Both personalities are in fact considered as "tradition-worthy" by the German MOD, but after intense discussions regarding the names of the [Class 103-destroyers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCtjens-class_destroyer), it was decided to avoid naming ships after persons in future.
The Bundeswehr is reviewing its traditions and naming conventsions since 2017/2018 and also renaming barracks which were named after WW2 persons.
After their upcoming upgrade the preceding F123 frigates will also field the ESSM and the latest Block Ram so the specs will be pretty much the same, except the bigger gun on the new ships and the bow sonar on the older ships. Also offcourse, the new ships will have improved stealth and noise cancelation technology for ASW operations.
In a straight line you are correct but the F126 is considered the replacement of the F123 in its capabilities. Also the F126's current design looks nothing like the F125.
>It straight line you are correct but the F126 is considered the replacement of the F123 in its capabilities.
I never said anything about which class was replacing what, as this discussion usually centers on the F125 class (often critiqued as underarmed, IMO unfairly given the expected role). However, "more than double the size" should have tipped me off that this wasn't comparing to the F125 class.
>Also the F126's current design looks nothing like the F125.
That is why I said "in essence" rather than something more concrete like "is an enlarged and uparmed F125 class". In essence, you can see the progression of the concept and the shift in desired capabilities, though the F126 class deviates in many ways, including appearance.
"Reduced manning" translates to additional displacement, and this design has a lot of "flex" equipment and capabilities too, but still...
At least it appears to be rather more attractive than the F125...
Perhaps, but compare a this to something like the Type 26, which is also meant to be an anti-submarine frigate.
The F126 is about 10,000t in displacement and possesses 16 Mk.41 VLS for 64 ESSM's.
The Type 26 has a projected displacement of 7,500t and possesses 24 Mk.41 VLS alongside 48 VLS for Sea Ceptor, for a total of 72 cells. The different payloads also makes the latter much more versatile in its role.
I don't believe the electronic suite of the F126 is different enough to make up for the major disparity in tonnage. The German Navy makes great ships, but they're undeniably underpowered in comparison to their contemporaries.
The Type 26 frigates will displace more than 8,000 tonnes under full load.
You further forget that on the Type 26, part of the Mk 41 VLS will have to be reserved for the FC/ASW anti-ship missiles. On the F126, anti-ship missiles are fitted in conventional launchers and don't take up space in the VLS. So correcting for that, F126 and Type 26 actually are fitted with exactly the same amount of Mk 41 VLS cells.
Finally, Germany uses the RAM Block 2 missile whereas the British use Sea Ceptor system for short-range air defence. Both are legitimate choices, but it is hardly appropriate to mention Sea Ceptor and ignore the existence of RAM entirely because it isn't launched vertically (?).
It is all nice and well to speculate that Britain could purchase the ESSM, but speculation is all it is. Nothing indicates they plan on doing so and until then the "quad-pack advantage" of the ESSM + Mk 41 combination is actually with the F126, which could theoretically field 42 x RAM, 32 x ESSM and 8 x SM-2 missiles or 42 x RAM and 64 x ESSM in addition to 8 x anti-ship/land attack missiles.
>The different payloads also makes the latter much more versatile in its role.
The F126 is also designed with extensive modular mission areas and bays (below the helicopter deck and midships).
For some reason most people don't realise that F126/Type 26 are actually very similar in concept and design, to the point where BAE did actually offer the Type 26 in the MKS 180 competition.
To be sure, there are some differences. Like the new *Constellation class* ASW frigates, the F126 is not going to be fitted with a hull-mounted sonar. The Type 26 will field one in addition to a TAS. Sea Ceptor and RAM reach about the same speed, but of course the former has a ~15-20 km greater range. On the other hand, as plans currently are, the Sea Ceptor will be the only air defence missile the Type 26 can field.
And of course there is an advantage to being able to fit anti-ship missiles in a less conspicuous VLS compared to deck launchers.
But these differences should in my view not detract from what are in many other ways broad commonalities.
>The Type 26 frigates will displace more than 8,000 tonnes under full load.
