Frigatebros, We are SO back!https://dsm.forecastinternational.com/2025/12/19/new-frigate-on-the-horizon-u-s-navy-ditches-constellation-class-for-national-security-cutter-design/https://youtu.be/mFBoBAllLAg?si=YOKHRngMPgBWP7ZGBaseline design is utilizing the Legend Class Cutter with a goal of the first hull in the water by 2028. Wonder how many VLS it will get, and if it will get Aegis.
Aegis is just software, why wouldn't every ship have "aegis" ?Bet they'll spend more per ship than the constellation btw
>>64656011Midwit take. A ship needs both the processing power and and system integration to be Aegis.
>>64656011Aegis is software, but not every ship runs it. Zumwalts and one or both of the LCS run on different programs as far as I'm aware.
>>64656003Will it be redesigned with rafted machinery and propeller axis?
>>64656033That's a lack of standardization & proper design
16 Mk41 Tactical length, 76mm cannon, should have 16 ASM, RIM-116, Phalanx, torpedos, would be enough for a very very decent frigate.No need to overcomplicate things.But question, why not the International Class Frigate?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QLBcLAEqp4Variants of these things are already being built in Taiwan. It was offered to Australia too. American design.https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/indo-pacific-2023/2023/11/gibbs-and-cox-unveil-australian-light-frigate/
>>64656087Possibly, but not even Australia considered 16 VLS as decent. And that's from a country that usually underarms everything.
>>64656123It's not for striking land targets. 64 ESSM is very strong AA for a ship of that size.
>>64656003How many VLS should it get?They keep saying these frigates will take some missions from Burkes to free them up, but they never say what missions those are. I'll assume it's a GP frigate, so minimum should be 32 cells, with at least half being strike length>1x 8-cell Mk41 SD centerline forward>1x 8-cell Mk41 Strike centerline forward >4x 4-cell Mk57 PVLS forward>If possible, another 8 cell Mk41 Strike module or 2x Mk57s aft would be ideal.With 32 cells, you could have 12 for ESSMs, 6-8 for VL-ASROCs, and 16-18 for Standards, as a general purpose load out, but with a lot of flexibility.Will they keep the 57 or upgun to something like a 76mm OTO?
>>64656123There's also a 32 cell version with the turret removed
>>64656148My guess is hunting down the Chinese CG when the big funny happens in the Pacific. In which case, they don't necessarily need to match China's own frigates, only be able to sink its corvettes before getting out of dodge.Like a tiny battlecruiser.
>>64656003>failed to turn a frigate into a frigate>will now try to turn a cutter into a frigateThese people are fucking retarded. Should have just bought the F100 when it was offered to them. 48x Mk41 VLS cells, AN/SPY-1D with aegis (same as Burke's), 8x NSM box launchers, 5“ gun, SQS-56 sonar (same as OHPs), and a helicopter deck with hangar.Literally everything they want. Could literally shove some SM-3s into it and help relieve the Burke fleet of BMD patrols or do ASW or AAW. The thing they want already exists and they font even have to translate the button labels from Spanish because the Australians already did that.>inb4 it doesn't have the USN's undeafeable DC standards and MUH dubyadubya too blahblahblahDo they want ships or not? It's not like there's nobody else in the world concerned with DC and the navy has shown that they don't give a fuck about it when they launched the two LCS classes.
>>64656011Absolutely brain dead>>64656148Oh great, the mk57 retard is back. Hot tip, you’re using “strike length” incorrectly here
>>64656167>It's not like there's nobody else in the world concerned with DCNobody takes it anywhere near as seriously as the US does.Ships ARE going to get hit, and the only way to keep them from being a total loss is through rigorous damage control.
>>64656003Sooo...cancelled by 2029? 30? 31? Where do you wanna place your bets?
>>64656176A total loss is cheaper than building it to whatever standards and then repairing it after a hit
>>6465618829 sounds about right.
>>64656003If only there was a Frigate based on an American design with more combat capabilities, availability to modify with more/different armaments, already designed to integrate with USN standards + software, and is built smartly due to improving upon/learning from the mistakes of the past...wouldn't that be nice???Oh wait, this ship does exist and it's the fucking MMSC.
>>64656191>What are sailors lives
>>64656203A consumable resource.
The navy suggests an attainable frigate design that can work as a GP frigate without taking 10 years to design and Americans immediately demand the navy turn it into something with double the VLS and significantly larger radar on something not designed to handle the weightwonder why the USN has trouble making ships
>>64656176>only merica cares about ships not sinkingA childish statement backed by nothing.
