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.

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

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.

@Muschelschubs3r

4 ай бұрын

...and reach those 33 knots in ninety seconds. Driving a 122 was akin to driving a naval Ferrari.

@brianpreval5602

Ай бұрын

26knots seems slow!

@mangalores-x_x

17 күн бұрын

@@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.

@Gunnl

3 күн бұрын

all navies do this ...

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.

@keithprinn720

4 ай бұрын

none built and operating yet? dont meet capabilities either massive issues

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

@noodles169

4 ай бұрын

The British frigate will be more like a multirole destroyer to compliment the type 45 destroyer.

@user-vy3ci2ks4d

4 ай бұрын

😅 British 🇬🇧 collection Colossal failure ENGENDERING Challenger 2 Fregate U -boat Eurofigter HMS Queen Elizabeth Rolls Royce.

@azzajames7661

4 ай бұрын

​@@user-vy3ci2ks4dHuh?! What are you on?!

@keithprinn720

4 ай бұрын

been hammered by RN and RAN admirals as a dud. When is it deployed in theatre?

@augustiner3821

3 ай бұрын

​@@user-vy3ci2ks4dsays who?

Germany is using ship classifications a bit....different. Our Frigates are more akin to what others would call a Destroyer.

@robertbates6057

Ай бұрын

LOL! Well, they have a bit of history doing just that.

@Chiggi0815

2 күн бұрын

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.

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.

@hermes6910

4 ай бұрын

Yeah the constellation class is a pragmatic program and will certainly be good.

@robertbates6057

Ай бұрын

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.

They are all allies - together they make an awesome seagoing force above and below the waterline…

The German frigate has onley 16 vls for it weight should be 96 cells

@heinzkabofke6791

5 ай бұрын

Cuz its a sub hunter frigate, no destroyer

@Nathan-ry3yu

4 ай бұрын

​@@heinzkabofke6791bit big for ASW ship

@midnightghost6261

4 ай бұрын

No it has not it has 16+16 VLs cells

@midnightghost6261

4 ай бұрын

Plus an optional Modul of 100 loitering Munition, or 50 long range GLMs Rockets

@midnightghost6261

4 ай бұрын

Those 16 are just for the ESSM missiles, the other 16 would be for anti sub missles

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

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

and the Ticonderoga can have 496 lol hardly the point here

@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground

4 ай бұрын

@@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?

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

@@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground 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

4 ай бұрын

@@funkybuddha2448 Its totally the point here as this is about Frigates, not Cruisers

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

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

@rapidsqualor5367

5 ай бұрын

That sounds impressive ! Is it designed for a smaller crew ?

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

that's pretty impressive lol

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

It is a fighting vessel for the first hour of the invasion.

@heuhen

4 ай бұрын

Norway have Skjold class, designed with only one purpose, ques what that is. And it is also classified as corvette

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

@@heuhen Germanic Kamikaze, right? It is not expected to return.

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.

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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.

@eddgar-ce3md

4 ай бұрын

The F126 is designed to cost as much as possible, while being as useless as possible.

@00yiggdrasill00

4 ай бұрын

​@@eddgar-ce3mdinteresting assessment. May I ask what you base it on? I'm not mocking you but actually curious.

@eddgar-ce3md

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

@00yiggdrasill00

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

@Nathan-ry3yu

5 ай бұрын

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

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

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

@Louis-ej1lx

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

So technically its a destroyer disguised as a Frigate

@jimmiller5600

5 ай бұрын

Kinda like those Japanese "Destroyer Helicopter Carrier".

@Schwarzenfels

5 ай бұрын

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!

@Exodon2020

5 ай бұрын

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.

@grzegorzstyrna26

4 ай бұрын

Destroyer that identifies as frigate (she, her).

@ddshiranui

4 ай бұрын

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?)

No "frigate" is 10K tonnes displacement! Thats putting it into the heavy destroyer/cruiser bracket. And, as is typical of German designs, woefully underarmed.

@mikebuchner7781

5 ай бұрын

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!

@Schwarzenfels

5 ай бұрын

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.

@tomgoluke1425

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@lewynomg4943

5 ай бұрын

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.

@nonoman1234

5 ай бұрын

@@mikebuchner7781 because the F124 frigates are actually well armed unlike the other German frigates. don't even get started on the F125 frigates

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.

