🇬🇧 collection Colossal failure ENGENDERING
Challenger 2
Fregate
U -boat
Eurofigter
HMS Queen Elizabeth
Rolls Royce.
@@ΓεώργιοςΜαυροειδής-χ8μHuh?! What are you on?!
been hammered by RN and RAN admirals as a dud. When is it deployed in theatre?
@@ΓεώργιοςΜαυροειδής-χ8μsays who?
The 3d model of the 'Type 26' at 04:30 is actually an Australian Hunter class. The mast/radar is the main difference between the two.
none built and operating yet? dont meet capabilities either massive issues
Other countries can’t afford to waste massive amounts of money like the U.S. Navy, among others, does. How many more Constellations could we have built for what was spent on the LCS classes and the Zumwalts? At least this time they had the good sense to build on an existing design already in service.
Yeah the constellation class is a pragmatic program and will certainly be good.
Yes but don't forget the Burkes, subs and carriers being pumped out. US definitely needs to cut back unnecessary spending to afford construction of systems / weapons needed and infrastructure. Better to have that big stick than to need it.
While an existing design is less risky. The USN could have built advanced frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, had it focused on near peer powers, as opposed to littoral combat, and land attack for counter terrorism.
Except in a way they didn't, The US has made so many changes from the base design that its basically a new design, Part of the reason the date has been pushed back to 2029..
They are all allies - together they make an awesome seagoing force above and below the waterline…
No "frigate" is 10K tonnes displacement! Thats putting it into the heavy destroyer/cruiser bracket. And, as is typical of German designs, woefully underarmed.
What are you talking about? Her main purpose is ASW ! German designs are „underarmed“.? So this must be the main reason, why the USN requests one of our „underarmed“ F124 frigates for joining one of there CSG. By the way, I was a submarine CO and I was commanding the Mecklenburg Vorpommern, an „underarmed“ F123 frigate!
It's called a frigate because destroyers are too expensive. And it's supposed to be adaptable to fulfill different mission profiles via specialized mission modules that can be changed at port.
So she's supposed to fill many roles and thus fails to excell at any. I especially find her severely lacking in the VLS department.
@@mikebuchner7781Dieser Eindruck existiert ua. aufgrund der F125 Schiffe. Mit einigem Recht wird sich hier gefragt, wieso so teure und so große Schiffe soo geringe Bewaffnung haben, das sie selbst für die vorgesehene Rolle in Stabilisierungsmissionen nur eingeschränkt geeignet sind. Es werden auch gerne die Korvetten herangezogen, welche verglichen mit den Israelischen Saar Korvetten ( die ja auf dem gleichen Schiff basieren ) aussehen wie Spielzeuge. Die allgemein bekannte Designphilosophie ist nun mal die Amerikanische. Und nach dieser sind unsere Schiffe lächerlich bestückt im VLS Bereich. Man kann vor und Nachteile diskutieren bei der F125 stimme ich Kritikern aber zu, dort wurde Konzeptionell und daraufhin Wirkmitteltechnisch ein Fehler gemacht.
I think it’s the armament that decides it’s rating. Over 100 missile tubes, cruiser. Over 50 missile tubes, destroyer. Over 25 missile tubes, frigate. Like armoured vehicles which have become massive due to trying to be everything for everyone so too have warships. The Germans seem to have developed a general support and patrol ship with good short duration self defence capabilities. But just because it’s called a warship doesn’t mean it is a ship of war.
@@mikebuchner7781 because the F124 frigates are actually well armed unlike the other German frigates. don't even get started on the F125 frigates
The German frigate has onley 16 vls for it weight should be 96 cells
Cuz its a sub hunter frigate, no destroyer
@@heinzkabofke6791bit big for ASW ship
No it has not it has 16+16 VLs cells
Plus an optional Modul of 100 loitering Munition, or 50 long range GLMs Rockets
Those 16 are just for the ESSM missiles, the other 16 would be for anti sub missles
As far as I know, the frigate F126 was developed with modularity in design.
A ship that doesn't have to have everything on board,
but where functions are distributed on other platforms.
In other words, submarines, air and ship defense via unmanned systems
and the ship itself as a secure operations center with a powerful data link.
It should be able to be used for long-term missions against pirates in foreign waters,
which is why these ships rely exclusively on defense.
The F125 is better suited for anti-piracy. The F126 can do that, but is actually more combat capable, having VLS tubes and more modern Anti-Ship missiles.
The F126 is designed to cost as much as possible, while being as useless as possible.
@@eddgar-ce3mdinteresting assessment. May I ask what you base it on? I'm not mocking you but actually curious.
@@00yiggdrasill00 It's another case of high level corruption in Germany.
Germany has one of the highest military budgets, yet their armed forces lack everything. It's all due to corruption and overstuffed bureaucracy.
Like the recent H145m helicopter purchase, where they suddenly pay 3 times the price per helicopter than the previous units they bought.
Same with this embarrassment of a "warship" . It's meant to push as much money in the right pockets as possible, while delivering a ship that doesn't do anything right.
It's supposed to be a transport ship for peace keeping operations. But it lacks the range and cargo capacity for a transport ship. It's so lightly armed, it can't defend itself against a threat greater than Somali pirates.
It's also meant to support amphibious special operations, but it doesn't have the means to actually support special operations on shore.
It's a product of corruption and misappropriation of military funds, which is the norm in Germany.
@@eddgar-ce3md wait, that's supposed to be a transport ship!? I would not say it's unarmed (though more missiles would be better) but yes it's a bit light given its size, if it could fill it's role I could understand...but isn't it designated as a frigate?. I would believe you. I've heard many stories of the German military lacking in training and equipment, and being notably below the European standard, all over the place. It's really a terrible thing. you are surrounded by allies but severely lack the ability to provide second line support. Given the world is steadily going to grow more dangerous before it settles again I really hope you sort this out, because not only does it make you unable to help allies, it makes you a tempting target to discard if things go wrong.