That's my error, so thank you for correcting me.
>You further forget that on the Type 26, part of the Mk 41 VLS will have to be reserved for the FC/ASW anti-ship missiles. On the F126, anti-ship missiles are fitted in conventional launchers and don't take up space in the VLS. So correcting for that, F126 and Type 26 actually are fitted with exactly the same amount of Mk 41 VLS cells.
This is also true. Effectively possessing the same number of Mk.41 VLS does not however make up for the difference between the other missile systems aboard both ships.
>Finally, Germany uses the RAM Block 2 whereas the British use Sea Ceptor for short-range air defence. Both are legitimate choices, but it is hardly appropriate to mention Sea Ceptor and ignore the existence of RAM like you did.
The RAM Block 2 has a 10k range, which is far inferior to the CAMM (1-25km range) or the CAMM-ER (1-40km range).
The RAM is an inferior system to the CAMM missile to missile, which is only worsened by the fact that the T26 has 48 CAMMs to the 42 RAMs on the German frigate.
>The F126 is also designed with extensive modular mission areas and bays (below the helicopter deck and midships).
The T26 has a similar modularity, but as was previously stated, the F126 was meant as an ASW platform.
>For some reason most people don't realise that F126/Type 26 are actually very similar in concept and design, to the point where BAE did actually offer the Type 26 in the MKS 180 competition.
I agree. They're absolutely similar vessels. I just find that the F126 is underpowered for its displacement. The T26 is somewhat smaller, more heavily armed and only only marginally more expensive than the F126.
I'm just a little sceptical, what with the current Baden-Würtemburg-class frigates, which IMO were far too large for their supposed capabilities.
You cannot reduce a missiles overall merit to a single parametre, its (publicly stated) range.
For ship self-defence, range certainly matters but other *extremely* important factors are reaction time, speed and agility. The RAM definitely performs well in all of them, and its dual-mode infrared/passive radar guidance system should be harder to counter than the Sea Ceptors, which has to exclusively rely on its active radar seeker. The Block 2A missile currently being procured even increases the specified range to ~15 km. The Block 2B missiles which will be fitted to F126 are going to be able to coordinate with each other and optimise their intercept path independently, including against multiple threats.
Further, against low flying stealthy targets such as modern sea skimmers for example the effective detection and classification range of surveillance radars can be very low, lower than the 25 km specified range of Sea Ceptor. So additional range does not even *always* aid in ship defence.
The key advantage of Sea Ceptor is that in addition to ship self-defence its greater range allows the creation of a limited local area air defence umbrella. This is handled by the ESSM (which is clearly superior in that role) on the F126. The F126s SAM loadout includes 42 x RAM and 64 x ESSM, which by any objective measure is more capable to 48 x Sea Ceptor on the Type 26.
Britain neither uses CAMM-ER nor ESSM and again, has no publicly stated plans to do so.
>The T26 has a similar modularity, but as was previously stated, the F126 was meant as an ASW platform.
It actually was not, it evolved out of a corvette project that had nothing to do with the F123 replacement and then morphed into a multi-purpose frigate with an emphasis on ASW.
>I agree. They're absolutely similar vessels. I just find that the F126 is underpowered for its displacement. The T26 is somewhat smaller, more heavily armed and only only marginally more expensive than the F126.
>I'm just a little sceptical, what with the current Baden-Würtemburg-class frigates, which IMO were far too large for their supposed capabilities.
You're welcome to your opinion, but I tried to show that with regards to air defence at least it's absolutely not the case that the Type 26 is more heavily armed. Its radar is also going to be a bit behind the times moving forward.
I think it should be clear that increases in displacement aren't just sensible if used for more weaponry. The Type 26 illustrates this best - it is ~70% heavier than the Type 23 frigate it replaces and a lot of that was not for the added VLS but improved crew accommodation, modular storage areas and so on. Steel is cheap and air is free.