>>64656206>
>>64656212Show me one country that matches the US damage control standards at all.
>>64656212>USS Samuel B. Roberts>USS Stark >USS ColeMeanwhile>https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3004451/death-of-the-42s-type-42-destroyers-in-the-falklands-and-lessons-for-the-joint/>https://www.navylookout.com/learning-the-lessons-the-loss-the-norwegian-frigate-helge-ingstad/>https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/302709/rok-ship-typical-torpedo-damage/
>>64656171I'm not whoever you think I am, I just recognize that it's a small boat and it might be difficult to fit 32 cells on the centerline without significantly changing the ships structure. >you’re using “strike length” incorrectly hereI'm not, but you could probably get away with tactical length instead, you just lose the ability to use SM-6 in those cells. Could just be dedicated ASROC cells then.
>>64656225If it has LAMPS it doesn't need to waste cells for ASROC. I also think SM-6 is a bit unnecessary, it's not a fleet defender. Even a modest 32 essm is sufficient for point defense. Much more valuable to use that weight on radars and sonars.
>>64656152That's a terrible idea though
>>64656250In a shooting war, you might need more than point defense. A frigate escorting merchants or an UNREP group might need longer range AD, so it should at least be capable of carrying some Standards.
The main issue with the constellation was that they wanted to put so much stuff onto it that it was necessary to make it bigger and bulkier to accomodate everything. I'd love to see them try again but with a ship half the size of a fremm
>>64656221>muh Helge instadThey literally didn't close any of the watertight doors at any point after the collision. People not doing the DC they were supposed to isn't the same thing as a ship being more survivable>muh CheonanA corvette less than 1/6 the displacement that got ripped in half. Not even a Nimitz class is going to stay afloat if it gets it's keel snapped in rough seas.>muh falklandsHappened over 40 years ago. You're just bringing up unrelated anecdotes to try and throw at the wall. The idea that only America knows survivability is a ridiculous statement. Tell me why the F100 or other modern frigate is far behind USN standards that it's not serviceable.
>>64656144No, but as a 'lower-cost' general purpose frigate, even 16 VLS is considered inadequate these days.
>>64656210The same retards were in the admiralty too. The FFx SHOULD be a presence expander for the USN. More lethal than the LCS but not a fucking destroyer.
>>64656203You know a person can float in water just like a ship, right?If you can build 3x the number of sinkable ships for the cost of one "unsinkable" ship, just build the sinkable ones and outfit them with life rafts. Anyone who survived the hit just gets into a raft instead of fighting to save the ship.
>>64656274No? Retard. 64 ESSM is enough for a frigate to reasonably defend itself. Because, you know, destroyers and cruisers provide air defense. Their job? Right now.
>>64656277>t. has never been in the open ocean for a day in his lifeTry and find a man overboard without him holding a flare. Hell, it's even nigh impossible in high-viz.
>>64656274Not to sound like an uneducated retard, but who considers 16 VLS to be inadequate? Just curious as to what is considered an adequate amount of VLS.
>>64656289Reminds me of the USN anon who was doing man overboard drills with the Egyptians. They ran the dummy over with a frigate at something like flank speed lmao.
Can you niggers stop forcing ludicrous amounts of VLS cells into 3-4 thousand ton ships? Do you not realise this shit is how you get into problems in the first place?Survivability? What happens to your fleet when it gets outgunned 3v1 because all those foreign ready-to-make design were yucky and you decided to build 1 "survivable" frigate instead of 3 off the shelf Mogamis?
>>64656289have a GPS transponder in every lifevest, its not hard nowadays
>>6465629016 is the minimum for self defense. If the ship is expected to do anything beyond "exist in possibly hostile environment", you want more
>>64656290Armchair popsci warriors consider anything less than 120+ not good. Regardless of ship size or class. Oilers needs 16 anti-ship missiles minimum. Corvettes need dozens of hypersonic wonder waffles etc. etc.
>>64656303Look at Ukraine. Even 2 piss poor countries can flood the theater with jamming. A pocket transponder won't do shit when two naval superpowers are blasting EW 24/7.
>>64656311We're talking about ships supposed to replace, or at least reinforce the arleigh burke, which is a destroyer. You can cope all you want, but the fact remains that whatever frankenship will come out of this mess will be undergunned by a long margin by everyone else.
