Germany orders 4 6800 ton Frigates for 3.4 bln Dollar

Jeff Head said:

Well, based on the analysis that I do on the various AEGIS and AEGIS-like vessels at my:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,

I have a question regarding this chart:


For the PRC Lanzhou-class DDG listing, you listed "1" for ASROC?


Also, just as a personal opinion, from Falklands War to present day, numerous ship have been under attack or even sunk by AShM's, but there was only 1 sinking by a submarine. I think it's far more likely that a ship would be attacked by a missile than a torpedo.

On your chart, you alloted each CIWS only 1 point, and gave 1 point to each torpedo carried. I think that's a bit off-balanced?

You also gave 1/3 points to each point-defense missile. This means a RAM system with 21 rounds would be worth 7.33 points. With newer gun-based CIWS system like the Oerlikon Contraves (Millennium gun) with AHEAD ammo, I think the poor old gun needs some loving...

I think Jeff has been a bit harsh towards the Daring-class - ranked only 12th out of 14 ships?!?!??!

FuManChu said:

I think Jeff has been a bit harsh towards the Daring-class - ranked only 12th out of 14 ships?!?!??!

Click to expand...

Actually, its all based on the numbes.

If you look, everything from number 9 rated to number 12 rated are all within less than a point of each other. They are all very capable and very equal. Clearly based on the training of the crews and the specific equipment in these categories, anyone of those could be more effective than the other...which can apply to even greated disparities in these clinical numbers as well.

The Daring, with no additional AAW missiles compared to the French, and with only a single main gun as compared to the three on the Italian vessel, came in very marginally behind those two for those reasons.

adeptitus said:

For the PRC Lanzhou-class DDG listing, you listed "1" for ASROC?

Click to expand...

An error, which I have corrected now. Thanks for pointing it out.

adeptitus said:

Also, just as a personal opinion, from Falklands War to present day, numerous ship have been under attack or even sunk by AShM's, but there was only 1 sinking by a submarine. I think it's far more likely that a ship would be attacked by a missile than a torpedo.

On your chart, you alloted each CIWS only 1 point, and gave 1 point to each torpedo carried. I think that's a bit off-balanced?

Click to expand...

The type of warfare has been the restricting factor IMHO. In a general warfare where two sides have signifcant naval surface combatant and submarine capabilities...you would see that change markedly. The torpedo is still a very potent and dangerous weapon...more so IMHO than the missiles...and their use in defense will be paramount. It is much more likely that a submarine will get through to a major strike group or SAG than another group of surface combatants.

Anyhow, that's just as I see it. Others can easily create their own spreadsheets and weight them accordingly.

The main advantage of the German Navy over all other european Navies is that they got 2x21 cell RAM launchers aboard of every frigate and every corvette, the French and British still got many ships wich only have Ram like missiles (SeaWolf ect.) as their main weapon

F125 is BTW larger then Horizon class destroyer's

Jeff, correct me if i'm wrong, but on your charts you seem to value training in a linear fashion. A ship that's been in service for ten years would get ten times more points than a ship that's been in service for one year. That, naturally, is not true with any kind of training. There is always a curve where you learn most of what is there to learn in the beginning while the rest of the time you refine your knowledge.

Also, for antiship/antiaircraft values, you might want to take into account the maximum number of planes/missiles a ship can engage at the same time. Number of target illuminators and/or terminal selfguidance for the missiles would play a great role there.

Jeff Head said:

The Daring, with no additional AAW missiles compared to the French, and with only a single main gun as compared to the three on the Italian vessel, came in very marginally behind those two for those reasons.

Click to expand...

So its scope for growth and different sensor/electronics equip doesn't count for anything?

ger_mark said:

The main advantage of the German Navy over all other european Navies is that they got 2x21 cell RAM launchers aboard of every frigate and every corvette, the French and British still got many ships wich only have Ram like missiles (SeaWolf ect.) as their main weapon

Click to expand...

Certainly it is a useful addition to the fleet. But the main disadvantage of the Germany Navy is that unlike many other European ones, it doesn't have any aircraft/helicopter carriers. If you guys just want to escort our big ships, feel free.

FuManChu said:

So its scope for growth and different sensor/electronics equip doesn't count for anything?

Click to expand...

Ultimately, they will count for a lot...once installed.

But I'm making an analysis of these vessels as they exist. Room for growth in a particular weapons or systems area will not help the Daring if it has to go into harms way needing those particular systems before it has those systems installed.

I have no doubt that ultimately, when fully outfitted, the Darings wil climb to the top of the European vessels, or near thereto...and may well penetrate into the larger, full -scope AEGIS vessels. But, I also believe in order to do so, it will have to have those systems installed and operational that it is now outfitting without...a difficiency I believe is being caused mainly by budgetary and political concerns.

Totoro said:

Jeff, correct me if i'm wrong, but on your charts you seem to value training in a linear fashion. A ship that's been in service for ten years would get ten times more points than a ship that's been in service for one year. That, naturally, is not true with any kind of training. There is always a curve where you learn most of what is there to learn in the beginning while the rest of the time you refine your knowledge.