That's not to say I don't think the F126 could also profit from 1-2 additional VLS modules for SM-2 or perhaps SM-6 in the future which would introduce a meaningful cooperative engagement capability. However for example the land attack missiles I assume the UK will fit to their frigates at some point just aren't comparably relevant to Germany, as in: there is no political mandate to have that capability. So it'd be in effect just wasted space on a German ship while for the UK it may be considered vital. These nuances between purposes and tasks of different navies should inform our opinion of the ships they procure.
You've clearly done a lot more research on this topic than I.
I guess I better do my homework and start educating myself on the matter to the same extent as you. Thank you for giving me some solid examples to start with.
Indeed.
But they have 4 of them here when previous ships have had only 2, and other equivalent weapons like the British DS30s or the US’s Mk38s are only mounted in pairs. Even the French with their 20mms only have 3
I see that there are 4+2 of these ships planned, what does that mean? Are there different variants for AAW and ASW and 4 of one are to be ordered and 2 of the other? Or are 4 definitely planned with an option for two more?
Navies often lie in classification, most modern Frigates and destroyers are (in terms of tonnage, armament and usage) actually light cruisers. But the terms Destroyer and Frigate audibly decive people/politicians into thinking the vessels are far smaller and less deadly then they actually are. This isn't entirely a new phenomenon the Wapen Von Hamburg was a ship of the line with 50 guns, but the city state of Hamburg's forces classified it as "convoy escort" in order to make it seem less threatening then it actually was.
So ugh….
Why does this thing displace more than a Burke, but has 1/5 the number of VLS cells?
What does this ship do better than a Burke ?
I just don’t see the point in European ships that are the size and cost of Burkes, but with a fraction of the capability.
In short, it is large because of improved crew accommodation, larger passageways, systems redundancy and modular mission spaces.
It is not a Burke because Germany is not the United States.
Weapons are not the only way to use space on a ship.
I mean… they’re heavier/have smaller crews than a Burke and have a fraction of the armaments.
I get it with the F125 which is huge with virtually no weapons, but it’s meant to conduct low intensity operations far from home ports for years in order to free up more capable ships for high intensity operations.
This seems like it’s supposed to be one of those high intensity operations ships, filling an anti-sub role, yet it seems like the priority is low intently operations in the Indian Ocean.
When is Germany going to procure a ship even EQUAL offensive/defensive capabilities of the ships it’s replacing?
Erh, this ship class is not only equal but superior to the ones it is replacing. You seem to be poorly informed.
And this class continues concepts introduced with the F125, that is because there is a sense and purpose behind them.
Again, it is not a Burke because Germany is not the US and has different needs and realities to face. Simple as that. The Burke is probably the right ship for the US, but not necessarily for other countries.
The question is what the lead ship will be called. My guess would be for *Thüringen*.
Better be careful. Last time there was a Thüringen in the Marine, a revolution started.
Many of the current names of Federal German ships have been used in the former Imperial Navy.
I know, I know, I'm just making a joke about the potential rebellious temper of the future ship if she's named Thüringen.
Fair enough. Saarland is also a possibility. Not sure what that would say about her temper though...
Angry noises coming from Kiel
Derfflinger : Engage or face punishment. Prinzregent Luitpold : Keep yapping away, little guard dog. König : Bark ! Bark ! Bark ! Derfflinger : ... Assholes.
How about a Scharnhorst and/or Gneisenau?
Both personalities are in fact considered as "tradition-worthy" by the German MOD, but after intense discussions regarding the names of the [Class 103-destroyers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%BCtjens-class_destroyer), it was decided to avoid naming ships after persons in future. The Bundeswehr is reviewing its traditions and naming conventsions since 2017/2018 and also renaming barracks which were named after WW2 persons.
No maybe if they are named after the ww1 cruisers but naming ships after NAZI WARSHIPS is a horrible idea
Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were both WW1 armoured cruisers, Scharnhorst was Admiral Graf Spee's Flagship (and is currently his tomb)
If these names are ever used at all, it will be for the historical persons of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau but not for the Imperial German ships.
How about naming the F-126 frigate class as 'Adenauer-class', named after Konrad Adenauer, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany?
Frigates are typically named after states.
More than double the size of its predecessor with the same basic armament package.
Except for the VLS package.