>>6465633848 cell frigate with aegis already exists. See>>64656167
>>64656268No no, the purpose of the frigate is to man the ASW picket or intelligence monitoring station freeing a Burke to do that job.
>>64656338>We're talking about ships supposed to replaceRetard. >or at least reinforce the arleigh burke, which is a destroyer.Yes, retard. Which is why the FFx is not a destroyer.Good god you people are cancer.
>>64656338>We're talking about ships supposed to replace, or at least reinforce the arleigh burke, which is a destroyer.That's the DDG(X) not the FFG(X)
>>64656376>FFG(X)FF(X), my bad
>>64656379FF(x) as opposed to FFG would imply no missiles
>>64656393https://www.navy.mil/Press-Office/Press-Releases/display-pressreleases/Article/4364538/navy-announces-new-small-surface-combatant/thats what the navy calls it
>>64656411I know, and it implies the Navy isn't putting any missiles on it.
>>64656419I think it's because the Constellation was the result of FFG(x) and they needed a new name
>>64656290A historically under-armed Australian navy. Despite bringing in a whole new line of frigates (32 VLS), we're replacing the old 8 VLS ANZAC class GPF frigate with a 32 VLS GPF frigate.
>>64656032Why don't they just offload the processing to the cloud?
>>64656286Alright, but what offensive capacity does that Frigate have? Or is the idea you're proposing (not one I am against, btw) to shift air defense away from Burkes and the remaining Ticos onto these and just load them up with Standard Missiles?
>>64656559No it's about freeing up the Burkes. At any given point the Navy has 25-30 Burkes deployed. Highly potent ships, but right now they're slumming it so to speak doing tasks that could be done by a less capable vessel. The FF(x) needs to be amazing at ASW, ESM, and minesweeping while keeping up with the fleet. Every task you can slot an FF(x) into is functionally another Burke.
>>64656203>>64656176They certainly matter but do you know what's going to kill a lot more sailors than moderately insufficient damage control standards? Having both fewer and older hulls in the water when you end up in a war with a navy that has both a qualitative and quantitative advantage. You aren't there yet, but literally every naval metric is trending in the wrong direction, and the path to avoiding it is 'build a decent ship and float a fuck ton of them'. Thus far attempts at adapting designs to American DC standards have been disastrous and if things go hot, sailors WILL die because of the massive delays in just getting more ships. Fewer ships means fewer missiles which will have a massively worse effect on the outcome than damage control standards would have.
>>64656545Good thing the USN isn't the RAN and cell lethargic.
>>6465659490% of the current tasks the US navy is doing could be abandoned tomorrow with no negative effects
>>64656612You can't blame the failings of navy procurement on the success of damage control. The Zumwalt, LCS, and Constellation were disasters because the Navy started building shit before the technology existed or deciding what systems it wanted on the ship.
>>64656634I agree this shouldn't be the dilemma, but if the navy continues to be too stupid to both meet standards and float relevant numbers of hulls, then the latter is very obviously going to kill more people than the former in the long run. Maybe this is going to end up being a decent solution to the problem, I don't know, but I am deeply skeptical of the value of the Legend class in an environment that is basically defined by the likely density of missile fire. Doubly so because CGX is dead, DDGX's future is yet uncertain, which means like it or not these things really do need to be able to pick up slack from the Burkes. They shouldn't need to do that, but they do need to do that.
>>64656651I know and theres two ways to do that. The navy hopium way which is you can build a frigate that is just as capable as the Burke but 2/3 the size and cost. Or build a ship that can do the slop jobs and free up Burkes to go where they're most needed.
>>64656225>I'm not whoever you think I amYou absolutely are.
>>64656671I remain intensely skeptical that the latter is possible in the particular environment which is the south china sea. The air and missile threat is so dense and omnipresent that these things are likely going to require full time burke escort in order to not be instantly pasted, so it fails at the goal of freeing up burkes by requiring them to survive.
>>64656682Meds
Just want to remind that "moar VLS" retards that the USN already has 30-40% more cells than the PLAN.Oh, and we barely have enough missiles to have one per cell. So maybe spamming a bunch on every fucking ship is incredibly idiotic and you should stop advocating it.
>>64656703A carrier is also basically a rotating 2000 VLS too
>>64656688You're thinking wrong. A lone Burke is just as dead as anything else against a coordinated ASHM strike in the SCS. The entire point is that the small surface combatant can free Burkes up in areas outside the hottest of the motherfucking hot so you can concentrate your Burkes around the carriers instead of them patrolling the sub pens and minefields.
