I love how modern warships have a more cleaner and less clattered deck. Compared to older ships and even WW2 era warships. I'm still fan of WW2 battleships, but I really love the cleaner look of modern warships.
I love how the USN takes a design like FREMM and basically modifies it and beefs it up to the max. And you end up with a ship that is almost as capable as a Arleigh Burke class destroyer (but I assume still more affordable)
@@nicholaosperackis7390 The word "Italy" and "reliability" have never been used on the same sentence unless it is for a joke... Italy is not exactly known for making the most reliable products...
People calling this ship small or a “pocket size” Arleigh-Burke, are quite mistaken. Both ships are roughly 500 feet long with a 65 foot beam. Fully loaded they’re 7,300 tons and 9,700 tons(fight 1 Arleigh-Burkes were 8,000 tons) respectfully. As far as power goes, of course the destroyers are going to put out more, and necessarily so given their mission sets. Constellations will still do 26kn plus, and they’ll have auxiliary electric power. The new Constellation frigates are highly capable war ships, and will definitely serve us well into the future. They will also take a lot of pressure off the AB destroyers and can pick up some of their mission sets as well. The ship has been designed from the get-go with open architecture and modularity in mind. The bottom line is we need more ships in the water, and we need them NOW! The Constellation frigates are exactly what the doctor ordered at this juncture.
Very interesting that they have made her more seaworthy, north atlantic and antarctic seas no doubt. I appreciate very much the jazzy little interludes
Nice to see a model of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Long overdue for a proper class name (probably stuck in some committee). Also, given its displacement and capabilities, we should really call it a destroyer.
I agree ... at 8000 tons full load The type 26/ Canadian surface combattant should really be classed as a destroyer. Its size and displacement is closer to the type 45 destroyer than the type 32 Frigate
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 "Type-31" the Royal Navy/Royal Australian Navy Classify it's Vessels based on role ASW= Frigate, AAW= Destroyer not displacement I would assume that The Royal Canadian Navy decided to keep them as Frigates because thats what the RN/RAN are calling theirs.
@@Autofleet4429 sorry I ment to put type 31 lol ...and really! Cheers I didn't know that 🤔... so do you reckon if the the type 45 destroyers were in US navy service they would be classified as cruisers & the type 26 would be classified as destroyers ?
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 T45 would probably be classed as a cruiser as the T-Class cruisers in the USN are intended for AAW/AAW command plus flagship role same as the T45 which can and does act as a flagship depending on deployment. The T26 would probably still be classed as a frigate as it would be used as a 2nd-rate vessel behind the AB-Class destroyers like the FFG(X) is intended to do.
I read an internet article that is is going to be called the Province class. Here is the thought process: The Canadian Surface Combatant, aka Canadian version of the British Type 26 frigate, is supposed to replaced both the Iroquois class destroyers, which were supposed to be the air defense/flagship, and the Halifax class, which are more general purpose and anti submarine frigates. So, this new ship class is supposed to serve both purpose. Thus, it would have features from both of type of ships. Sort of like how the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers are used both as a general purpose as well as an air defense/flagship as well as a full blown warships. The four Iroquois class were all named after Canadian native tribes. The Halifax class were all named after a major city in each of the Canadian provinces plus the cities of Montreal and Ottawa. Since the Canadian Surface Combatant is supposed to replaced both class, it would be named after Canadian Provinces, hence the name Province class. However, there are only 10 Canadian Provinces and 3 Canadian Territories. Since the program is supposed to be for up to 15 ships; they might run of names for the ships.
Does the more traditional bow improve seakeeping in rougher waters? I thought an advantage of the bulbous bow was that it improved that whether there was a sonar or not.
The bulbous only really helps with speed up to a certain lvl once you get past I think it is 32 knots it starts to create more drag then speed. Also a bulbous bow is really only for heavy ships that have deep hills that drove through the waves where lighter ships generally skim over them which makes it practically useless for a ship that's made to act like a swift jet ski both in calm and in rough water.
There still seems to be a lot of room for growth on the Constellation. The mid-ship area currently inhabited by the Naval Strike Missiles could easily be walled off and filled in with Mark 56 modular silos, probably at quantities that exceed the capabilities of the Mk41 install, doubling it's defensive capacity or freeing up the Mk41 tubes for other purposes. The NSMs could then be positioned elsewhere.