So technically its a destroyer disguised as a Frigate
Kinda like those Japanese "Destroyer Helicopter Carrier".
Destroyers are perceived as to be too expensive, so it's easier to get funding for a so called frigate. Doesn't really make much sense, since the design and cost stays the same, but this is how it works over here.
Oh, and classification aside, she's woefully underarmed for her size and planned costs of 1.25 billion € per unit!
They call it a frigate for two reasons:
1) Destroyer, or "Zerstörer" in German has a very aggressive ring to it. Something politics tend to avoid these days.
2) The last three "Zerstörer" of the German Navy were named Rommel, Lütjens and Moelders. Putting new ones into service with different names would acknowledge that to be a fuckup of epic proportions and reusing these names is entirely out of question.
Destroyer that identifies as frigate (she, her).
It's easiest to consider "frigate" as the term for "multipurpose warship". These ships will have a far wider mission profile than the traditional destroyer role, and their size is a result of classic ship design evolution (remember the times when destroyers were ~2.000 tonnes?)
The reason is simple enough. Legislatures and Parliaments are more ready to sign off on expending money on ships designated "destroyers" and "frigates" than they would be if you were to call these ships by what their weight and capabilities would say they actually are. As a US citizen, a 10,000 ton Arleigh Burke "destroyer" class carries the firepower, displacement and is filling the role of a WWII-era Heavy Cruiser; likewise, the 7,300 ton Constellation class "frigate" class appear to be setting up in at least some of the roles of a Light Cruiser.
The classifications are all just an effort to lull the taxpayers paying for them into false sense of economy and scale.
The Type 26 frigate can and most likely will quad pack Sea Ceptor missiles in its Mk41 VLS tubes giving them a max capacity of 144 missiles
and the Ticonderoga can have 496 lol
hardly the point here
@@funkybuddha2448 The Ticonderoga cruiser is designed to stay close to carriers and provide air defence for the entire carrier strike group.
The Type 26 frigate is designed to sail ahead of the carrier strike group and hunt down enemy submarines. It’s missiles are not for area defence.
Also when have you ever seen a Ticonderoga carry 496 missiles?
@@MasterCheeks-2552 lol
obviously it wouldn't because the ESSM range is kinda short.. but they -could-.... just like the Type 26 -could- carry a full loadout of ESSM's
I was just pointing out that your original comment was slightly ridiculous. Now apply your own reasoning to your original comment
@@funkybuddha2448 Its totally the point here as this is about Frigates, not Cruisers
@@petes8746 the "class" is absolutely meaningless these days.
the type 26 with full missile load modification will be the same weight and have the same number of missiles as a cruiser.
The name attached is completely irrelevant now. It's nothing to do by weight or armaments.
There is no such thing as a "super" frigate. They're just frigates. No need for drama. Ship designations do not require "super," "mega," "giga," or any other bombastic prefixes.
Having studied military science since 1979, all the dramatic prefixes people put in front of everything now days drives me nuts. Reality is what it is. It does not need sensationalism.
To call a naval vessel of more than 10000 tons a "frigate" seems to be quite an understatement.
In fact German surface combatants grew bigger and bigger over time but the German navy appears to be reluctant to change designation.
@hermes7587
As I said elsewhere in this thread, Germany and Japan have ship designations due to political reasons.
I could live with "heavy" (or light) to kinda say "we are actually in the other class due to the weight, but the armament does not meet the requirements", but Super actually says nothing.. .it could be super modern, or be super flexible, or super comfortable.
@mammutMK2
Unfortunately, modern ship designations do not conform to any weight parameters. Burke class destroyers are the same displacement as WW 2 light cruisers, and many modern destroyers' displacement is equal to WW 2 heavy cruisers.
Heavy and light could be used for similar ships of different displacement or weapon loads, but really, navies around the world have abandoned any standardization of designations.
Well, at least it gives you an idea on what type of ship it compares to. When the US decided that Sweden and Norway had no clue about littoral combat and tried to come up with a super-corvette, they called it "littoral combat ship". That may not be as hyperbolic as "super-corvette" would have been, but it was, in all aspects, the intent.
The Type-126 isn’t a frigate it’s a destroyer being called a frigate. Like the Japanese “Helicopter destroyer,” is an amphib or light aircraft carrier, not a destroyer.
Germany calls their destroyer frigate to minimize the WW2 bad reputation.
Royal Navy calls air defence ships destroyers and anti submarine warfare ships frigates. They haven’t classed ships by tonnage in decades
@@ALWH1314That's why the German navy had several destroyer classes postwar? And now when the war is even longer over they are concerned for a ship class name? I call that nonsense!
Ship tonnage is comparatively cheap. And the more excess tonnage you have the more construction reserve you have for retrofits and improvements.
The Taiwan-made “Tuo Chiang-Class” stealth corvette is a twin-hulled patrol and wave-piercing catamaran Ship, with a full load displacement of 700 tons and a top speed of over 44 knots (81.5 kilometers per hour). It is highly maneuverable, has strong firepower, and is radar-stealthed, making it highly survivable in high-intensity combat environments.
The ship's main weapons are as follows:
* Four domestically produced anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 250 kilometers
* Eight domestically produced supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles with a range of 250 kilometers
* Sixteen anti-aircraft missiles with a range of 30 kilometers
* One Otto 76-millimeter naval gun
* One Phalanx close-in weapon system
* Twenty mines or depth charges
* A drone landing pad
That sounds impressive ! Is it designed for a smaller crew ?
that's pretty impressive lol
It is a fighting vessel for the first hour of the invasion.
Norway have Skjold class, designed with only one purpose, ques what that is. And it is also classified as corvette
@@heuhen Germanic Kamikaze, right? It is not expected to return.