>>64656703Yes you do, but the trend is moving in the wrong direction. That second point really highlights the need to build a lot more missiles than anything else. >>64656727I'd love to believe that but the strike ranges of modern munitions are so enormous that the only places which aren't too hot to send these things, are so far away that it's unlikely there's anything for them to actually do. If war breaks out in the south pacific it's going to be nothing like, say, WWII - it's going to be a lot of nothing at all out in the open ocean and absolute god damned pandemonium anywhere within a couple thousand kilometers of the Chinese mainland.
>>64656785That's not how that campaign would go. China needs ISR assets in the open ocean and those will be shut out more than few hundred km from their coast.
>>64656785>Yes you do, but the trend is moving in the wrong direction.Fair, but also not as much as people make it out to be. Besides, the issue is not how many cells on the ships but rather or not if we just build them. If we actually were constructing new hulls instead of just decomm'ing ones, then we'd already pretty much be fine.>That second point really highlights the need to build a lot more missiles than anything else.That's fine, I can get behind that. But no one wants to talk about it and just keep demanding more and more cells (or bigger cells) and then start talking about how we need arsenal ships.
>>64656616Indeed. Glad we're catching up. Our navy and politicians finally have good sense.
>>64656801If their only goal is Taiwan, that's exactly how things would go. This is according to the Pentagon.
>>64656703>the USN already has 30-40% more cells than the PLANAnd what percentage of that would they be able to bring to bear in a Pacific theater scenario? 100%? As in allocating all available assets, including those from other AORs? How many of those assets are currently deployable with adequate crew complements?
>>64656703>USN already has 30-40% more cells than the PLANhold your horse, Cletus.>US Mk 41/Mk 57: Smaller diameter (21-27 inches), optimized for various US missiles (Tomahawk, SM-2/3/6), but with less volume per cell.>Larger diameter (~33 inches), providing significantly more volume (up to 2.8x a Mk 41 cell) for heavier, longer-range missilesso we are talking about volumes here. Let's be generous and assume that all USN VLS cells are mk57. The total volumes of VLS cells are gonna be (27/33)^3 = 54% that the PLAN VLS volumes - and that is grossly overstated.40% more cells do not make up for that.
LOL west taiwan navy.
Someone give the chinkshill a (you). He's been spamming the cell volume shit for days now
just buy Chinese.
>>64656087>Gibbs & Cox
>>64656981Type 055 is objectively a clean-looking ship.
>>64656974Do it yourself, I'm busy.
>>64656970>west taiwanreddit
>>64656968based. Mutts are impotently seething at this inalienable truth.
>>64656903Where? CSIS is pretty clear in The First Battle of The Next War that the USN needs to surge all capable assets into the theater in order to avoid anything other than another stalemate against a communist landgrab in Asia. Someone still has to do anti-piracy duty and interdict shadow fleet shipping outside of the theater, and you don't need a Burke for that. But CSIS is just a think tank, so if you have a Pentagon statement I'd love to read it.
>>64657045
LOL "super" carrier
>>64657093
>>64656167>AN/SPY-1D with aegis (same as Burke's)Hasn't this been replaced?
>>64656302>3 off the shelf Mogamis?>The "Upgraded Mogami" will have an improved radar and a 32-cell Mark 41 VLS, an additional 16-cells compared to the earlier Mogami frigates.
>>64656011>t. download more RAM
>>64656011don't Aegis also need big radars that are big money?does that glorified Life Boat even have VLS cells?
>>64656682He's not, I'm the person you think he is. Mk57 wouldn't be a good fit for the Legend class, especially up at the bow, because its conventional flared hull means it would be poorly supported and the missile tubes would be standing proud of the ship. On the other hand, it would be an ideal design to graft onto the tumblehome flight deck of the Independence, since it obviates the need to empty out substantial amounts of the ship in order to accommodate internal tubes.
>>64656274That's because most countries either don't operate destroyers at all or only have one or two at most. Their frigates need to be upgunned to serve as little destroyers. The USN already has an excess of destroyers, what they really need is small ships and not pocket destroyers.
>>64656003>Baseline design is utilizing the Legend Class Cutterinb4 modifications, tinkering, etc fucks it all upagain
>>64656968>>64657023The APM tubes on the Zumwalt are 87" (2210mm) in diameter.
