Germany orders 4 6800 ton Frigates for 3.4 bln Dollar

Jeff Head said:

I have rated the Daring, right now, comparitively in that regards with the French and Italian systems.

Click to expand...

I think you have rated it poorly and unfairly, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that front.

Once the Darings are out there and perform, that could well change.

Click to expand...

Well, one could argue that none of those ships have "performed", given they haven't had their capabilities properly challenged in warfare (or indeed been involved in combat at all) - except maybe some of the US ships.

Yes, now let's get back on topic.

FuManChu said:

I think you have rated it poorly and unfairly, but we will just have to agree to disagree on that front. .

Click to expand...

Sorry, it is rated the same as the others and the analysis falls where it will. PAAMS was given as high a rating in terms of the defensive system as the best deployed AEGIS out there...which I felt was a little premature, but did so anyway based on all of the technical data out there. In time, as the Daring class adds more of the systems in that it left off and as SAMPSON shows itself in actual, real-life exercises, as I said, it may well come up in the rankings on my particular analysis.

FuManChu said:

Yes, now let's get back on topic.

Click to expand...

Great! Let's do. What are your thoughts on the F125? say, as compared to the F124?.

If the F125 has a 48 cell VLS and uses both ESSM and SM-2 in those launchers, I believe it will be as strong or stronger in the Air-defence role...and stronger still in the other multi-role functions it brings to the table.

What do you think?

Actually, I was surprised to see the 48 cell VLS with mention of potnetiial SM-2 or more. I did not think the F125 was going to have that strong of an air defense capability.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, it is rated the same as the others and the analysis falls where it will.

Click to expand...

As I've pointed out, I disagree with the analysis and conclusions drawn thereof.

........What do you think?

Click to expand...

Well in terms of the missile load-out, of course the extra 16 cells means the F-125 is an improvement over the F-124. I presume they will be given over to the SM-2, as having more than 32 ESSM would be an extravagance in my opinion.

FuManChu said:

I disagree with the analysis and conclusions drawn thereof.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. You have a PM.

FuManChu said:

Well in terms of the missile load-out, of course the extra 16 cells means the F-125 is an improvement over the F-124. I presume they will be given over to the SM-2, as having more than 32 ESSM would be an extravagance in my opinion.

Click to expand...

I agree that the Type 125, with this armament, will be the better of the Type 124 in air defense as well as overall capability. They will be very fine ships and a very nice addition (actually replacements of four of the Type 122 Bremen class as I understand) to the German Navy.

Well, rating combat ships in comparrison to each other is a difficult task anyway.
Becuase of all the evenualities and little but many different points that matter in actual combat, such a chart must always be simplified. As is Jeff's. As I understand it, it just a one-by-one comparrison that also counts the experiance with each ship(-type).
Factors like maximum practical engagement numbers and things like that do play a role but a difficult to accurately determine.

I also did not exspect the F-125 to get such a heavy load at first. But thought it will be a rather cheap ship to hunt down pirates in boats.
But of course I'm happy to get that much more AAW and ASuW capacities.
I think helo-carriers, or something similar, are still many years off. Will be difficult to get people used to that kind of vessels. So we'll stick to escort others main ships for some time to come . Still, a F125 like ship could also leed a powerfull group itself.

Scratch said:

Well, rating combat ships in comparrison to each other is a difficult task anyway.
Becuase of all the evenualities and little but many different points that matter in actual combat, such a chart must always be simplified. As is Jeff's. As I understand it, it just a one-by-one comparrison that also counts the experiance with each ship(-type).
Factors like maximum practical engagement numbers and things like that do play a role but a difficult to accurately determine.

Click to expand...

Exactly...and there will always be differences of opinion on what parameters to use and how to weight them. Such an analysis is useful as an indicator...but real life, and actual combat, when the time comes, will reveal the more accurate parameters.

Scratch said:

I also did not exspect the F-125 to get such a heavy load at first. But thought it will be a rather cheap ship to hunt down pirates in boats.
But of course I'm happy to get that much more AAW and ASuW capacities.
I think helo-carriers, or something similar, are still many years off. Will be difficult to get people used to that kind of vessels. So we'll stick to escort others main ships for some time to come . Still, a F125 like ship could also leed a powerfull group itself.

Click to expand...

I believe that the F125, when traveling with a F124 and one or two F123s and F122s, would make a very powerful SAG with significant additional capabilities from the F125. They will be a significant multiplier for German interests and for any allied task force IMHO.

FuManChu said:

As I've pointed out, I disagree with the analysis and conclusions drawn thereof.



Well in terms of the missile load-out, of course the extra 16 cells means the F-125 is an improvement over the F-124. I presume they will be given over to the SM-2, as having more than 32 ESSM would be an extravagance in my opinion.

Click to expand...

there is no point getting so sensitive on an issue like this. We all know something like which ship is better is hard to quantify. Jeff is doing the best he can with the only thing he can quantify, which are the number of missiles each ship holds. The things that Type 45 excel in like the stealthy hull, superior sensors and such are hard to quantify. Too many people can disagree on them. And there really is no question that Type 45 can't compare to some of the other ships in terms of land attack and ASW.

my guess is that the lot's of vls cells are planned for a cruise missile, probably scalp navale or the once planned navalized taurus

wouldnt make sense to give F125 that much AAW since F124 has a much better Radar

ger_mark said:

my guess is that the lot's of vls cells are planned for a cruise missile, probably scalp navale or the once planned navalized taurus

wouldnt make sense to give F125 that much AAW since F124 has a much better Radar

Click to expand...

This might be slightly OT... would the Scalp cruise missile fit in the Mk.41 VLS cels, and would the US permit system integration? i.e. On the Korean KDX-3, they had to install domestic VLS system to use domestic cruise missiles.

adeptitus said:

This might be slightly OT... would the Scalp cruise missile fit in the Mk.41 VLS cels, and would the US permit system integration? i.e. On the Korean KDX-3, they had to install domestic VLS system to use domestic cruise missiles.

Click to expand...

Nope. the SCALP missile is too wide to fit into the Mk.41 VLS cells. One BGM-109 Tomahawk is a tight fit already with a diameter of 0.52m.