Also, for antiship/antiaircraft values, you might want to take into account the maximum number of planes/missiles a ship can engage at the same time. Number of target illuminators and/or terminal selfguidance for the missiles would play a great role there.

Click to expand...

The training curve may well drop off...but it does not, IMHO, go to zero or anywhere near it. Otherwise, after a few years, navies would stop training...but they do not.

Continued training exercises inprove the fleet. not only for the new sailors, but against new, rising threats that may have not been in place years ago, an dpolishing the capability and operation against existing threats and required procedures (like UNREP). Therefore, IMHO, the training approximates a linear function. I guess I could get more elaborate and create a non-linear equation to express the curve...but I am not going into that level of detail here.

As to the number of targets a vessel is able to detect, acquire, track, and engage...that would be a good point to pull out individually (I attempted to wrap all of that up when factoring the defensive system in general). I will look into adding such a column with a decent multiplier.

Thanks for the great comments!

Jeff Head said:

Ultimately, they will count for a lot...once installed.

Click to expand...

You didn't answer my point about the different sensors and other electronic systems used. For example, SAMPSON can only be found on the Daring-class.

totoro makes a good point about the actual anti-missile capabilities of the ships, in terms of things like intercept performance, ability to track and engage incoming targets, etc. After all, a vessel could be packed with the same number of Sea-Sparrows and ESSM, but the end result would be quite different.

Sometimes you can't rank ships by simple numbers, as it's so easy to leave factors out. Maybe you should contact Richard Beedall from Navy Matters and ask him if he can help you out.

Also, rather than try to rank classes simply by numbers, etc you could use the details as an informative comparison and then have an "overall view" taking into account all those things you can't really get down on a table, maybe with a "conclusion"/explanation for your ranking.

Room for growth in a particular weapons or systems area will not help the Daring if it has to go into harms way needing those particular systems before it has those systems installed.

Click to expand...

I think this is another area where your table goes wrong. The Daring-class was not designed to be a "multi-role vessel", nor operate by itself in hostile areas - it's for AAW. If used in a war scenario, it would either be guarding a taskforce or operating with one of our frigates, ships that have excellent anti-submarine and anti-shipping systems.

There's also things like the fact Daring is already equipped to receive Harpoon. All it would need is a short amount of time to fit it, because all the hard-work has been done with the electronics, etc installed.

Another question, why does ASM get more points than separate ASM? Seems to overly favour the US ships on that count for no real reason.

The training curve may well drop off...but it does not, IMHO, go to zero or anywhere near it. Otherwise, after a few years, navies would stop training...but they do not.

Click to expand...

No, they keep training to keep the level of experience/expertise they have. After all, people retire, new people join, etc. So you need to keep the training going to even stay where you are - there's no reason to believe things keep going up and up. I think they would plateau off after a while.

FuManChu said:

You didn't answer my point about the different sensors and other electronic systems used. For example, SAMPSON can only be found on the Daring-class.

totoro makes a good point about the actual anti-missile capabilities of the ships, in terms of things like intercept performance, ability to track and engage incoming targets, etc. After all, a vessel could be packed with the same number of Sea-Sparrows and ESSM, but the end result would be quite different.

Sometimes you can't rank ships by simple numbers, as it's so easy to leave factors out. Maybe you should contact Richard Beedall from Navy Matters and ask him if he can help you out.

Also, rather than try to rank classes simply by numbers, etc you could use the details as an informative comparison and then have an "overall view" taking into account all those things you can't really get down on a table, maybe with a "conclusion"/explanation for your ranking.

Click to expand...

As I have tried to explain, these are not ranked simply by the numbers. There are many less imperical considerations in this analysis. Including the rating of the defensive system itself. I have rated the Daring, right now, comparitively in that regards with the French and Italian systems. Once the Darings are out there and perform, that could well change.

Anyone is free to come up with their own analysis, based on their view of the many various parameters and reach alternate conclusions.

FuManChu said:

No, they keep training to keep the level of experience/expertise they have. After all, people retire, new people join, etc. So you need to keep the training going to even stay where you are - there's no reason to believe things keep going up and up. I think they would plateau off after a while.

Click to expand...

Actually, in some respects you are making the same point I made to the other poster. You do keep training for the new people, but you also keep training and adding to it for the new threats and procedures that are developed both for the new threats, and for the improvements you make to the older. So, it does actually keep getting better over time...IMHO, you do not ever really plateau because the envrionment itself is a moving target. Also, as I have said, it is not a linear function and so my analysis is lacking because it is linear...but I personally believe that it is not so non-linear...meaning that it approaches a flat line...that the linear nature is rendered meaningless or less effective. it just means that over time...a long time...the differences will not be as great as the linear function produces.

But...we are going way off topic here.ff

This thread is really about the German F125, and it is, to date, not even part of my analysis. Once they start construction, I will add it to the mix. I believe the F125, if its sensor suite and armament turns out to be as stated in this thread, will be a very strong platform.