>64657276Not buying it. Not interested in your flights of fantasy.
I don't get itAre they even able to build these new cutters now?The last ship for Coast guard was finish almost 3 years ago. Do they even have the equipment or knowledge to even build new one?
>>64657365Why is your English so poor?
The main bottleneck for AEGIS on a ship is the radar. The AESA's you need for AEGIS are pretty huge, and for the older SM-2 you need oldschool illuminator dishes, one per target unless you timeshare. You want to mount these as high as possible on a mast since the earth is not flat, which negatively impacts center of gravity, so there is a minimum size of ship you can fit AEGIS onto.You also want the rest of the ship to be designed around that, i.e. aggressively moving anything heavy as down low as you can.The minimum VLS loadout for frigates is 32 VLS, some frigates even have 48. The 16 VLS they managed to put on this coastguard cutter is about half of what other nation's manage to fit on their frigates of comparable tonnage. (ignoring the shenanigans of ship classifications which are, admittedly, absurd due to political reasons)The reasons the US has generally less armament per tonnage is due to US damage control autism and manual systems autism leading to bloated crew requirements, crew needs quarters, that eats a ton of space.The US have 200 crew on ships the japanese staff with 90 thanks to automation.No wonder the japs then manage to put 150-200% the armament into it.The chinese thanks to cold-launch VLS even manage 250-300% the armament (in usable internal VLS missile volume) for the same tonnage as the US. Do not worry, you can cope that these are glass cannons that can't take a hit while your burkes can because of muh ShOcKhArDeNiNg.
>chinky is on his butthurt spree againGrim
>>64656003explain why this will go OK when other was a cluster fuck.same toys in more or less same shape, but at least the prior one has been getting sorted out for a few years and few billion.now they starting again from zero? Why?
>>64658008you telling me the USN wont be Mission Creeping AGAIN???or that they will almost instantly announce "we need bigger ships" and basically go back to cancelled design.Legend-Class (FF(X) Frigate) Origin: Based on the U.S. Coast Guard's National Security Cutter (NSC) design. Status: The new U.S. Navy FF(X) program uses this existing, proven design. Key Feature: A domestically-built, faster-to-field option, reducing dependence on foreign supply chains and addressing delays. Armament: Shares some systems with the cancelled Constellation-class, like the 57mm gun, but with different radar (Sea Giraffe) and missile suites. Constellation-Class (FFG-62) Origin: Based on the European FREMM multi-purpose frigate design. Status: The program was recently canceled by the Navy. Key Feature: Designed as a multi-mission guided-missile frigate with advanced capabilities (ASW, air defense). Reason for Cancellation: Significant delays and rising costs, leading the Navy to seek a more rapid solution.
>>64656032Surely processing power is an irrelevant requirement in TYOL 2026? I understand that they might not have the relevant systems but just processing power is very cheap and space efficient compared to the cost of a frigate.
>>64657124Yeah. Forgot the flight IIIs use the SPY-6, which has retrofits being made for SPY-1 equipped ships. So, the F100 could carry it if they wanted to.
>>64656277>If you can build 3x the number of sinkable ships for the cost of one "unsinkable" ship, just build the sinkable ones and outfit them with life rafts. Anyone who survived the hit just gets into a raft instead of fighting to save the ship.Then you launch a big search and rescue operation as if it was a regular peacetime sinking, but in the enemys anti air/anti sea killzone! You have to think in several steps here. Why did the ship sink? From a random, single attack from a NGO in peacetime? Or from a targeted attack by a technologically advanced forces commanded by a hostile government? If it is the former, well, yes, your argument holds weight. But if it is the latter, the crew will most likely completely perish. There are historical examples of the latter happening.
>>64656311>Oilers needs 16 anti-ship missiles minimum.Oilers will certainly need some kind of advanced point defense, sort of RAM, but with higher performance, as well as some kind of gun system. The future peer threat is multi axis and very long range. F.ex supersonic sea skimmers and hypersonic gliders are easy to spot on IR because they will be hot from air friction, and longer range RAM would help here, but stealthy subsonics (think LRASM) would only be spotted when they are a couple of kilometers away, and a gun system would be ideal here. A solution to this would be a submersible or semi submersible oiler.
>>64656358>No no, the purpose of the frigate is to man the ASW picket or intelligence monitoring station freeing a Burke to do that job.Burkes does not have infinite missile magazines, making the frigate VLS magazine larger so that it could carry extra standard missiles to be used by the Burke trough a datalink would be a wise idea. That way, you can use your low end frigates as missile shuttles going back and forth to the rear, while keeping the Burke and its radar in theather. You need to think of the frigate as part of a larger system here.