The type 126 is a beautiful ship. Shame it will only have 16 VLS.
The UK's new cheap type 31 frigate at 1/4 the the cost will have 32 VLS.
The Chinese Type 054A has 32 VLS, again will only cost about a third of the Type 126.
The Chinese Type 055 destroyer, still cheaper than the Type 126 will have 112 VLS.
I can almost guarantee you the US Navy is go to build more than 20 of their new Frigates.
The F-126 is high automated only a crew of 114 is necessary.
Heavy cruisers used to come in under 10,000 tons, now we call a 10,500 ton warship a frigate? How the heck does that work? Well I should not be surprised since the US released the Zumwalt, a destroyer that is larger than the battleship USS Texas.
Out of all the frigates in history the Perry class has proven to be the most capable in combat. Perry class frigates have been hit with missiles, mines, suicide bombs, air strikes and not a single one has ever been sunk by enemies.
The F-126 is not a frigate. It is a destroyer in all but name. Not sure why a NATO country would be allowed to alter a designation on a whim. The tonnage, capabilities, Tactile and strategic deterrence as well as mission parameters makes her a destroyer.
We should remember that the first time the term “Frigate” was used to describe a ship class, it was the age of sail. At that time the frigate classification described a ship which would be smaller and faster than a ship of the line, be able to sail an extended distance without replenishment, be large enough to hold a flag officer and his staff, lead an expeditionary force or commerce raiding force, and be better armed than a smaller gunship or sloop. This definition was very similar to a World War 2 Cruiser. For various reasons in the 1940s and on, the classification of Frigate was re-imagined as a warship smaller than a destroyer, with reduced range, dedicated to a role, and limited in firepower.
Type 26 without doubt.
the reason the german F126 is so underarmed is that the main purpuse is something like controling embargo missions an for staying over 2 years on sea.
Yes that seems to be the mission statement for the design. So its more like a partial long range support vessel despite its aggressive looks. But that being said, its a waste of resources invested in such a large ship. Most ships just restock at a port of call.
that sounds cool and all, but you will never have that happen on a ship that size running on hydrocarbons lol
not enough consumables, have to rotate crews, affect repairs, etc etc
That is only true for the F125 frigate class. The F126 is a subhunter.
@@JoeyTankblaster It's a multi-purpose frigate. It has VLS tubes to run Air Defense and modern anti-ship missiles. It's a pocket destroyer.
@@patta8388 True, multi-purpose by adding mission modules (mission containers) e.g. disaster relief, ASW, modules, maritime surveillance, embargo control etc. Sounds like a great selling point, doesn't it? Please do not let this blind you. The F126 is to replace the F123 Brandenburg class, which is a pure submarine hunter. Once the F123 is decommissioned, there is no frigate class left that could do the job (F124&F125 both are only partially capable of submarine hunting(do other tasks). The F126 will most likely be used mainly as a subhunter with VLS for self-protection.
Ein riesiger Brecher ohne nennenswerte Bewaffnung
Ich würde mal annehmen das das ding mehr enthält wie sie öffentlich zugeben, würde ich zumindest so machen. Da ist so viel freier platz außen, dass ich ehrlich annehme das da noch irgendwo Raketen in massen sind oder sowas. Und wenn man ein gutes neues Kriegsschiff hat, ist das letzte was man machen sollte öffentlich sagen: "oh ja also das kann genau das und das..."
Why F126 (10,550 metric tonne) is not destroyer, but "super frigate"? The F123 Brandenburg class (Deutsche Marine) that it replaces is just 3,600 tonnes frigate. Why don't call the F126 as "destroyer" instead of "super frigate"?
I hate that our frigates like the F125 or F126 are always so large but extremely underpowered regarding effectors like VLS
I believe a lot of that weight is reserved for future-proofing + the weight of modern radar systems are just enormous as they grow more and more advanced
Just to point out something you used the Australian version of the type 26, British type 26 has more slender foremast
very different radar, I believe
@@funkybuddha2448 yes and superstructure and some other stuff
Interesting the Australian T26 Hunter class is 8000t. The T26 actual has 2 propulsions system which is gas/electric.
Recently BAE announced it could modify the Hunter by reducing its ASW ability and modular function, and have either a 96 vls with main gun or 128 vls without. I think that as more a destroyer than a frigate.
If the Australian government goes ahead with the upgunned 96 cell VLS hunter varent that I think they will. it will be the most powerful frigate in the world. It will be already eqwiped with the best radar system CEFAR-2 electronic scan aray. And be eqwiped with Aegis combat systems. It be on par armament of US destroyers. It would be interesting to see what destroyers Australia will have for the replacement F100 class. Will they go with Navanti F110 class with 128 cell VLS or will they just build more Hunter class
the designations have basically lost meaning with with the new era of missile ships
the T26 with that modification would have more firepower than a Ticonderoga lol... but they'd be the same weight, so ya, liek I said above
@@Nathan-ry3yu It won't be the best frigate in the world as it won't have a multimission bay. It might be the best destroyer in the world if it sorts out top weight issues.
I am telling Russia right now stop playing with USA and NATO, Russia has 0 chance these are some bad ass ships
There is one beast among the Russian Navy which outmatches several of western made destroyers single handedly the Kirov class Destroyer
Lol stupid BOT
@@paraspande8622true, 1 Kirov can destroy 3 western ships, but they always will have 4
A Kirov, of which there are two, is barely held together with gaffa tape and it's 1980s era sensors and weapons are served by Peasant boys from tiny villages. It's engines are good for getting it out of harbour if anything of use inside it hadn't been already sold by it's drunk obese officers
A Kirov, of which there are two, is barely held together with gaffa tape and it's 1980s era sensors and weapons are served by Peasant boys from tiny villages. It's engines are good for getting it out of harbour if anything of use inside it hadn't been already sold by it's drunk obese officers
Was it the F123 or the F126 that, when first floated, did not float vertically because of miscalculations on cog? Hope it is fixed.
