Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?
why have warships if youre not gonna arm them
>>62795851modern navies have taken the fleet in being concept too far they make boats simply to float and take up space. it's giving interwar vibes
>>62795568And they are just using quadpacked ESSM. ESSM is a good missile for swatting ASCMs but it isn't going to do anything against the aircraft that launched said missiles, so the cell economy is totally illusory over anything beyond a single engagement. IIRC from Perun this is actually based on a hull with way more VLS and they decided to nutcheck the design for some reason
>>62795568I still don't understand where all the displacement is going to
>>62795909>crew>your mum
>>62795568Should've bought British
>>62795851It has a watercannon
>>62795568I appreciate the amount of 27mm autocannons scattered around the ship at least
>>62795568Probably Not but its all about Crew comfort eg having a dedicated gym room vs using empty VLS cells
>>62795568this begs the question... what's on board? what's inside of it? what's occupying all the space? because it's not weapons. why build a ship this big to barely put any armaments on it?
>>62796671Crew quarters
>>62795568it depends on what the purpose of the ship isgiven that this one has 'water cannons' im frankly not so sure whats the point this seems like a test platform for weapon systems that would later be fitted to actual war ships.this seems like the kind of ship you have the government order if you want to keep your arms manufacturers from going bankrupt but dont actually need warships
>>62795568It also only makes 27kts. I don't even know what to say about this ship. A Ticonderoga is 9000t, 32kt, 330 crew, 2x61VLS+guns, torpedos and Harpoons.Seriously, what the fuck?>>62796681>>62795957110 crew and 11000 tonnes? 100 cubic meters of displacement per sailor?
>>62795568>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tonsFor its role? Yes.>>62795909>>62796671Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities. Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc).>>62796689They're for firefighting and a "softer" way of destabilising RiBs and dinghies.
>>62796727the requirement for 30+kts is for keeping up with CSGswhich, you may have noticed, Germany does not haveand they do not expect to use these ships to support NATO CSGs
>>62795863>it's giving interwar vibesNope. Interwar ships were no less packed with weapons and armor than WWII ships.
>>62796729>Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities. Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc).That's retarded considering 100000 tons container ships costs literally nothing ($40 millions or something like that, spare change) and you can build floating city base out of it.
>>62795863>interwarwhat on earth do you mean?interwar ships were still relatively ancientthe British still used hammocks and messed like Nelson didit is the Americans who came up with the idea of providing bunks, a central cafeteria-style messing system, central laundry and hotel services, etc which all incurred significant extra space and costthe British only adopted these changes in late-war designsnow it is the Europeans with more comfortable quarters however; average space per crew is about 1/3rd greater than American
>>62796737>the requirement for 30+kts is for keeping up with CSGsThe point isn't that the ships are slow. The point is that the space is not taken up by machinery to go fast. It's not weapons, sensors, computers, combat systems or crew, and it's not machinery. As we'll see below, it's not stores. So Tthe space is taken up by what?>>62796729>Germany has no overseas port/bases, so they have to be self-sustaining for the ship's mission (long anti-piracy, HDR etc)Horseshit. No one supplies from overseas bases. They do it from regular ports in peacetime, oilers in wartime. If this is the reason then it speaks to a deep organisational dysfunction in the German Navy. This ship has a 4000nm range at 18kts - Ticos have a 6000nm range at 20kts and a 3300nm range at 30kt. You need better excuses.
>>62796770>$40 millions or something like that, spare changeit cost the bongs over £150 million to build a fleet tanker in 2017that is not chump change boyo
>>62796788>So the space is taken up by what?beats me too mateall the world wonders
for 64 essmyes
>>62795568>2 water cannons>2 RHIBs>2 NH-90sWow Germany that's a really awesome coast guard cutter. Now let's see if you can design a warship.
>>62796792>it cost the bongs over £150 million to build a fleet tanker in 2017Koreans built those ships, that is why those are as cheap as those are. Only final outfitting of ships was done in bongistan, like setting up optional weaponry, radar and shieet. >that is not chump change boyoIt is when compared to what Canadians are paying for their joint support ships. Ones with half the supply capacity those bongoloid tankers. 2 billion per ship and 700 million to lease and convert a civilian container ship as interim solution because joint support ships are delayed by more than decade.
>>62795568>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?For the job it has? Yes.
>>62796909>64 essm>42 RAM>NSM>127mm gun>various smaller gunsit's well armed for a warship. the only thing i'd add for its stated roll is another quad NSM.