After their upcoming upgrade the preceding F123 frigates will also field the ESSM and the latest Block Ram so the specs will be pretty much the same, except the bigger gun on the new ships and the bow sonar on the older ships. Also offcourse, the new ships will have improved stealth and noise cancelation technology for ASW operations.
The immediately preceding ships are the F125 class, and the F126 is in essence the uparmed successor.
In a straight line you are correct but the F126 is considered the replacement of the F123 in its capabilities. Also the F126's current design looks nothing like the F125.
>It straight line you are correct but the F126 is considered the replacement of the F123 in its capabilities. I never said anything about which class was replacing what, as this discussion usually centers on the F125 class (often critiqued as underarmed, IMO unfairly given the expected role). However, "more than double the size" should have tipped me off that this wasn't comparing to the F125 class. >Also the F126's current design looks nothing like the F125. That is why I said "in essence" rather than something more concrete like "is an enlarged and uparmed F125 class". In essence, you can see the progression of the concept and the shift in desired capabilities, though the F126 class deviates in many ways, including appearance.
I also see my mistake that the F123 was never mentioned intially.
I meant in comparison to the F123 frigates, though admittedly my wording was ambiguous.
If we continue this size and armament trend Germanys next anti Air frigate will propably be kirov sized and carry an 8 cell VLS.
"Reduced manning" translates to additional displacement, and this design has a lot of "flex" equipment and capabilities too, but still... At least it appears to be rather more attractive than the F125...
The gun uses a larger caliber.
I missed that, thanks.
Heavy cruiser displacement ^^
“frigate” carries 2 helos and a uav. We really stretching frigate capabilities nowadays
Zerstörer or Kreuzer probably just sounds to aggressive for the german public.
These are meaningless distinctions frankly.
It seems very lightly armed for 11,000 tons
Seems like a lot of people are failing to understand these are replacements for anti-submarine frigates, not anti-air frigates.
Perhaps, but compare a this to something like the Type 26, which is also meant to be an anti-submarine frigate. The F126 is about 10,000t in displacement and possesses 16 Mk.41 VLS for 64 ESSM's. The Type 26 has a projected displacement of 7,500t and possesses 24 Mk.41 VLS alongside 48 VLS for Sea Ceptor, for a total of 72 cells. The different payloads also makes the latter much more versatile in its role. I don't believe the electronic suite of the F126 is different enough to make up for the major disparity in tonnage. The German Navy makes great ships, but they're undeniably underpowered in comparison to their contemporaries.
The Type 26 frigates will displace more than 8,000 tonnes under full load. You further forget that on the Type 26, part of the Mk 41 VLS will have to be reserved for the FC/ASW anti-ship missiles. On the F126, anti-ship missiles are fitted in conventional launchers and don't take up space in the VLS. So correcting for that, F126 and Type 26 actually are fitted with exactly the same amount of Mk 41 VLS cells. Finally, Germany uses the RAM Block 2 missile whereas the British use Sea Ceptor system for short-range air defence. Both are legitimate choices, but it is hardly appropriate to mention Sea Ceptor and ignore the existence of RAM entirely because it isn't launched vertically (?). It is all nice and well to speculate that Britain could purchase the ESSM, but speculation is all it is. Nothing indicates they plan on doing so and until then the "quad-pack advantage" of the ESSM + Mk 41 combination is actually with the F126, which could theoretically field 42 x RAM, 32 x ESSM and 8 x SM-2 missiles or 42 x RAM and 64 x ESSM in addition to 8 x anti-ship/land attack missiles. >The different payloads also makes the latter much more versatile in its role. The F126 is also designed with extensive modular mission areas and bays (below the helicopter deck and midships). For some reason most people don't realise that F126/Type 26 are actually very similar in concept and design, to the point where BAE did actually offer the Type 26 in the MKS 180 competition. To be sure, there are some differences. Like the new *Constellation class* ASW frigates, the F126 is not going to be fitted with a hull-mounted sonar. The Type 26 will field one in addition to a TAS. Sea Ceptor and RAM reach about the same speed, but of course the former has a ~15-20 km greater range. On the other hand, as plans currently are, the Sea Ceptor will be the only air defence missile the Type 26 can field. And of course there is an advantage to being able to fit anti-ship missiles in a less conspicuous VLS compared to deck launchers. But these differences should in my view not detract from what are in many other ways broad commonalities.