F125
So in other words.. fucking useless
You really need to fact check. The Hunter class is a derivative of the British Type 26 And you were showing a proposed air defense variant of the Hunter class.
The German F-126 is ridiculously under armed for her size with 16 Mark 41 VLS cells. She should have 48 cells at the very least to compare with other large frigates.
The British type 26 is likewise under armed with just 24 mk-41 VLS tubes for straight capability and two sets of 24 vls for the SkyCeptor. The City class and other ship classes based on her should have at least MK+41 cells in the front in addition to the 24 cells for short or medium ranged air defense missiles in the back.
The American Constellation class is similarly under armed. It carries only 32 mk-41 cells and none of these are straight length. That means that the ship can't carry any tomahawk cruise missiles, or SM-6 anti-aircraft missiles. Instead, these ships, which are named after America's famous super frigates of the War of 1812, will be limited to ESSM missiles, VL+ASRoc (vertical launched rocket assisted torpedoes) and thr SM-2 Block IV. I really wish this class had 16 strike of length cells.
The Type 26 frigate can quad pack Sea Ceptor missiles in its Mk41 VLS tubes giving them a max capacity of 144 missiles
The F126 is underarmed because it has a different mission profile. Germany doesnt need war ships for a prolongued war at sea. If it came to a war with the russians, we'd close down the baltics (which is our job according to NATO doctrine) and that's it. And we can do that with these ships.
The F126 is meant to be a multi-purpose frigate for international missions that is capable of *very* long deployments at sea, that can be refit at any port within 1-3 days with the right mission modules.
@@patta8388 may be, but having to send our strongest battleship (F124) to some little proxies is more a show of weakness then a show of force. Not mentioning the according to its definition, a frigate is the smallest unit that can defend it self... sending this F126 vessel to the red sea, it would be heavily underarmed to defend it self. So if it isn't capable for power projection or long outstanding missions, why not using the size of the F124? To me it looks like an extended F125 joke, able to impress any one especially not the Chinese or Russian, that it should do in first place.
Man when i hear "T26 Frigate" i just imagine the Turret of some poor interwar Tank slapped on an armored Raft with some dude paddling away and another one shooting
The German ship does seem enormous for a frigate. I wonder why it needs to be quite so large.
It was supposed to be a corvette, but they wanted to stuff in more and more stuff, so now it's as big as a destroyer or even cruiser. But no weapons, they forgot about those...
@@texasranger24 beer tanks take up a lot of space!
They have room for vls upgrades in case there is need for that. Mostly the size is because of the mission times they can endure before overhaul, the amount of additional personal they can host when configured as operation base and surveillance equipment they can store. These frigates are designed as long deployment multipurpose mission runners. And that cost space which results in tonnage.
German defense procurement can be abit of a nightmare considering the losing bidder can stall the bids. They can sort of turn end up like the Bradleys, which was late and far from the initial requirements.
Capable of long term deployments at sea and modularity with mission modules. It's a pocket destroyer with extra mission capabilities
Why so few VLSs on these ships?
The Type 26 frigate can quad pack Sea Ceptor missiles in its Mk41 VLS tubes giving them a max capacity of 144 missiles
Multi mission. Main function seems to be Anti-sub with long range patrol and small scale troop combat. The Australian T26 Hunter is 10,000t has room for 3 Rhib, 2 helicopter, drones or weapons.
Amazing come on BAE and get them built. There's plenty of places around the UK to built them.
Um.... Interesting....The 🇩🇪 "frigate" (?) Is over 10,000 tons.....And it does NOT seem to carry that much "payloads" compared to a much older 🇺🇸 Areligh Burke class at 9,600 tons!!
Or have i forgot to count something in the 🇩🇪 ship??☹️
The F-126 is a bit special, it's designed for very long deployment (up to 2 years without returning back to Germany) and it has a lot of empty space for now, because there are some new weapon systems in development. And those 2 ships are made to fight different targets.
Bigger refrigerators?
@@jmack913 😁😁
It is not really a fighting ship . It is a kind of cruiser. Long distance patrol ship, high endurance, independently operation capability and to show the flag. If times become more harsh you can install other modules. It can carry containers for special forces and host them.
@@jmack913Yes, for the beer!
Traduction:
A very simple question: Why have the USA just rewarded 4 French frigates, as in 2020, the multi-mission frigates "Auvergne", "Bretagne", "Languedoc" and "Provence", with "Hook'em Awards". This award of excellence was presented this year by Vice-Admiral Ishee [C6F] to Vice-Admiral Boidevezi.
Original:
Une question toute bête: Pourquoi les USA viennent de récompenser 4 Frégates Françaises, comme en 2020, les frégates multimissions « Auvergne », « Bretagne », « Languedoc » et « Provence , par des "Hook’em Award". Ce prix d’excellence a été décerné cette année par le vice-amiral d’escadre Ishee [C6F] au vice-amiral d’escadre Boidevezi.
Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser designations are interchangeable. It’s whatever a navy titles it’s surface warships
Actually it's a matter of tonnage. A navy can call them what they like but the tonnage designates what they really are. Frigates 2-5k tons, Destroyers 5-8k tons, Cruisers over 8k tons.
@@ricardosmythe2548 Old world naming conventions don't really work anymore. It's the roll they play that defines what they're called these days hence why one nations can have a frigate at 8500 tons & another at 3500 tons.
@@ZuulGatekeeper the reasons nations build 8500 ton destroter and call them frigates is to quell people at home who would seek to minimise militarization. Japan did the same with its newly converted aircraft carriers. Germany does it for the same reason. People get nervous for obvious reasons seeing either nation flexing in that regard.