I think Kevin Bryer is referring to the MK 56 containers used on both the Danish Abalson class multipurpose ship, sort of like a hybrid of a frigate and a transport ship, and the Danish Iver Huifeldt class air defense frigates as well as other ships of the Danish ships. They are called Stanflex, a system where various mission specified containers can be swapped out based on different mission requirements. Since the various ships of the Danish Navy all have common modules, all these containers can be swapped out among these ships. In other words, this is a more successful version of the proposed swappable mission modules that was proposed for the US Navy's littorial combat ships. The British Type 26 class is designed with a mid section where there is a module that you can swapped it with different mission specified modules. So are the British Type 31 and Type 32 frigates.
I've read a lot of discussion on what length MK42 VLS cells the Constellation class will have. Is it known for fact if they will get tactical length or Strike length VLS cells, or a mixture of both?
Well, all non carrier US Navy combatant are supposed to have the ability to launch long range land attack as well as anti ship missiles, I would say at least the Mark 41 VLS since it can launch Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Of course, the new Block V variant also have a long range anti ship ability as well. so one missile for both functions. So, perfect for a navy with limited budget since you don't have to spend more money to built another type of missiles plus you don't have to allocate limited weapon storage space for another missile. That is the same advantage for the Standard SM-6 air defense missiles which also have a long range anti ship ability.
OK -----------. The MOD 4 is why the 5-inch 64cal mount needs to be the main gun armament on the New Constellation Class Frigate. With 5 times the range and 4 times the destructive power while hitting all the targets the M-110 57mm mount can but at a range the 57mm mount just dreams about (out of the Enemy's range to kill). The new Frigate already has the ability to sail close to Islands the DDG and Cruisers can-NOT go, making the New Frigate the best shore support platform for the Marines (replacing the failed Zumwalt class) if it is equipped with the big gun. Without the big gun the Frigate is still just a fast barge with a few expensive missiles looking for a Mission the DDG's and CG's can't do better.
horrible the shot peas 57 mm, most better original 76 /62. 1 round 57 mm = 2,700 kg, 1 round of 76 = 6,450 kg!.... (ps 127/64 is leonardo not BAe, 127) the Italian cannon fires twice as much ammunition in a minute, which goes further, as well as the guided and volcano version. speaking of mod 4 you mean the 127/62 Anglo-Swedish of the BAe
And Basically removes whatever deckspace that could be used for something better (ie:Ashm) and overcomplicate a very simple process (Maintenance and removal of a VLS Cell).
I suppose you are talking about the BAE's Adaptive Deck Launcher. Iirc the thing is too big and dosent make any sense and as another person pointed it over complicates the process
Most often, a "home version" is the finished design for the original customer. Calling something "export version" just means that they are indicating that any potential customer may to a large degree modify the basic ship design. Models and artistic renders of any "export versions" are merely suggestions as to how the ship could be outfitted.
You Tube Channel "Sub Brief" a former US Navy Submariner, has informed that another 16 vls launchers is being considered on top of the 32 vls launchers already designated for the US Frigate the Constellation. Is this true? think of how many ESSM missiles you can load on this mini Arleigh Burke?
Holy Shit! Are the Connies really going to have 64 NSM's each and 32 VLS or whatever the correct number of VLS is! That's going to be one scary little ship! (Even if it's not really little)
Are you kidding me? They're replacing the CWIS with a glorified laser pointer that takes 4 seconds to shoot down a small drone. Whats going to happen when it has to defend against a stray supersonic anti-ship missile that makes it through?
The lighting of the exhibit looks so dirty white/ cream so gloomy.. in south korea they provide better bright lighting in their military exhibits to highlight their pieces
I think they should build more LCS and make them better... If the goal is to get ready to fight china and patrol the seas for commerce, then we need fast, nibble vessels as intermediaries between small autonomous platforms and capital ships. In a war, the chinese will send C4-strapped remotely controlled toy ships at an American armada. We need vessels like the LCS in those situations.
They don't need them, the original masts were designed to house radar equipment, all that equipment is in the superstructure do to the Aegis system, so they can eliminate all the topside weight and lower the center of gravity for better sea keeping
@@mattheww2797 In other words, the US Navy don't need stealth for this class of ships. That's also evident from the new panels on the bow. They're tranforming the FREMM into an old style vessel, having seakeeping and weapon density as top priorities.