@ALWH1314

5 ай бұрын

Germany calls their destroyer frigate to minimize the WW2 bad reputation.

@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground

5 ай бұрын

Royal Navy calls air defence ships destroyers and anti submarine warfare ships frigates. They haven’t classed ships by tonnage in decades

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.

in Modern Warships FGS F126 always be use to Hunt Submarine because of his Grenade Launcher

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.

@j.4354

4 ай бұрын

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.

Type 26 without doubt.

I can almost guarantee you the US Navy is go to build more than 20 of their new Frigates.

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.

@hermes7587

5 ай бұрын

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.

@brianjordan-5357

5 ай бұрын

@hermes7587 As I said elsewhere in this thread, Germany and Japan have ship designations due to political reasons.

@mammutMK2

5 ай бұрын

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.

@brianjordan-5357

5 ай бұрын

@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.

Amazing come on BAE and get them built. There's plenty of places around the UK to built them.

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.

Was it the F123 or the F126 that, when first floated, did not float vertically because of miscalculations on cog? Hope it is fixed.

@mdk-wc2sw

4 ай бұрын

F125

@swunt10

Ай бұрын

So in other words.. fucking useless

I hate that our frigates like the F125 or F126 are always so large but extremely underpowered regarding effectors like VLS

Ship tonnage is comparatively cheap. And the more excess tonnage you have the more construction reserve you have for retrofits and improvements.

Ein riesiger Brecher ohne nennenswerte Bewaffnung

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.

@eseetoh

5 ай бұрын

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.

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

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

@JoeyTankblaster

4 ай бұрын

That is only true for the F125 frigate class. The F126 is a subhunter.

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

@JoeyTankblaster

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.

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

5 ай бұрын

The SPY-6 can illuminate for weapons and has an exceptional search capability. Any ship with Mk-41 launchers can fire SUBROC missiles.

@johnsilver9338

5 ай бұрын

@@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

5 ай бұрын

@@johnsilver9338 Burke class ships have SPY-1D. Only the flight 3 Burkes will have SPY-6.

@johnsilver9338

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@brianjordan-5357

5 ай бұрын

@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.

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.

Realy I like this powerful frigates

Just to point out something you used the Australian version of the type 26, British type 26 has more slender foremast

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

very different radar, I believe

@Carsten-yu6fe

4 ай бұрын

@@funkybuddha2448 yes and superstructure and some other stuff

Man, that '... since World War II.' kinda stung.

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.

@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground

5 ай бұрын

The Type 26 frigate can quad pack Sea Ceptor missiles in its Mk41 VLS tubes giving them a max capacity of 144 missiles

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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.

Frigate/Destroyer/Cruiser designations are interchangeable. It’s whatever a navy titles it’s surface warships

@ricardosmythe2548

5 ай бұрын

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.

@ZuulGatekeeper

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@ricardosmythe2548

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@ZuulGatekeeper

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

The German ship does seem enormous for a frigate. I wonder why it needs to be quite so large.

@texasranger24

4 ай бұрын

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...

@hermes6910

4 ай бұрын

@@texasranger24 beer tanks take up a lot of space!

@MrYodolf

4 ай бұрын

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.

@MegaMrWrong

4 ай бұрын

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.

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

Capable of long term deployments at sea and modularity with mission modules. It's a pocket destroyer with extra mission capabilities

Superfrigates ?, their freaken destroyers !!!

The F-126 is high automated only a crew of 114 is necessary.

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??☹️

@patrick3426

4 ай бұрын

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.

@jmack913

4 ай бұрын

Bigger refrigerators?

@michaelwong4303

4 ай бұрын

@@jmack913 😁😁

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

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.

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

​@@jmack913Yes, for the beer!

How are they able to call the F126 a Frigate, Is it the Ships core mission and weapons systems?

@Schwarzenfels

5 ай бұрын

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.

@Exodon2020

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

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.🤔

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

Ha ha, Austrian ... ship? 😊

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

It was named the "Saarland-Klasse"

Currently Navantia has the best design for frigates.

I am telling Russia right now stop playing with USA and NATO, Russia has 0 chance these are some bad ass ships

@paraspande8622

4 ай бұрын

There is one beast among the Russian Navy which outmatches several of western made destroyers single handedly the Kirov class Destroyer

@warmachine676

4 ай бұрын

Lol stupid BOT

@s1mply_1diot

4 ай бұрын

@@paraspande8622true, 1 Kirov can destroy 3 western ships, but they always will have 4

@tommiatkins3443

4 ай бұрын

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

@tommiatkins3443

4 ай бұрын

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

Thats cruisers in displacement!