@@ricardosmythe2548 Some truth in that for some nations but generally the ship is just a platform you need to look at the specific weapon & sensor loadout. What missiles & the type it carries, the types of radar & underwater detection systems. Matters not the size it's the job it's intended to perform now obviously a 8000 ton frigate is far more capable than a 3500 but they're still both frigates.
3 major drawbacks for Constellation class frigates. It has no SPG-62 CWI radars so it can't provide precision tracking and target illumination. No SPQ-9B for surface/horizon or low elevation search for sea-skimming missiles. And no hull mounted sonar. Does it even carry VL-ASROC?
The SPY-6 can illuminate for weapons and has an exceptional search capability.
Any ship with Mk-41 launchers can fire SUBROC missiles.
@@brianjordan-5357 Not illumination, but SPY-6 can do missile communication and even do surface search. But an S-band like SPY-6 can't do precision tracking like an X-band SPG-62 radar can do nor it doesn't have the same reach of a X-band SPQ-9B radar elevated on the mast. Even on the Burke SPY-6 only plays a secondary role for missile communication and surface search, while its primary role is volumetric high elevation search.
@@johnsilver9338
Burke class ships have SPY-1D. Only the flight 3 Burkes will have SPY-6.
@@brianjordan-5357 Its the same, either SPY-1 or SPY-6. Though SPY-6 can do it all as it has multiple S-band arrays/RMAs, it still can't beat an X-band radar in terms of precision.
@johnsilver9338
The AN/SPS 73(V) 18 is newer and better for long-range surface search, and the AEGIS 10 Baseline fire control can focus beams to illuminate targets.
It's a second line ship meant for convoy escort and other mundane tasks. Everything I have read says it will perform as a mini Burke ship, and I've found nothing that would indicate its sensors are insufficient in any way. The new surface search radar is better than the old, and SPY-6 is much more sophisticated than the SPY-1D. Many believe that it is better than the SPY-7. We shall see. I have witnessed people saying that the F-14, F-15, and F-16, as well as the Burke class and Virginia classes, were going to underperform and be unsuccessful, along with multiple army vehicles. Those people were all wrong then, and I am sure today's engineers know what they are doing. I could be wrong. There was the Sgt. York debacle in the late 70s or early 80s, but we shall see.
Some European navies dont use the term destroyer. They use frigates instead on their big warships.
How the Frig is the F126 at 10,500 tons, called a Frigate?
it's as heavy as heavy cruiser from WW2
...because a ship's designation is based on the ship's tasks and not on its displacement/weight.
Superfrigates ?, their freaken destroyers !!!
Hunter class of the Royal Australian Navy is entirely different beast than the basic Type 26.
The Radar suite has a capability exceeding the even Canadian version and Constellation class.
The CEA manufactured radar is still top secret in that it performance is hidden and one must add the 4 x AESA fire control radars with each AESA FCR can lock on to 4 targets simultaneously 4 x 4 = each ship can engage 12 targets at once on its FCR alone.
This radar has multi frequency panels per face to engage stealth at longer ranges than the traditional AESA X band radar panels.
Question from a non-Naval guy: How do these new ones keep from taking on tons of water in heavy seas? Seems like the hulls in use today are better shaped to resist rogue waves and such.
So think of it as a bottle if you keep the cap on water isn’t going in and the buoyancy prevents water from engulfing the vessel along with stabilisation, same applies to ships they have hatches that prevent water from going internally of the ship keeping in bone dry internally.
The shape of the fwd part of the hull is designed to disperse a heavy swell and cut through the water more efficiently than previous designs. With no side walks or cut throughs, the ship presents a single cell to the water. Design using positive buoyancy and on ship mechanical stabilisation makes for a platform to be confident in. I spent 5 years on Type 42s which were phased out some years ago, even these were pretty good in rough seas.
@@jonathanlegg4308 Thanks! That explains just what I wanted to know. Seems there's a lot going on under the waterline and in the controls to make this work.
NATO is re-arming fast with new generation equipment. All hail NATO's Salesman of the Century -- Tsar Putin.
Currently Navantia has the best design for frigates.
You are totally missing the point, that the F126 is built modularly, so it can take mission specific modules that totally alter it's armament and capability.
That concept never worked for anyone tho. Spare modules are collecting dust in port because its way easier to simply send out a ship that is allready fitted for the mission compared to refitting another ship with the modules needed, since that would take way longer and be way more expensive. As far as im aware, all modular warships ended up using their modules permanently for that reason.
so what ship wins the title now?
Jeongjo 170 meters, 128 Vls. missile plus anti Ship missile at torpedoes plus smaller ciws gunnery
8500 tons lang
How are they able to call the F126 a Frigate, Is it the Ships core mission and weapons systems?
Call it a marketing scheme, destroyer sonds more expensive, so getting funding for something called frigate is easier over here. It's stupid but it obviously works.
@@Schwarzenfels The Imperial Navy kept referring to Dreadnoughts as "Ships of the Line" and mixed Battlecruisers in with Armoured Cruisers because the original bill passed to build up their fleet relied heavily on nomenclatura.
The U.S. needs some corvettes. Not as many as FFG (assuming they buy all 80), but more than the cruisers - numbering around 20. That meaning 30-50 corvettes for various littoral deployments around the world.
Don't take it wrong, but that's the way US Navy it's not on the scene cause weather condition and...
...imagining "a BIG corvette" about 3500 tons, it will be any way a BIG shame in the Navy if they encounter a bigger Legend (Bertholf) class USCG cutter 'cause US Navy have it always bigger then any one! 🤣😂🤣
USA has already a number of corvettes, the US Coast Guard cutters. LOL. ANYWAY, that will be unlikely for the U.S Navy to purchase corvettes. Simple reasons, they're so small to operate with the the U.S aircraft Naval Task group or force. US Navy is geared for open oceans and long range naval operations. Based on the experience of the Oliver Perry FFGs, having the Constellation is the wisest decision they made. Frigates are what the U.S Navy needed to compliment the destroyers and cruisers, and definitely not corvettes.