Almost as powerful as a Australian OHP upgrade with it's 32 SM-2s, 32 ESSMs, 8 Harpoons, 6 tubes, Pharynx and space for 2 helos. Wait, that was 20 years ago.
Are you talking about the connie? Because I don't know where did you get your OHP stats from , they had only 8 Mk41 VLS cells ( self defense version only) while the connie has 32 Mk41 VLS ( Self Defense, Tactical , maybe even Strike) . Connie has 16 NSM launchers which is a much better missile. Constellation uses RAM which is much better than Phalanx, it also has space for 2 helos. Also Constellation will be equipped with the SPY-6 radar which basically blows out any sensor on the OHP . The above does assume you are talking about the constellation class if you were talking about the MMSC you would be less wrong. Also I doubt that 32 SM-2 were present ( or could be handled after the ship was upgraded with Mk 41 VLS
@@stealth225 The upgrade OHP had quad packed ESSM so 32 of them. The Mk13 had been upgraded to handle SM-2 and had a 40 round magazine. I am presuming it had a mix of SM-2s and harpoon.
@@briananthony4044 16 NSM is a lot. The SM series can also be used to attack ships ( though it is not recommend except in the case of SM-6) , Tomahawk Block 5 can perform as a Anti Ship missile not to mention the carrier carries alot of Harpoons/ LRASM
That was the Arsenal Ship concept. Yes, it was a stupid idea. While it does have more missiles, up to 500, it also has less advanced sensor and cost more than a more advanced Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Then the Arsenal ship evolved into the Zumwalt class destroyer, which had two bigger 8 inch gun, but less missile capability but with phased array radar and Aegis. Guess it was even worse since it was too expensive to produce the guns and the ammo since it has to produce from scratch. Ironically, US Navy took the phased array radar and the Aegis off the requirement, which made it less capable than the Arleigh Burke class it was supposed to replace. Even more ironic, it is supposed to be guided into battle and take command from the same class it is supposed to replace. So, Congress decided to only buy 3 and cancelled the other 29 and continue production of the more capable and ironically more cost effective Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Of course, we are still stuck with the 3 very expensive Zumwalt destroyers with no weapons allocated to them, looking for a role.
@@panhandlemikee5573 AGS worked it cost is often overstated, it costs was 350k vs 800k that is often said . The Excalibur round of the army cost of half AGS but has economy of scale and risk reduction factors
So no hull mounted sonar , why is that? Germany also dosn t mount one on the F 126 (Mks 180). Does that mean that it has only passiv and no active sonar? Don t you need a sonar that is deployed at all times like in sallow waters and takes no time to activate. Should be still useful like for detecting torpedos.
@@stealth225 what is VDS ? And yeah there is no doubt that it is better ! But that dosn t mean that it is obsolet because tow array also comes with drawbacks. Like deploy time / you can t use it everywhere (sallow waters/harbors etc.) / it limites your moveability and speed while deployed/ when beeing shot at and you have to speed up or move drasticly you risk loseing it and go blind. A combo with both seems to be better . A question also can towed array be both active and passiv sonar ?
@@christianjunghanel6724 variable depth system . I think towed array should be able to do both passive and active. And you are correct a combination of both systems is better but the USN had to control costs so no hull sonar
Constellation class frigate. The navy threw out the best of the fremm by deleting the enclosed line and anchor handling areas, a 6 pound gun forward? Really only a few other countries do that. The Russians Chinese, Koreans both French Italian Turks put between. 76mm to a 127mm. The Italian FREMM has a 127mm forward and a 76mm on top of the helicopter hanger
then I welcome you to the Norwegian frigate, they are build for ASW-role as main mission (they love to feast on submarines), they have either 8 or 16 cell VLS, with only ESSM (each cell is quad packed) so they would carry anything from 32 to 64 ESSM, depending ship (apparently, there was almost impossible to get strike length VLS, since the production in US was busy, producing full length VLS, for US Navy) The US Frigate, is basically and up-scaled Norwegian frigate (Navanti F300 design) but with ASW and escort as it's main role and AAW and ASuW as an secondary role, while the US frigate is an ASuW frigate, with AAW and ASW as secondary role. (ASuW: Anti Surface Warship) I find it weird that US Navy doesn't equip the frigates with a hull mounted sonar, since ASW is one of the thing US are focusing a lot on. They could at least equip it with an smaller light hull mounted sonar. Only relaying on a towed array with variable depth, the time it needs to deploy, can be the difference between surviving or die. The frigate is basically totally deaf, until it deploy the towed sonar, some also have a limit on how fast you can move, and if you suddenly need to move fast, you can't, because that will damage the sonar, or you have to droop it.... In the mean while, the Norwegian frigate, that was build by Navanti on a F300 design, a smaller version of F100, with the same equipment as the FREMM design, just the previous generation, can do all they want from the FREMM design, and still have space for more equipment, if needed. Apparently the F300 design was designed to have up to 3x8 cell VLS and can have the 76mm gun replaced with either a 57 or 127 mm gun + a second 40 mm or 76 mm gun!