>>64658367Burkes might as well have infinite magazine depth. Very few destroyers are available with more than 96 cells (plus 8 AShM) and those that do have hull counts in the single digits.
>>64658356I don't think any adversaries can into stealthy munitions which is funny because it should be easy by design and the form of such a missile
>>64656671>Or build a ship that can do the slop jobs and free up Burkes to go where they're most needed.At minimum you need rafted propulsion, a helicopter, torpedoes and ESSM if you just want to do convoy escort. And point defense requires credible guns. A single air cooled 57 mm isnt going to be enough. If you dont want to do convoy escort, you still need rafted propulsion, RAM, a credible gun setup and a helicopter. You need a hull mounted sonar so you can at least spot moored mines. It needs to be retractable/liftable so you can cross shallow water. In general I am amazed at how little thought is put into designing ships. Its apparent that the people who buy ships have no clue, and the people that sell ships does not give a shit about their customer and his requirements, so they will lie and cheat to get a sale, because they know he cant/wont go elsewhere to get something better.
>>64656703>Just want to remind that "moar VLS" retards that the USN already has 30-40% more cells than the PLAN.But aren't the PLAN VLS cells considerably larger and deeper than USN cells? Meaning that they can stack more smaller missiles in them as well as firing larger missiles.
>>64656801>That's not how that campaign would go. China needs ISR assets in the open ocean and those will be shut out more than few hundred km from their coast.Shut out by what? Air? Sea? You know that a peer opponent has datalinks, and the chinks back in central HQ will see everything that the ISR asset sees with a sub second delay. So you manage to shoot down a chink high altitude long range drone. But you also gave away the direction and general distance of the asset that radared the chink drone because the drone is outfitted with ESM gear. Remember, it is a scout drone. Then you get more chink drones. And then you get a chink missile wave directed at your Burke once its position is pinned down. Cost of lost chink ISR assets and missiles is less than 5% of the cost of a Burke. Lost chink personel: Zero. USN loss of personel? Up to 100% of the Burke crew. Is this sustainable? Yes, for the chinks. Your thinking is a typical example of the ossified zero abstract thinking of the modern USN senior officers. "Its just gonna happen because its supposed to happen!". But why would it happen, and what does happen afterwards if it happens? No USN senior officer can answer that because it requires abstract what if thinking.
>>64656302This, but I want 24.Obv. the Navy has settled on the Legend hulll due to superior survivability - if we can't do more than 16 than it's time for box launchers (Harpoons will already be in boxes, but we can box launch the ESSM and ASROC as well) saving the hull space for Standard & Tomahawk
>>64658737Haven't the floated the idea of Typhon launchers on these
>>64658700>But aren't the PLAN VLS cells considerably larger and deeper than USN cells?Some are, some aren't.>Meaning that they can stack more smaller missiles in them as well as firing larger missiles.That's a nice theory that gets tossed around but only the USN has actually demonstrated that capability by quad packing the ESSM. Their main AD, AShW, ASW, and ground attack munitions are all one per cell.Oh and I know you (conveniently) didn't ask, but the reason their cells are bigger is because they seemingly lack the capability to minaturize their missiles as much as the Americans can so they require larger cells. ie its an indication of inferiority, not superiority my slant-eyed friend. :)
>>64657093>LOL "super" carrierThey are actually building a temu Ford copy now. As well as another improved diesel carrier.
>>64656981>>64657010China's export variant military equipment is too poor quality to every consider. Either their domestic manufacturing is that bad, or they're to paranoid to export quality products, nobody is buying from them
>>64658815>nobody is buying from themPakistan, Cambodia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Thailand (was at least considering it recently)I'm not even saying chinesium shit is good. I'm just saying that "nobody" is an overstatement.
>>64658815Chinkshit really is that bad.>The think tank claims that the frigates are ineffective as surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missiles on board cannot lock onto targets.>The ship’s two sensors, which are essential for air and surface surveillance, the infra-red sensor (IR17) system and SR 60 radars, are also defective.>The critical engine defect, especially in engines 3 and 4, on all the frigates shows that the engines will face problems with functioning and will need an overhaul.https://turdef.com/article/pakistan-s-chinese-made-warships-have-malfunctioning-problems-report
