instead of previously planned 64 cellsit will also feature the AEGIS system and SPY-6 radarthey will likely come with Tomahawks for land attack as well8 units are planned now instead of previously 526 bn euros have been designated for the projectthese will likely become the most powerful surface combatants in Europe
>>64651364The burkeswarm comes for all of us eventually
Finally a european destroyer with teeth.wonder what SPY-6 version they're getting, hopefully the bigger one used on the Flight III burkes or even larger.
>>64651418it will get the AN/SPY-6(V)1, same as the Flight III Burkes
>>64651364It's getting a complete more modern, stable design, so you can lay to rest these pictures too and the industry is already talking about the F126 getting the axe, instead there might be an additional 4-6 F127 orders, the F126 will be replaced with the first drone frigate (F128)
>>64651813any info/pics on this new design then?also sounds good to axe the F126 and standardize on one frigate design instead imo
>>64651782so, they just remade the burke
>>64651928how many different configurations do you think you can do of a basic "do everything" destroyer
It will be a miracle if they don't fuck it up. Some pick will change the specs mid build
>>64651782I'm still hoping someone will eventually build a platform that can fit the "full" 69 RMA version of SPY-6. (SPY-6(V)1 has 37 RMAs).
>>64651418Ah yes, the 10.000 tons "frigate"
>>64652124I mean, it's politics.We all know in any other navy in the western world it would be classified as a DDG.Or maybe even a CG.
>>64651364Pretty cool, but only 8 AShM is a bit low. I guess it's still good for North Atlantic/Mediterranean threats though.
>>64651928>so, they just remade the burkeBut the French actually have an effective shipbuilding industry
>>64652268It's an air defense "frigate"8 AShM should be fine.Also, they're planning to add the 3SM Tyrfing in ~2035, which is supposed to be a Mk41 VLS cell-launched anti-ship missile to complement the NSM.
>>64651859Nothing released yet, the ship will have 12.000t though, 180m length, 22m width, 64cells in the bow, 32 midship cells
>>64651782Good, good.Then put all 8 ef them into the Scouting Group. And go scouting for russian tankers.
>>64652124>>64652215>>64652288Cruiser, you say?At 12,000 tons it would be a . . Large Cruiser, don't you think?
>>64652284oh I see, ok thanks
>>64652124Destroyer is such an ugly, nasty, nazi word. German weapons do not "destroy". They only protect and pacify. Kinetically.
>>64651364>F127>we wuz buying zuropean and shietz
>>64652103Some day in the near future, everyone will come to their senses and we will get a CGN based on the Zumwalt hull with the full-fat SPY-6 and an air defense DEW.
>>64652351It has more to do with German naval ranks. They decided that if the rank is called Korvettenkapitän or Fregattenkapitän you might as well call the ship Korvette and Fregatte.And whatever we class a ship as has been a political bullshit bingo question for over a century in pretty much all countries.
>>64652452So should they call the F127 an "at sea"?
>>64652542No. At that point, you obviously call ships 'Kreuzer' etc., because they belong to the High Seas Fleet.
>>64652326>>64652284They're also buying SM-6 which has Anti-surface capabilities as a secondary function. https://www.dsca.mil/Press-Media/Major-Arms-Sales/Article-Display/Article/4332014/germany-standard-missile-6-block-i-and-standard-missile-2-block-iiic
>>64651364Stop edging and give me a modern heavy cruiser
There's only 16 states in Germany. Guess they're going to have to go picking different names.
>>64652602That flies a lofted trajectory making it a less-than-ideal AShM. That being said,>>64652268The german navy isn't exactly planning to engage in surface actions in faraway waters. Airbases in germany would comfortably cover the north sea and baltic, and airbases in other EU countries would allow coverage of the med. They also have diesel-electrics for a reason. The 8 AShMs and plans for VLS supersonic AShMs are more than enough, and yes, the SMs can be used as very expensive and not too effective anti-ship missiles if you really need them.