Seems to me the navy is completely neglecting the ability to provide gunfire support. Missiles are very expensive as are aircraft. 3, 5, or even 6" shells are cheap and you don't risk losing a pilot.
Naval gunfire support is dying out anyway. Too risky to be close enough to the shore to provide naval gunfire support to land units, and smaller guns (such as 40mm or 76mm, compared to 120+ mm) are generally better suited to defend against swarm attacks due to the ship being able to store more rounds and they also tend to have a higher rate of fire. Also, I think the DOD, US Navy and Fincantieri knows what they are doing. I don't think it's neglect, more a strategic decision.
@@hugoebenfeldt6615 It is dying out because navies don't want to do it not because the reasons you cite. Missiles are expensive and cannot keep up the length of suppression naval guns can. You've bought the BS. Even the German Navy recently revisited upgunning. They did not adopt the 15 cm they were looking at and instead jumped from the 76mm they were using to the 127mm in the latest Baden-Württemberg-class frigates. USS Chaffee used her gun as late as 2007 on the African coast to bombard Jihadists. In 2011 the French navy fired 3,000 shells into Libya. You want to come up with the $ for 3,000 missiles or bombs? Ever hear of the super long range Advanced Gun System the US Navy was developing? They would not have bothered trying if there was not a clear mission requirement. You need to give common sense a try and not believe whatever you are told.
@@lmyrski8385 Alright, calm down. I'm not saying guns are completely worthless or anything. I'm just saying that in high-end combat scenarios guns are pretty redundant except as protection to swarm attacks and close-in air defence (40/57mm or CIWS). Since the Russian illegal occupation of Crimea and China's increase in naval capability, focus has shifted from low-to-medium conflicts to high-end conflicts against forces such as these. The LCS-concept, Baden-Würtemberg and many other western surface combatants introduced to service recently was thought of pre-2013, when the main goals of a navy was supporting the war on terror, anti-piracy missions and supporting special forces operations. This is why the Baden-Würtemberg class of frigates was fitted with the 127mm naval gun and the Vulcano munition. To support these kinds of missions. This however has changed. The Constellation-class is very much designed to counter a Chinese numerical advantage in the Pacific and to be a less expensive combatant compared to the larger destroyers/cruisers which could then focus more on air defence and long-range land strike missions (with distances to targets only a missile can have). We also don't have all the facts available to us. Perhaps fitting it with a larger gun would infringe on space needed for the VLS cells? In a fight against a navy such as the Chinese, a larger gun just is not going to make any difference, due to anyone with even the slightest of common sense would not position such an expensive asset just a few kilometres of enemy shores. Ships are too expensive and takes too long to replace for them to be risked. A smaller gun with better air defence and swarm attack capabilities might make a difference however. Is it the right choice to focus this much on high-end conflicts? Maybe. I don't know. Nobody does actually, as it is merely a response to an analysis of a future combat scenario. But I am very sure it is not that the entire Department of Defense, US Navy and Fincantieri somehow forgot that guns has been useful in the past two decades in low-end conflicts. The requirements sent out by the navy was not something they came up with over lunch. It is a list of requirements based on detailed analysis of past, present and future scenarios and what capabilities the navy might need then. PS. I am well aware of the AGS. It was cancelled because the cost of the munition started to close in on missiles, and with a fraction of the range of modern land-strike missiles. The system was originally concieved due to the navy realising that even the 127mm guns could not support ground forces...