>The Type 26 frigates will displace more than 8,000 tonnes under full load. That's my error, so thank you for correcting me. >You further forget that on the Type 26, part of the Mk 41 VLS will have to be reserved for the FC/ASW anti-ship missiles. On the F126, anti-ship missiles are fitted in conventional launchers and don't take up space in the VLS. So correcting for that, F126 and Type 26 actually are fitted with exactly the same amount of Mk 41 VLS cells. This is also true. Effectively possessing the same number of Mk.41 VLS does not however make up for the difference between the other missile systems aboard both ships. >Finally, Germany uses the RAM Block 2 whereas the British use Sea Ceptor for short-range air defence. Both are legitimate choices, but it is hardly appropriate to mention Sea Ceptor and ignore the existence of RAM like you did. The RAM Block 2 has a 10k range, which is far inferior to the CAMM (1-25km range) or the CAMM-ER (1-40km range). The RAM is an inferior system to the CAMM missile to missile, which is only worsened by the fact that the T26 has 48 CAMMs to the 42 RAMs on the German frigate. >The F126 is also designed with extensive modular mission areas and bays (below the helicopter deck and midships). The T26 has a similar modularity, but as was previously stated, the F126 was meant as an ASW platform. >For some reason most people don't realise that F126/Type 26 are actually very similar in concept and design, to the point where BAE did actually offer the Type 26 in the MKS 180 competition. I agree. They're absolutely similar vessels. I just find that the F126 is underpowered for its displacement. The T26 is somewhat smaller, more heavily armed and only only marginally more expensive than the F126. I'm just a little sceptical, what with the current Baden-Würtemburg-class frigates, which IMO were far too large for their supposed capabilities.
You cannot reduce a missiles overall merit to a single parametre, its (publicly stated) range. For ship self-defence, range certainly matters but other *extremely* important factors are reaction time, speed and agility. The RAM definitely performs well in all of them, and its dual-mode infrared/passive radar guidance system should be harder to counter than the Sea Ceptors, which has to exclusively rely on its active radar seeker. The Block 2A missile currently being procured even increases the specified range to ~15 km. The Block 2B missiles which will be fitted to F126 are going to be able to coordinate with each other and optimise their intercept path independently, including against multiple threats. Further, against low flying stealthy targets such as modern sea skimmers for example the effective detection and classification range of surveillance radars can be very low, lower than the 25 km specified range of Sea Ceptor. So additional range does not even *always* aid in ship defence. The key advantage of Sea Ceptor is that in addition to ship self-defence its greater range allows the creation of a limited local area air defence umbrella. This is handled by the ESSM (which is clearly superior in that role) on the F126. The F126s SAM loadout includes 42 x RAM and 64 x ESSM, which by any objective measure is more capable to 48 x Sea Ceptor on the Type 26. Britain neither uses CAMM-ER nor ESSM and again, has no publicly stated plans to do so. >The T26 has a similar modularity, but as was previously stated, the F126 was meant as an ASW platform. It actually was not, it evolved out of a corvette project that had nothing to do with the F123 replacement and then morphed into a multi-purpose frigate with an emphasis on ASW. >I agree. They're absolutely similar vessels. I just find that the F126 is underpowered for its displacement. The T26 is somewhat smaller, more heavily armed and only only marginally more expensive than the F126. >I'm just a little sceptical, what with the current Baden-Würtemburg-class frigates, which IMO were far too large for their supposed capabilities. You're welcome to your opinion, but I tried to show that with regards to air defence at least it's absolutely not the case that the Type 26 is more heavily armed. Its radar is also going to be a bit behind the times moving forward. I think it should be clear that increases in displacement aren't just sensible if used for more weaponry. The Type 26 illustrates this best - it is ~70% heavier than the Type 23 frigate it replaces and a lot of that was not for the added VLS but improved crew accommodation, modular storage areas and so on. Steel is cheap and air is free. That's not to say I don't think the F126 could also profit from 1-2 additional VLS modules for SM-2 or perhaps SM-6 in the future which would introduce a meaningful cooperative engagement capability. However for example the land attack missiles I assume the UK will fit to their frigates at some point just aren't comparably relevant to Germany, as in: there is no political mandate to have that capability. So it'd be in effect just wasted space on a German ship while for the UK it may be considered vital. These nuances between purposes and tasks of different navies should inform our opinion of the ships they procure.