>>64653352rumors are the lead ships of the class will be called F226 'Markus Rühl' and F227 'Rainer Winkler'
>>64651418>Finally a european destroyerSir, this is a frigate.
>>64653422>That flies a lofted trajectory making it a less-than-ideal AShM.The bigger problem is the 140 lb warhead, it's half of an NSM and about a third of an Exocet or Harpoon.
>>64653540it's kinda top attack and the warhead is technically a SAPHE warhead, so the small warhead size isn't really *that* big of an issue. it'll still likely render anything it hits combat ineffective
>>64653560There's a reason the USN is strapping NSM box launchers to destroyers with nearly a hundred VLS cells, and it's not because they can't carry enough missiles. SM-6 is cool because it's "anti-everything," but it's primarily an AA asset and everything else is secondary.
>>64652284>they're planning to add the 3SM Tyrfingthey should put it on the 212cd instead, surface ship are not survivable in the age of ashm and asbm.also, if they can stack as many 320kw fuel cells stack as possible onto 212cd, there's a good chance the sub can traverse 10-15 knots on reactants without using LIB. That should be a big tactical advantage over typical heavily criticized slow transit speed of legacy SSKs
>>64653582forgot pic
>>64653527The F127 displaces more than a Burke Flight III destroyers and Ticonderoga cruisers. It's proving that ship ratings are fucking retarded and totally made up.
>>64653574>SM-6 is cool because it's "anti-everything," but it's primarily an AA asset and everything else is secondary. It's also really fucking expensive at nearly $4 million a pop. NSM is about half the price.
>>64653603That too.>You can use your super expensive long-range SAM as an expedient alternative to an AShM against corvettes and fishing boats, maybe a frigate (not an F127) in a pinchThat's neat I guess, but I probably wouldn't.
>>64653574Hey I didn't call the SM-6 a good AShM, I said the high lofted trajectory makes it pretty mediocre, I just think the warhead is sufficient to at least temporarily knock out whatever it hits. I agree it's a primarily anti-air missile.>>64653582The thing has no VLS cells, and canisters are 638 mm vs 533 mm of the torpedo tubes. You'd have to add a launch canister for the missile, so it's a no-go in the tubes just from the likely caliber alone.
>>64653527now let's do a destroyer
>>64653649>533 mm of the torpedo tubesUnless you have any insider source, im pretty sure neither the size or the number of tubes has ever been confirmed, officially.On the contrary, there are plan to integrate 3sm onto 212cd(page 20)https://cdn.asp.events/CLIENT_Defence__8EE24275_D70D_4386_936BB8991B847FF8/sites/Navy-Leaders-2022/media/libraries/cne24-presentations/-U-Navy-Leaders-UK-21-05-24.pdf
>>64653649>The thing has no VLS cellsNTA, but the Israeli variant does have VLS tubes for the nukes that Israel totally doesn't have in the rear of the sail, doesn't it? Or am I being an idiot?And yes, I know that the 212CDs do not have this.
>>64654355>Israel totally doesn't have in the rear of the sail, doesn't it? Or am I being an idiot?Nothing is confirmed, but it's likely.
>>64654420To follow up on this, building a 212CD with some sort of VLS in the sail should be absolutely no problem.Though obviously at the cost of an overall larger sail (and more expensive boat)>3SM Tyrfing Mach 2 to 3 Effective firing range 800–1,000 km>launched from Type 212CD with VLSLet's do this. I can feel my ancestors' approval.
>>64654044Anon that is a destroyer in all but name we don't have to escalate further.
>>64654492Most likely that'll be saved for Block II which is rumored to have a VLS cell midsection added.
>>64654514>VLS cell midsectionDoes that fit in the hull? Or does that imply the VLS reaches into the sail?
>>64653540SM-3 sunk a an old cruiser a few years back at a sinkex singlehandedly. It's fine.