@@hugoebenfeldt6615 This, so much this. Zumwalt and especially Baden-Wurttemberg are modern expressions of the "colonial gunboat"; to put it simply they were designed to operate against tin-pot dictatorships with garbage maritime awareness (Zumwalt), defeat the mythical Boghammar swarm boogeyman that was overhyped ever since Millenium Challenge 2002 (the LCS), and suppressing terrorists and pirates in failed states (Baden-Wurttemberg and most of the Eurofrigates). Constellation is meant to give the USN something capable enough for WWIII, yet expendable (compared to Burke and Tico) so they can be sallied into the gray zone and counter China's corvette and maritime militia swarms. You dont need big guns for blowing up spyships that double as poachers and illegal fishermen.
Italy offers 4 FREMM (constelation like) frigates, with 32vls, 1 5inch gun, 1 76mm gun and 2 30mm guns to Greece Lockhead M. offers 4 frigates with only 11vls, 1 ram laucher (21 missiles) and only a 76mm gun (even the 30mm guns are removed) at the same price considering that even the US navy now orders European frigates I cant understand how they managed to make such a shity offering
@@stavrosstamelos6890 that would be true I was just saying that most likely the price for HF-2 would be cheaper ( less capable also) , I am not saying other competitors are not good or in budget
@@stealth225 Greece offers 2 Billion for 4 new + 2 used multi porpose frigates. The price includes all weapons and equipment. I know it sound funny but they realy came and offered the 4 MMSC with 11vls each. (its 11 and not 9 my bad) Here you can see all the offerings except the German one: th-cam.com/video/uIO8JvUX0rI/w-d-xo.html
@@billwhoever2830 If we wanted corvettes we could take gowind or the sigma class not the little crappy ships,we have corrupted politicians that is the reason they negotiate with usa.The best offers are by far the FDI or the Fremm.
The Danish Navy are very successful with a common swappable container module system with their systems. The problem of the US Navy's Littoral Combat ship is that some bean counter that since LCS were cheaper than a navy destroyer, you can buy more of them and add more container module to them to turn them into a full blown warship. Of course, any time you have to redesigned a weapon program to do everything instead of a specified function, the price tag goes up. Well, the LCS were designed as a patrol/escort type ship. It was never designed as a substitute for a full blown warship like a destroyer. I actually hear a reporter actually argued that since the LCS was a cheaper alternative to a Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the US Navy should buy more of them since they have swappable mission module. FYI: while the Danish Navy do use a common swappable container module system with their navy ships, they don't tried to tried to turn an offshore patrol vehicle into a full blown destroyer since each type of ship has a specific number of module slot. So, an offshore patrol vehicle would have less slot than a frigate.
@@bermanmo6237 the LCS better off as Cyclone's replacement, a patrol vessel or as Navy SEAL mobile forward base. With VLO design, it could go close enough to deploy a SEAL platoon.
I love how modern warships have a more cleaner and less clattered deck. Compared to older ships and even WW2 era warships. I'm still fan of WW2 battleships, but I really love the cleaner look of modern warships.
Ww2 battkeships is heavy with armor its large and cooler than modern
So freaking awesome seeing the model of my ship the USS PREBLE!
Nice!
How is she? (The model)
Dear Santa, those model ships would look good in my home.
I love how the USN takes a design like FREMM and basically modifies it and beefs it up to the max. And you end up with a ship that is almost as capable as a Arleigh Burke class destroyer (but I assume still more affordable)
more expensive than a flight 1, but less expensive than a 2a or 3 (I just searched the estimated prices, but I could be wrong).
Italian versatility+American guns
@@nicholaosperackis7390 The word "Italy" and "reliability" have never been used on the same sentence unless it is for a joke... Italy is not exactly known for making the most reliable products...
@@samsaliba1532 maybe in the past… but now we pay close attention to quality. Anyway I meant versatility 😂 sorry
@@samsaliba1532 their FREMM designs have been very reliable and certainly an export success. Your stereotypes don’t apply here.
Nitpicky but the image at 3:22 is an ODIN laser dazzler, not HELIOS as in the model.
People calling this ship small or a “pocket size” Arleigh-Burke, are quite mistaken. Both ships are roughly 500 feet long with a 65 foot beam. Fully loaded they’re 7,300 tons and 9,700 tons(fight 1 Arleigh-Burkes were 8,000 tons) respectfully. As far as power goes, of course the destroyers are going to put out more, and necessarily so given their mission sets. Constellations will still do 26kn plus, and they’ll have auxiliary electric power. The new Constellation frigates are highly capable war ships, and will definitely serve us well into the future. They will also take a lot of pressure off the AB destroyers and can pick up some of their mission sets as well. The ship has been designed from the get-go with open architecture and modularity in mind. The bottom line is we need more ships in the water, and we need them NOW! The Constellation frigates are exactly what the doctor ordered at this juncture.