>>62795568Yes
>>62796770>That's retarded considering 100000 tons container ships costs literally nothing ($40 millions or something like that, spare change) and you can build floating city base out of it.Why don't you trying thinking about why a massive empty steel tub is cheaper than a complex honeycomb of subdivisioned spaces with redundant and resilient equipment?>>62796788>Horseshit. No one supplies from overseas bases.Right, because all the global navies have secure port / bases for no reason then. This is Wikipedia tier knowledge.
>>62796959>64 essm>42 RAMPurely self-defense. Not even the ESSMs are considered an area defense weapon by the USN.>NSMAll four (4) missiles are the totality of this ship's offensive capability.>127mm gunA useful utility weapon, can counter some drones and chip in on air defense with the right ammo. Shore bombardment is a possibility but a niche use.>12.7mm and 27mm RWSSelf-defense from boat swarms / naval dronesBasically this thing's job seems to be to go places and take up space while defending itself. Not a very useful role in any sort of conflict that I can imagine.
>>62797108It's role is actually to backfill where the "heavy" combatants would have been during peacetime -- i.e counter-piracy, drug enforcement, shipping inspection. This means ships like Burkes are free for higher threat / intensity work.
>>62797108its purpose isn't area defense, though. which is why i don't think it's a bother that it lacks them.essm can be used for anti-ship, it's just not all that powerful (with saying that, sea sparrow did cripple a small destroyer in a friendly fire incident)
>>62795568>Is 16 vls an adequate armament for a ship weighing over 11,000 tons?With that mission profile, yes.
>>62795568F126's main job will be ASWF127 will be for AAW
>>62796765>>62796786my bad on the wrong terminology, I meant interwar in general like they are being built with previous wars in mind and not built for current/future wars
the VLS on the F126 can quad-pack ESSM, so 16*4 ESSM = 64 missiles, seems adequate for an ASW vesselwhat's more problematic is the F125, no VLS cells at all currentlyIRIS-T SLM is planned to be integrated on it though, integration tests are scheduled for next year afaikit's planned to use the same launchers as on the ground vehicles, they can be mounted on standard container provisions in the center section of the vesselso likely F125 will soon have 16 IRIS-T SLM medium-range AA missiles too, no quad-packing there though
>>62797161>It's role is actually to backfill where the "heavy" combatants would have been during peacetime -- i.e counter-piracy, drug enforcement, shipping inspection. This means ships like Burkes are free for higher threat / intensity work.Which makes perfect sense until you consider that you're talking about using an 11kton displacement ship that will be built in single digits to "backfill" less demanding roles to free up a handful of 9,700ton ships to take their much more impressive armament into actual combat. You could do the same with a much smaller ship.
>>627955682x8 VLS2x4 NSM2x21 RIM-1161x127mm 64 caliber gun2x27mm remote weapon system2x.50cal remote weapon system2x helicopters + 1 UAVcompared to a Flight III Burke1x32 VLS1x64 VLS1x21 RIM-1161x5" 62 caliber gun2x25mm remote weapon system1x20mm CIWS1xODIN (laser dazzler)4x.50cal (not sure if these are remote controlled versions or not)2x helicoptersSure another 16 VLS cells would've been better, but it's not HORRIBLE for Europe.
>>62797285>its purpose isn't area defense, though. which is why i don't think it's a bother that it lacks them.Clearly. But that begs the question, what IS it's purpose? What is it good at aside from self-defense? The ability to simply exist in a battlespace does not make a useful warship.>essm can be used for anti-ship, it's just not all that powerful You're thinking of SM-2>(with saying that, sea sparrow did cripple a small destroyer in a friendly fire incident)That was an air-lainched AIM-7 back during the Vietnam war. It didn't exactly "cripple" the ship, but it did destroy its radar if I'm remembering correctly.
>>62795568Why are Frigates so hard to get right? Seems like a lot of fumbles lately
>>62797488the main problem is nations trying to get a destroyers worth of systems into a frigates weight and hull size
>>62797465>Sure another 16 VLS cells would've been better, but it's not HORRIBLE for Europe.Nobody is slagging on the other armament, but wondering why a ship that's over 1000 tons larger has 1/6th the VLS cells is legitimate. Major surface combatants carry the majority of thier relevant weapons in their VLS, so having 16 instead of 96 is a pretty big deal.
>>62797465>>62797520It should also be noted, the Flight III burke has 360 men on board.The F126 only has ~115 (with space for an additional 84).