No the USA does not need Corvettes. If the USN needs to operate in littoral areas around the world, then it should buy patrol boats capable of traversing the world's oceans. More capital ships means additional expenses to a bloated pentagon budget, with no additional benefits for the USA.
@@juniorleslie4804
sorry Sir, but this means USA rules and will rule the world, instead there are a coalition of rogue states capable to create many large problems around this planet (like war in Israel by Hamas on behalf of Iran to please Russia diverting and dividing US focus on Ukraine), so US need strong forces not just to display a feared flag but to deadly strike those without fear!
If the United States no longer wants the costs of leading the world, they no longer deserve it and are welcomed between european countries flock follower (forced by money as UK or incapable to lead as Germany). China is willing to give world new rules taking USA place!!!
You know this way USA (+Canada) will become a poor country as all american ones, maybe south american people migrated in the States had a stronger than thought influence for the grown of this common attitude to the whole american continent or simply american people are so selfishly focused on themselves that they do not want to consider their role and duties towards the nation and the people
The USN has corvettes they just call them littoral combat ships.
I think F126 has same with DDG-51 classes, Kongo etc
The F-126 is classified as a frigate for political reasons. It has similar displacement as destroyers but is armed closer to frigates.
Both Germany and Japan often designate ships creativity because of what happened in WW 2 and modern humans' historical illiteracy.
The germans would classify a super carrier as frigate.
The german navy only has up to frigates because the name destroyer would sound way to "aggressive" for support in the german public. So you cant compare german ship classes with international standards.
in Modern Warships FGS F126 always be use to Hunt Submarine because of his Grenade Launcher
Thats cruisers in displacement!
I confused will hms Glasgow be commissioned in 2028 or 2033
2028. The whole class will enter service by 2033.
Going back to frigets seems pointless they should just build more destroyers
All 3 would be described as Destroyers by most navies and easily fit the description if you go by tonnage. They're called Frigates more for what they're designed to do and that's their anti-submarine capabilities. Their main job is to detect and protect carrier groups from submarines. The US and UK have destroyers with the US having 73 active Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyers and two active Zumwalt-class destroyers.
Really...same music as Covert Cabal?
Why? Because you need the space and power to carry its weapons-VLS cells. The Navy needs a new "Fletcher class" destroyer-a cheap design that can be built quickly at any yard. The technology does not need to be bleeding-edge but utilizes off-the-shelf components. With the failure of the DDG-1000 and LCS programs, the US Navy owns older hulls and needs more hulls soon-not 10 years from now.
How are these ships still classified as frigates? Two of them weigh more than a lot of destroyers around the world.
in Germany even 10K tons are called frigates, maybe the destroyers there called Destroyers will be in the range of 20 tons 😁.. but it's a pity to see that the ships are so big but toothless with minimal VLS, the ants are laughing when they see this, the majority of ships with the same tonnage above 10K are above 96 VLS... The majority of 10K weights are more than 100 VLS🙏
Warum die F126 so groß ist?
Weil nach SOLAS und den Arbeitsschutzbestimmungen See gebaut wird
10k displasment is now a frigate ? :D
You say America restarted the construction of frigates after 35 years since our last design, but weren't the literal class ships considered frigates?
These ships turning into multi purpose hybrid large anti ship destroyer missile cruisers
I wonder if this Ship Class would be named the Prinz Eugen Class, I don't know I kinda figured it would be a perfect name.🤔
Ha ha, Austrian ... ship? 😊
It was named the "Saarland-Klasse"
The German Frigate is armed like a destroyer but weights as much as a cruiser.
armed like a frigate, it's pathetic
@@funkybuddha2448 much more like a corvette with more guns.
Realy I like this powerful frigates
The F126 is underarmed. The germans know this, everybody know this. But they decided to built a stallion and cut his balls.
You got no clue. 😊 We don't need big fighting ships on our flooded meadows. We need long distance patrol ships with high endurance. Got it?😊
The only potential enemy for a real war would be russia. Their baltic fleet in particular, as germany is supposed to shut down any russian operations there according to NATO doctrine. We've got enough ships and firepower for that. The F126 is meant for long term deployments on international missions. Also capable to be refit within 1-3 days at any port with specific mission modules
It is not the size that defines a frigate, but rather its specialization in contrast to the more universal equipped destroyer. F126 is an anti-submarine warfare frigate for worldwide long-term operations. The modular concept, which means equipment with additional capabilities such as air defense or special operations, requires a large ship with a lot of space. Smaller , non modular frigates such as the British Type 26 and Type 31 frigates intended for surface attack operations also only have 24 VLM cells. If you have accurate missiles you don't need much. see F22 or F35 fighter jet concept with less but deadlier missiles. We are no longer in the 20th century and do not need gun boats no longer.
Non modular ??? the ENTIRE design of type 26 and type 31 is modularity, both were designed from the with modularity from the ground up with mission bays for modularity so they can swap and change whatever they need, if thats supplies, or extra space for another helicopter, or more on board RIBS etc.
The type 26 most definately IS NOT designed for surface attack she will have at most 8-16 anti ship missiles on board, the NSM i believe, she has 48VLS cells likely to be filled with quad packed sea ceptor for fleet defence but she is ENTIRELY a ground up anti submarine ship, her hull is coated in acoustic absorbing material she has 2 drives so she can switch between fast and loud and slow and steady for hunting subs hence why they each cost about £1.3 billion each.
Some Euro frigates are destroyers in US terms... 😂😂
None of them is employing fishing nets against submarines? Seems like an oversight.
Man, that '... since World War II.' kinda stung.