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.

@robertopiedimonte2078

5 ай бұрын

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! 🤣😂🤣

@nivrerabliv759

5 ай бұрын

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.

@juniorleslie4804

5 ай бұрын

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.

@robertopiedimonte2078

5 ай бұрын

@@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

@jessicacolegrove4152

5 ай бұрын

The USN has corvettes they just call them littoral combat ships.

The F126 is going to be bigger than an Arleigh Burke with 1/8 the firepower.

These ships turning into multi purpose hybrid large anti ship destroyer missile cruisers

How are these ships still classified as frigates? Two of them weigh more than a lot of destroyers around the world.

10k displasment is now a frigate ? :D

I think F126 has same with DDG-51 classes, Kongo etc

@brianjordan-5357

5 ай бұрын

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.

@andykpunkt6514

5 ай бұрын

The germans would classify a super carrier as frigate.

Warum die F126 so groß ist? Weil nach SOLAS und den Arbeitsschutzbestimmungen See gebaut wird

Really...same music as Covert Cabal?

holy crap, the german is built for export

Jeongjo 170 meters, 128 Vls. missile plus anti Ship missile at torpedoes plus smaller ciws gunnery

@user-qn6ni8wt9f

Ай бұрын

8500 tons lang

displacement like destroyer but armament like patrol ship :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

None of them is employing fishing nets against submarines? Seems like an oversight.

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.

I confused will hms Glasgow be commissioned in 2028 or 2033

@Belisarius1967

4 күн бұрын

2028. The whole class will enter service by 2033.

You say America restarted the construction of frigates after 35 years since our last design, but weren't the literal class ships considered frigates?

How the Frig is the F126 at 10,500 tons, called a Frigate?

@MM-ne6pk

4 ай бұрын

it's as heavy as heavy cruiser from WW2

Why so few VLSs on these ships?

@Anakin_Sandy_High_Ground

5 ай бұрын

The Type 26 frigate can quad pack Sea Ceptor missiles in its Mk41 VLS tubes giving them a max capacity of 144 missiles

@thomasb5600

5 ай бұрын

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.

Some European navies dont use the term destroyer. They use frigates instead on their big warships.

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.

Wierd how they all got the numbers 2 and 6 in the names.

German space requirements for crew, excessive duct work room and luxury crew amenities.

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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

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

5 ай бұрын

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

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

Aren't these ships just smaller versions of Destroyers

@evanputterill8286

5 ай бұрын

They are not even smaller. The terms are just used interchangeably now.

@j.m.youngquist419

5 ай бұрын

@evanputterill8286 Thanks for the information . Why did the United States stop making these ships of a while?

@evanputterill8286

5 ай бұрын

@@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.

@j.m.youngquist419

5 ай бұрын

@@evanputterill8286 Thank you so much for all the valuable information

@robertopiedimonte2078

5 ай бұрын

Destroyer, ideal one:

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🙏

Some Euro frigates are destroyers in US terms... 😂😂

The German Frigate is armed like a destroyer but weights as much as a cruiser.

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

armed like a frigate, it's pathetic

@hermes6910

4 ай бұрын

@@funkybuddha2448 much more like a corvette with more guns.

that is not far off the weight of a ww2 town class cruiser!

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

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.

@furiousscotsman2916

5 ай бұрын

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.

NATO is re-arming fast with new generation equipment. All hail NATO's Salesman of the Century -- Tsar Putin.

The Constellation has no torpedo tubes, hull or bow-mounted sonar and a puny, but capable gun

@jdnj1982

5 ай бұрын

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

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

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

@danielhixson3717

4 ай бұрын

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.

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.

@jesusdiaz3776

5 ай бұрын

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.

@kreol1q1q

5 ай бұрын

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.

@SigurdStormhand

5 ай бұрын

@@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".

@Nathan-ry3yu

5 ай бұрын

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

@jesusdiaz3776

4 ай бұрын

@@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.