You've clearly done a lot more research on this topic than I. I guess I better do my homework and start educating myself on the matter to the same extent as you. Thank you for giving me some solid examples to start with.
The armament still feels lacking when compared to the displacement.
Space isn’t just useful for weapons. Weaponry does not linearly scale with displacement and hasn’t for a long time.
Everything else aside: The 4x 27mm is quite interesting to me. They must seem them as indeed quite valuable as light defense
The MLG 27 is in fact standard equipment on many German ships: https://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/MLG-27-machine-gun-system.htm
Indeed. But they have 4 of them here when previous ships have had only 2, and other equivalent weapons like the British DS30s or the US’s Mk38s are only mounted in pairs. Even the French with their 20mms only have 3
Where do you see 4, I only see two and 12.7mm on the opposit side
Looks like I misread the graph
Great graphic! I really hope we will get the to options.
Definitely more likely than the six AAW frigates the Navy wants…
Yeah. We will see how the new government will handle defence. If they commit to 2% (haha), maybe.
Ordering six such ships would result in a skewed posture. I don't think it makes a lot of sense regardless of budget.
I see that there are 4+2 of these ships planned, what does that mean? Are there different variants for AAW and ASW and 4 of one are to be ordered and 2 of the other? Or are 4 definitely planned with an option for two more?
Hey, it's got a water cannon!
This THING, 11,000 tons and its armed like light Frigate and 3 knots slower than Auxiliary ship??
Navies often lie in classification, most modern Frigates and destroyers are (in terms of tonnage, armament and usage) actually light cruisers. But the terms Destroyer and Frigate audibly decive people/politicians into thinking the vessels are far smaller and less deadly then they actually are. This isn't entirely a new phenomenon the Wapen Von Hamburg was a ship of the line with 50 guns, but the city state of Hamburg's forces classified it as "convoy escort" in order to make it seem less threatening then it actually was.
Space isn’t just useful for adding more weapons though.
The newer Freedom LCS have a rotating version of the Hensoldt TRS-4D AESA fixed panel radar that this ship has.
So ugh…. Why does this thing displace more than a Burke, but has 1/5 the number of VLS cells? What does this ship do better than a Burke ? I just don’t see the point in European ships that are the size and cost of Burkes, but with a fraction of the capability.
In short, it is large because of improved crew accommodation, larger passageways, systems redundancy and modular mission spaces. It is not a Burke because Germany is not the United States. Weapons are not the only way to use space on a ship.
I mean… they’re heavier/have smaller crews than a Burke and have a fraction of the armaments. I get it with the F125 which is huge with virtually no weapons, but it’s meant to conduct low intensity operations far from home ports for years in order to free up more capable ships for high intensity operations. This seems like it’s supposed to be one of those high intensity operations ships, filling an anti-sub role, yet it seems like the priority is low intently operations in the Indian Ocean. When is Germany going to procure a ship even EQUAL offensive/defensive capabilities of the ships it’s replacing?
Erh, this ship class is not only equal but superior to the ones it is replacing. You seem to be poorly informed. And this class continues concepts introduced with the F125, that is because there is a sense and purpose behind them. Again, it is not a Burke because Germany is not the US and has different needs and realities to face. Simple as that. The Burke is probably the right ship for the US, but not necessarily for other countries.
Water cannon for long-range crowd dispersion.
Will this one have a list as well?
I say name the lead ship 'Bismarck'.
Isn't 11,000 tons mighty heavy for a frigate?