>>64654544I hope you mean SM-6SM-3 has a kinetic warhead (no explosives).
First German ship that's not looked like total shit.
How much will it cost? 2bn?
>>64654593I'd assume 3-5B desu.They're currently budgeting $26B for 8 ships, and that'll likely balloon to $30-35B
>>64654558You shut your whore mouth, nobody talks that way about mai shipfu.
>>64653588I'd fuel her cells if you know what I'm saying.>>64654666Those don't get counted by people. Most make a clear distinction between pre- and posr-ww2.
>>64653527Just proves how stupid Navy nomenclature and procurement is on both sides of the Atlantic
>>64654656That calculation includes service, spares and ammo, though.
>>64654787Yeah and it's still unrealistically low.F126 is already around $1.5B per unit. F127 will likely be at least $2.5B in pure construction cost.
>>64654811If they push the order to 12 units, that seems a little high. Single item procurement cost likely closing in to 3bln, though.
>>64654044>>64654497>>64654732Bismark was about 42,000 tons, Hood was about 47,000. They were Battleships.A modern US aircraft carrier is over 100,000 tons.It can be suspected, the Germans know exactly what they are doing with this naming convention. Their best is yet to come.
>>64653540Quicksink showed that the 196 lb filling weight of a Mk82 bomb is plenty if you employ those explosives the right way.
>>64651364https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoQoa1QHFeI
>>64655806In the SM-6 case it's just cause that fucker is moving quick.140lbs of explosives at Mach 3.5-5 + the weight of the missile body (2-3 thousand pounds) is going to be a lot more devastating than you might think at first glance. Especially if it's hitting the "soft" top side of the ship (superstructure) where that much weight/speed can rip through sensitive hardware/compartments. You might not sink the ship, but it'll still be taken out of action. SM-6 in the anti-surface role is really meant as a quick-strike option to be used to disable an enemy ship as fast as possible, the goal isn't really to sink it with a single SM-6 (though as evidenced by the SM-6 SINKEX, it has a fair shot at doing so regardless). But yeah, generally if you don't need a quick reactionary strike you can just use LRASMs which pack a much bigger punch (1000lbs warhead), you're just not gonna launch one of those with the push of a button like you can SM-6.
>>64653527The one on the right is a cutter, not a frigate.
>>64651364Good luck filling your vls. Raytheon a shit.
>>646558543SM Tyrfing
>>64655854>>64655860https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/11/19/diehl-lockheed-martin-to-explore-iris-t-missiles-for-mk41-launcher/
>>64655864Yeah it's also likely the IRIS-T Block 2 when it finishes development will have the booster technology trickle down to the navalized Mk41-launched IRIS-T. So they've got a good combat proven platform (ukraine) in the IRIS-T SLM that can be fairly quickly modified for the Mk41 VLS-cell, and then they can upgrade the motor in another 5-10 years. So good growth potential for the foreseeable future, not just a dead-end missile.
>>64655881I wonder if it will be possible to quad pack IRIS-T SLM like ESSM
>>64655918It's actually one of the primary objectives in the Mk41 cell integration, as it's physically slimmer than ESSM, it physically wont have any issue fitting, the only question is can they get it to hot launch safely and communicate with the AEGIS system.
>>64655918Does anyone even use LRASM in a VLS tube?
>>64655932It already does hot launch from a VLS box, doesn't it?Not sure about the datalink, but as a rule of thumb part of the ungodly cost of all these NATO systems is that they have some compatibility built in.
>>64657057No, but let's enable that capability and see what happens.pic vaguely related, western MIC each time Russia presented the next potemkin village-tier project
>>64657057No one wanted to pay for the integration; they did initial proof of concept testing that the missile would physically fit and could punch through the metal cover.
>>64655714The Hood was not a battleship, it was a battlecruiser, without the armament to withstand battleship shells.Hence why the Bismark sank it in 5 volleys.