The Turkey istif class frigates is the best.
There are alot of things wrong in this Ai voiced video.
As a German, the weaponry on those things is embarrassing….
8 mk41 cells
On a 10k ton ship.
Fucking hell
First it's 16 cells. And yeah, it might seem to little, but if you overthing NATO strategics, where the main area für the german fleet is the baltic sea, you just don't need more vls-cells. Friendly harbours to resupply are close by, friendly air defence is near by, friendly air force is nearby. If a F 126 get's in really bad trouble with all that around itself, more vls won't safe her anymore^^
But it won't stay in the Baltic,rather doing long term operations globally to protect trade routes. And for that they really gave her too limited stock in armory and they didn't even focus on drone operations. If they would at least armored her. In total... you could probably cut the armory in half...your fighting pirate's in rubber boats...that is even something a WW1 destroyer could do and he would laugh at an rpg that would just leave a dent in the armor... imagine the shit storm breaking lose if they would shoot a harpoon at the pirate's killing everyone on that rubber boat to save some trade goods
The German Navy is considering purchasing fewer NH-90s and more helicopter drones.
There would be space for a helicopter and one or two drones on each ship
German space requirements for crew, excessive duct work room and luxury crew amenities.
Nah, storage space for long term deployment at sea and lots of empty space for mission modules which can be fitted at any port within 1-3 days
Wierd how they all got the numbers 2 and 6 in the names.
Aren't these ships just smaller versions of Destroyers
They are not even smaller. The terms are just used interchangeably now.
@evanputterill8286 Thanks for the information . Why did the United States stop making these ships of a while?
@@j.m.youngquist419 well, I think that they wanted to consolidate to a fewer number of ships that were all large enough to be truly blue water. Then they wasted a few decades on the Zumwalt/LCS experiment, which failed and tied up shipyards for a few decades. The reality is that the did make frigates, the LCS are frigates by another name. Don't get caught up with frigate vs cruiser vs destroyer. Horizon class; 1 class of ships and the French designate them as frigates while the Italians designate them as Destroyers. Look at the German F126 Frigate at 10,000t while there are still classes of Destroyers in service less than 1/2 that displacement. It just isn't relevant anymore.
@@evanputterill8286 Thank you so much for all the valuable information
Destroyer, ideal one:
At 10,000+ tons they really are light cruisers regardless of what function they say they're for as they are usually sent to cruise alone and are able to handle just about everything themselves.
No more cruisers. This is a cold war era classification. Even Ticonderogas were called destroyers when they where building, just called Cruisers because of the "cruiser gap" against the USSR.
Type 055, DDGX and F126 are destroyers, largest surface combatant of 2020s, 2030s and 2040s.
No more cruisers, just Destroyers, Frigates and Corvettes will be XXI century version of 40s to 70s Cruisers, Destroyers and Frigates.
In function they are basically colonial cruisers of old. Long endurance, lightly armed, made to display the flag and maintain a national presence all over the globe, with the ability to project power in "uncivilized" regions.
@@jesusdiaz3776 That's like saying the Japanese carriers are destroyers, or the British Invincible class are "through deck cruisers". It's a political classification, not a military one. Realistically, the German ship is an under-armed, under-manned, light cruiser. It's range and tonnage, and its multi-role mission profile indicate that. It's described as a "frigate" for the same reasons that the Japanese call their carriers "destroyers".
Nothing around 20,000 tonnes with a flat full-length fight desk is a "destroyer".
The German frigate has the same armament as a frigate half its size and weight though. I like the Australian upgunned varent of the type 26. They call the hunter class with 96 cell VLS. Now, that is a cruiser. It outclass the Burk class destroyers.. if they take off the main gun at the front, apparently, they can give it 128 cells. VLS
@@SigurdStormhand Why use the Japanese example. Is not the same case. Japanese classification is a joke. They call Destroyers what in a global perspective are Escort Carriers, LHDs, Destroyers and Heavy frigates, and they call Destroyers Escort their corvettes.
I am talking about using the same cold war era knowledge for classified modern warships. Nomenclature changes. German F126 is a destroyer for the modern perspective; a "light-Cruiser" for a Cold War era perspective, a scout cruiser for a WW2 perspective.
Even Ticos where originally destroyers, but they changed the classification because of the "cruiser gap".
Ships similar to modern frigates size and fire power where called destroyers in cold war and light and scout cruisers in WW2 era.
Modern Corvettes like Steregushyi or Gowind are the same size and fire power of cold war era frigates, but those CW era frigates where the same since and similar fire power of WW2 era destroyers or 20s light and protected cruisers. That's my point.
Now we are in the end of a transition era for ship classification, like it was the WWII when destroyers become as big as old scout and protected cruisers, and frigates and DEs replace the interwar period destroyers.
Today we don't call Arleigh Burcke a Cruiser. In the 90s people don't call a Perry class frigate a scout cruiser. With this knowledge we can even call OPVs scout cruisers, but this doesn't fit with the modern reality.
Things changes. Nomenclature changes.
I understand the growing size of 'Frigates' is in part to fit a greater number of VLS, the days of the old SeaDart missiles sitting on a rail launcher with 50-80 missiles in the magazine are over, the missiles are all front-loaded in tubes now. But VLS can't be reloaded at sea therefore the temptation is to build a larger ship to fit more cells, to enable longer duration on mission. Yet this 10k ton monster 'frigate' has - 16 cells and a water-cannon? Staring down the might of the Russian Baltic Fleet (whatever that is) with a what now? If you couldn't stop the US .. err I mean our adversaries .. from popping the Nordstream 1+2 with existing assets, how will this manage with that loadout?
Also this payload could have been carried on a ship with half the tonnage, so what's really going on here German internet friends? Is it true that the entire board of the procurement office has been fired? Something to do with this, or Ukr?