>>62797462Stop being hung up on tonnage. You're working backwards. The mission dictate the KURs, the KURs dicates crew and equipment, the crew & equipment dictates the displacement. You should be asking why wasn't a light solution picked by the Germany navy and prime contractor. >>62797488>>62797506Classification names are worthless.>>62797520Because AAW wasn't it's mission beyond initial self-defense.
>>62796788>the space is taken up by what?ovens
>>62796949I mean, that's just trudeaus being trudeaus>>62797004>Why don't you trying thinkingincapable of it
>>62797452>built with previous wars in mind and not built for current/future warsstill somewhat of a disservice, budit's a meme that generals "prepare for the last war"; they actually did have a pretty good idea of the future wars to comehowever, the politicians who hold the purse strings and decided pre-war to spend on butter rather than guns (for votes) and the ordinary joe who sees no need for the military even when the bombs are falling, they are the ones who write historysay right now for exampleimagine you know the future, we're going to be pulled into a real Desert Storm 3.0 with Iran in 2030, and it's gonna be a bloodbath because we're not prepareddo you think you can convince people to spend on defence now to win that war?hell, you can't even convince people to spend on defence now to win the wars we're ALREADY fighting TODAY
>>62795568It's more palatable when you remember it's got NSMs. That's it's main Ship to Ship weapon.
>>62798028I generally agree with what you are saying, but I think they should have made a ship with a little more size to grow and accept modifications later if need be. for example, they should add more vls and just sail around with them unloaded during peacetime for low cost
>>62797525360 alloted. I've never been on board one with more than 280. Still more, but realize that 360 number is never achieved. Also it has 2-3x as many officers on board as planned (due to SWO turnover) so the number of actual blue jackets who do everything is even lower, like 240 ish.
>>62798421>360 allotedNo, 380 alloted, supposedly 359 on the only Flight III currently in service. Flight I and Flight II boats are ~240-280 usually, with space for up to ~300-330. Flight IIA is closer to ~300, and Flight III is supposedly right up around 350-360.
>>62796376It has decks for Modules. Those have worked out well.
>>62795568It's enough to eat some tasty hairy pussy with.
>>62797004>Why don't you trying thinking about why a massive empty steel tub is cheaper than a complex honeycomb of subdivisioned spaces with redundant and resilient equipment?Oh, you're doing your "damage control wins the battle" thing again.
>>62798604What are you talking about you schizo?
>>62795957>>your mumBut where is the other 8000 tons coming from?
>>62796770>100000 tons container ships costs literally nothingbecause its interiors are literally nothing>>62798604try stopping this thing from sinking to a couple of shells
>>62796770>and you can build floating city base out of it.If you did that it would no longer cost $40,000,000, would it? Considering armor/radars/defensive systems
>>62795568Great ship
I love these threads because anons really out themselves for knowing nothing about military equipment beyond video game stats.
>>62798762> try not SinkingNot getting hit by a missile, torpedo or shell in the first place seems to work okay.
You guys are super off-base. Having lots of space not used up by weapons systems means there’s versatility to handle a lot of different functions like disaster relief, research, training, recon, command functions, cargo, etc and so on. Major surface ships aren’t just floating missile carriers, they can take on many functions and the more space aboard the more is possible.
>>62797004>Right, because all the global navies have secure port / bases for no reason then. This is Wikipedia tier knowledge.Munitions and long lead spares. Again, this ship has a range of 4000nm at 18kt, while a Tico has 6000nm at 20kt but displaces less at full load, goes faster, is more heavily armed etc. Extra supplies for more range are not the reason this displaces a fuckload more than it appears to have any right to.
>>62798992Ah, so you're saying that container ships are viable surface warfare combatants because they make up for their damage control deficits by being manouevrable, fast, stealthy, small or otherwise very hard to hit with missiles or shells.This is a very novel position with which I am unfamiliar. Please, share more.
>>62799019>You guys are super off-base. Major surface combatants being lightly armed is actually a very good thing because it means that in return for being bad at combat people can sit in the holds to train and command each other to conduct recon and research on the internal bulkheads, then disaster relief on themselves when this situation is exploited.Or, the simple explanation is that commie-infested Germany remains deeply unserious about having a useful military and engages in self-sabotage.
>>62799045I didn't just say extra supplies, anon. I said>Machine shops, chilled stores, big crew facilities.
>>62799094It's not a major surface combatant.>"They are primarily designed for low and medium intensity maritime stabilization operations, where they are supposed to provide sea-to-land tactical fire support, asymmetric threat control at sea and support of special forces"
>>62796792>>62796949The Bongs unironically did well with the new fleet of tankers. The Tide class is legit.