As a German, the weaponry on those things is embarrassing…. 8 mk41 cells On a 10k ton ship. Fucking hell

@zelemas3062

5 ай бұрын

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^^

@mammutMK2

5 ай бұрын

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

@b.s.7476

5 ай бұрын

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

And the video still didn't answer why the F126 is so big...

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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

The F126 is underarmed. The germans know this, everybody know this. But they decided to built a stallion and cut his balls.

@AltIng9154

4 ай бұрын

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?😊

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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

Mag destroyer na lang ako. Mas malakas pa diyan

That word again everything is super thanks to the Americans

The Constellation class frigate should have at least a 76mm gun over that puny 57mm gun.

@funkybuddha2448

4 ай бұрын

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

❤😂🎉😢😢😮😅😅

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.

The computer generated voice is very distracting.

You did not anser your own question

Look like copy cat of China type 055 destroyer.😅

@abraham2172

4 ай бұрын

Yeah, because everyone knows the US and Europe are always copying from China and never the other way around😂😂😂

F126 is waste of steel

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.

@texasranger24

4 ай бұрын

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.

@patta8388

4 ай бұрын

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.

@abraham2172

4 ай бұрын

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.

Very annoying graphics

None of these frigates are even the best

Lol! I don't know what is more pathetic. Building a battleship and calling it a destroyer? Or, building a cruiser, and calling it a frigate! Politicians lie so much about everything, they can't figure out what they are building. One hundred years ago. The Washington naval treaty definited a battleship, as any ship displacing more than 10,000 tons! Most cruisers since that treaty, have displaced between 4,000 and 15,000 tons. The Ticonderoga class cruisers were built on Spruance class destroyer hulls. At about 10,000 tons. USS Longbeach CGN-9 was also about 15,000 tons. The capabilities sound great! Yet, since no one seems to know what they are building? One wonders if the equipment onboard is likewise other than reported in capability? I guess that we will have to wait and see.

@rustcohle349

Ай бұрын

They know exactly what they're building my guy. The average person doesn't know anything about ship classes and VLS cells or anything. They see it's big and that's good. There's that. Also, by making them as expensive as possible, they get closer to that 2% GDP obligation with nato. They're not dumb to not realize these literal coast guard cutter level "frigates" don't need multiple long range radars worth of hundreds of millions. The benefits of doing this= less maintenance duo to lack of systems, you won't need to purchase missiles, you won't need to train and pay skilled sailors ready for combat. you can also man them with less people on board compare to other navies large ships. It's the same scenario for almost all of German military, especially their navy.

@scottjackson5173

Ай бұрын

@@rustcohle349 Lol! I am a US Navy veteran. Clearly you haven't seen what I have in actual service. Do some research, I suggest Jane's fighting ships online. While you are at it? Reveiw the Zumwalt, and the LCS programs. Our Navy's biggest problem is the very slow pace of ship building. As well as partisan battles over military budgets. Republican presidents tend to build new ships, Democrat presidents tend to cut the budget. Meaning they are also far less likely to adequately fund any existing ships, much less build new ones. Particularly when compared to the Chinese Navy. Lonely ships like this however careful, or advanced, can be overwhelmed by large numbers of Chinese ships. More over, missiles are limited. Not just by the number of missiles onboard, but by the production limits of the manufacturers. Which is limited by the yearly DOD production budget. That's just the tiniest tip of a really dense iceberg.

@scottjackson5173

Ай бұрын

@@rustcohle349 Review the Zumwalt class, the Freedom class, and the Independence class. After that? Try telling me that again! Aside from that? Why are the Ford class CVN program. Massively over budget, substantially delayed. So dysfunctional that the incomplete Kennedy was CANNIBALIZED, before the Gerald Ford could deploy for the first time. After years of problems, and malfunctions. Perhaps once that was true. Today I find that particular idea, hard to believe. Sad to say.

@rustcohle349

Ай бұрын

@@scottjackson5173 read my comment again. I didn't talk about you nor the us navy bud.

@scottjackson5173

Ай бұрын

@@rustcohle349 looks like I missed the other two paragraphs. Oh well, NATO without the USA, is a joke. Even if most people don't know it. Any way those little crappy ships are useful against Iranian guard boats and little else. Not that any of them will stay in commission long.

Wait until Italy release the new DDX, 13000 ton of destroyer

F126 is not a Frigate it is both too heavy and too long to be classified as a Frigate. It is a Destroyer. US Navy needs to build about 800 of the FFG62 Frigates.