On a positive note the ship is a real looker imo XD
The Constellation class frigate should have at least a 76mm gun over that puny 57mm gun.
the gun is NOT for shooting ships, lmao..
it's an amazing last-ditch missile defense.. filling the air with a wall of fragmented lead
26kn? They wont be catching any pirates being that slow, neither enemy warships or submarines. Many cargo ships are cruising at 20kn+..
Germany’s Frigate is one badass MF; fast, heavy and armed to the hull. Whereas the US piece of crap Constellation is a LW with less than half the weapons. Typical corrupt US defense company give taxpayers shit for their $$$
What is it about these site it compares Ship yet shows an Australian ship not Royal Navy, shows the specks totally different ways even US ship shows the ship it based on apart from the hull nothing is similar
The Constellation has no torpedo tubes, hull or bow-mounted sonar and a puny, but capable gun
Because Americans don’t know how to build ship’s anymore. Hate to say it but America’s only reason for naval dominance is because we build more. But overall the U.S. navy sucks. Our admirals are fat and slovenly, and lack spine. FFG-62 is going to be LCS part 2
that gun fires 3.4 rounds a second and can fill the air with a wall of fragmented shells to stop a dozen incoming missiles that are missed by essm's
it's an EXCELLENT last line of defense when combined with more precise RIM-116 and linear classical CWIS
It still needs an ASW capability. Frigates need to be multi role warships in as small a hull as possible, and operate independently and over the horizon if necessary. The tradition that was set by Stephen Decatur.
that is not far off the weight of a ww2 town class cruiser!
And the video still didn't answer why the F126 is so big...
Storage space so it is capable of long term, long distance deployments and lots of empty space for mission modules. It's a ship mostly for international missions. Those mission modules can be fit within 1-3 days in any port and give it the capability to land troops or add firepower, and anything in between
Interesting reading the comments, these frigates are not like 80’s lessons have be learnt from Falkland war, peacekeeping to today’s drones n more sophisticated missiles, submarines to fighter jets. F126 is basically fully arm destroyer but lacks some features like other 2. T26 is not straight forward but are multi mission heavy frigates base version is sub hunting, Australia is still playing with design but it has best radar with Aegis baseline 9 n well proven CEAFAR. Canada version is what US Navy should have got but US Navy is older design still impressive Aegis 10, missiles loadout. T26 is a winner not because weapons loadout but true multi mission with lager helicopter deck for CH47 Chinook but there old saying putting all eggs into one basket but this should be full size destroyer to replace Hobart class, RAN should build more of these n build Gibbs n Cox light frigates with 3inch gun like OHP.
The F126 has a displacement of a destroyer but armarent from a little Frigate. Ship with 10.000 tons should have 80+ VLS Cells and Torpedos
@@Volesky1775 This one should not, because it's capable of a longer deployment and can be refitted within 2-3 days at any port with the right mission modules. It's meant for International missions and possibly shutting down any russian operations in the baltics.
The german F126 is garbage. Not as garbage as the F125 glorified patrol boat, but still.
The F126 started out as a corvette design, got bigger and bigger because they couldn't make the requirements work otherwise, but the armament stayed that of a corvette while the weight is that of a cruiser. And the F125 is an anti piracy long endurance patrol boat. There is no way to sugarcoat this.
The german army+navy is stuck in the year 2000, believing in forever world peace and looking to fight insurgencies, not real nations.
Oh, and don't get me started on the modular garbage that royally failed with the US LCS program despite having 10x the ships and supposed modules.
Just because modularity failed on the LCS, doesnt mean it'll fail on the F126. Germany loves Frigates, while the LCS program was looked down upon from congress from the get go.
And the only responsibility germany has is shutting down the russian baltic fleet, which it is capable of. Other than that, they only need this kind of ship for international missions.
This ship was actually planned in the 2000s or earlier, hence it has a big focus on long deployments, anti piracy etc. That does not mean its garbage however. Appart from the option of getting more firepower through retrofitting, less firepower does not mean bad. Ships like these will always be useful, just look at the mission to fight huthi pirates in the middle east.
The computer generated voice is very distracting.
MORE AFP ASSETS FOR AFP MODERNISATIONS PROGRAM 🙏✅🇵🇭🌅🤵.
That word again everything is super thanks to the Americans
The German ship need to add vls this is not fot for 2024+
Mag destroyer na lang ako. Mas malakas pa diyan
Your base is too loud making your comments difficult to listen to!
The F126 is going to be bigger than an Arleigh Burke with 1/8 the firepower.
There is no explanation as to why these frigates are so big.
The F126 is approaching cruiser displacement, but a laughable quantity of weapons. Same story as the F125.
Could anyone shed light on this trend? Nobody needs videos spouting data anyone can read online.
Traditional naming conventions simply don't apply to modern warships. Historically the tonnage & size of guns it could carry defined a ships roll. Frigates were small, fast & armed with small caliber guns. They were used as patrol, scouts or escorts. Destroyers were larger, better armed with medium caliber & used mainly for fleet protection duty's. Cruisers were larger still, heavily armed & used to go out alone & hunt down enemy ships. Battleships were your heavy hitters for large scale confrontations with enemy fleets & shore bombardments. Today with the advent of missiles & other technologies even a small vessel can take down a capitol ship. Modern ships are one platform that performs all roles with different nations choosing either the name Frigate or Destroyer mostly due to role they intend it to perform & it's missile loadout. Because of this we get a huge range in ship size variation one nation may call a 2500 ton a Frigate while another's is 8500 tons. They're both still Frigates just the later has far greater endurance, range & number of missiles. The UK uses Frigate as it's main front line combat/sub hunting vessels & carry's a greater number of offensive missiles while Destroyer retains it's role as fleet protection so has a greater number of defensive missiles even though in terms of tonnage they're almost identical.