>>62798992>Not getting hitand how do you propose we do that?
>>62799263>Tidespring>Tiderace>Tidesurge>Tideforcemfw no Tidepod>The Tide class is legit.it isnow I only wish they could unfuck the MROSS, FSSS and amphibs
>>62796786Hammocks are based and we lose out with modern designs.
>>62796729But the German Navy has fleet replenishment ships (picrel) which they've deployed on anti-piracy operations in the past, there's no lack of friendly and neutral ports for them to use in peacetime, and in the event of a war, this thing would be too under-armed to be able to operate independently in the first place.
>>62796446You mean two?
>>62797506The Germans, on the other hand, seem to be getting a frigate's worth of systems with a destroyer's weight and hull size.
>>62798992>Not getting hit by a missile, torpedo or shell in the first place seems to work okay.Great plan.
>>62797480essm can shoot at anything as long as it has an air or surface search radar lock on the track. it's the same as original sea sparrow. they just don't advertise it because it's not its main purpose.it was 2xsea sparrow fired from saratoga during an exercise. they hit a turkish minelayer destroyer.
>>62800493>essm can shoot at anything as long as it has an air or surface search radar lock on the track.well, it can also shoot at anything blindly with the newer blocks. which can be useful for incoming over the horizon where your radar can't lock on.you can also fire them down a bearing oth where you know an enemy surface vessel is.
>>62799890>But th-Okay, great, argue that point with the German navy since they picked the design.>>62799917Retard.
>>62797455Nice cope but ESSM is literally a CIWS just like RAM. >>62797161>b-but muh anti piracyNo one has expected that the Red sea can be as hot as the Persian gulf with ASBM being fired everyday. The minimum requirement for a ballistic missile defense is SM-2.
>>62800562A point defense missile that goes beyond 25k, lol? You think you know what you're talking about, but you really don't. Nobody serious talks about ESSM that way.
They built a pocket battleship once so now they're building a pocket destroyer
>>62800562essm isn't point defense. it's considered local defense. sm-2/6 is your area defense.
>>62795568What's its role? German navy surely made these for a specialized purpose. Anti piracy? Trade route protection? Convoy missions? Long endurance?It's probably well armed for its purpose.
>>62800493>it was 2xsea sparrow fired from saratoga during an exercise. they hit a turkish minelayer destroyer.The hit on the bridge. Fairly serious damage considering.
>>62797480>>62800493every missile can attack surface targets in a pinch, it just won't be as effective or efficient as a proper surface-to-surface missilethe very first combat use of a guided anti-air missile was to attack a building on land
How many VLS cells will the F127 have?
>>62800919i'm pretty sure they're going for 64i recall they were looking at the tumblehome hull or something similar toothis will be their missile frigate
>>62796788The tico is a cruiser, this is reportedly a frigate.
>>62800932>this will be their missile frigateI guess the F126 is their obese missile corvette.
>>62800945This thing fits the frigate role quite well. Frigates are generally medium-sized multipurpose warships most of the time.
>>62800947Stop saying words that you don't know the meaning of.
>>62798790>Considering armor/radars/defensive systemsConsider not putting them into supply shipm that is the point.
>>62798762That is bulk cargo ship in your pic.
>>62801338okay, and?same pointhilariously NOT up to warship survivability standards
>>62800696>German navy surely made these for a specialized purpose.No, decidedly not.The ships have extra space and are prepared for integrating additional mission modules. They ordered 3 imprisonment and 3 ASW modules.So just by those numbers it seems to be 50:50 anti piracy and ASW.But the modules can be swapped between ships. And since there will always be a certain ratio of unavailable ships(*), the actively used ships on hot missions could therefore also be 100% ASW if it's required.(*) A rotation factor of 3 is normal during peace time, meaning you need 3 ships in order to always have one ship on station. This is due to maintenance overhaul, training duties and the time required to go to and return from the mission area. A crisis situation which requires a surge usually allows a rotation factor of 2 for a short time. So if required, out of the 6 ships there can be up to 3 on station.
>>62800919There's a design proposal with a Mk41 with 64 cells, but nothing's decided yet.https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2024/07/german-f127-aaw-frigate-takes-shape/
>germ ship>french radars and electronics
>>62802106Ah that makes sense. Doesn't seem bad to me at all.
>>62802106>The ships have extra space and are prepared for integrating additional mission modules.Damn. That seems -- familiar. How did that work out in practice?
>>62800562>ESSM is literally a CIWS just like RAM.no it's not.