Very interesting that they have made her more seaworthy, north atlantic and antarctic seas no doubt.
I appreciate very much the jazzy little interludes
Looking forward for those advanced frigates in service
Nice to see a model of the Canadian Surface Combatant. Long overdue for a proper class name (probably stuck in some committee). Also, given its displacement and capabilities, we should really call it a destroyer.
I agree ... at 8000 tons full load The type 26/ Canadian surface combattant should really be classed as a destroyer. Its size and displacement is closer to the type 45 destroyer than the type 32 Frigate
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 "Type-31"
the Royal Navy/Royal Australian Navy Classify it's Vessels based on role ASW= Frigate, AAW= Destroyer not displacement I would assume that The Royal Canadian Navy decided to keep them as Frigates because thats what the RN/RAN are calling theirs.
@@Autofleet4429 sorry I ment to put type 31 lol ...and really! Cheers I didn't know that 🤔... so do you reckon if the the type 45 destroyers were in US navy service they would be classified as cruisers & the type 26 would be classified as destroyers ?
@@lightfootpathfinder8218 T45 would probably be classed as a cruiser as the T-Class cruisers in the USN are intended for AAW/AAW command plus flagship role same as the T45 which can and does act as a flagship depending on deployment.
The T26 would probably still be classed as a frigate as it would be used as a 2nd-rate vessel behind the AB-Class destroyers like the FFG(X) is intended to do.
I read an internet article that is is going to be called the Province class. Here is the thought process: The Canadian Surface Combatant, aka Canadian version of the British Type 26 frigate, is supposed to replaced both the Iroquois class destroyers, which were supposed to be the air defense/flagship, and the Halifax class, which are more general purpose and anti submarine frigates. So, this new ship class is supposed to serve both purpose. Thus, it would have features from both of type of ships. Sort of like how the US Navy's Arleigh Burke class destroyers are used both as a general purpose as well as an air defense/flagship as well as a full blown warships. The four Iroquois class were all named after Canadian native tribes. The Halifax class were all named after a major city in each of the Canadian provinces plus the cities of Montreal and Ottawa. Since the Canadian Surface Combatant is supposed to replaced both class, it would be named after Canadian Provinces, hence the name Province class. However, there are only 10 Canadian Provinces and 3 Canadian Territories. Since the program is supposed to be for up to 15 ships; they might run of names for the ships.
Does the more traditional bow improve seakeeping in rougher waters? I thought an advantage of the bulbous bow was that it improved that whether there was a sonar or not.
Bulbuous bows only work at a certain speed range. At some speeds, the can slow a ship down. More info here: th-cam.com/video/c5usbDb9o1c/w-d-xo.html
The bulbous only really helps with speed up to a certain lvl once you get past I think it is 32 knots it starts to create more drag then speed. Also a bulbous bow is really only for heavy ships that have deep hills that drove through the waves where lighter ships generally skim over them which makes it practically useless for a ship that's made to act like a swift jet ski both in calm and in rough water.
The navy is going in the right direction with the FREMM. I hope I get to live on one of those badass FFG-62 when my waiver gets approved
Yeah, thank goodness they pissed off with that LCS crap and are going to make actual warships now.
Update: my waiver got approved and I swore in to the worlds greatest navy. Here’s to hoping I get orders to this beauty
There still seems to be a lot of room for growth on the Constellation. The mid-ship area currently inhabited by the Naval Strike Missiles could easily be walled off and filled in with Mark 56 modular silos, probably at quantities that exceed the capabilities of the Mk41 install, doubling it's defensive capacity or freeing up the Mk41 tubes for other purposes. The NSMs could then be positioned elsewhere.
The ship will not be filled with Mk 56 ( 57 iirc) VLS the ship structure is made to accommodate VLS in that area
I think Kevin Bryer is referring to the MK 56 containers used on both the Danish Abalson class multipurpose ship, sort of like a hybrid of a frigate and a transport ship, and the Danish Iver Huifeldt class air defense frigates as well as other ships of the Danish ships. They are called Stanflex, a system where various mission specified containers can be swapped out based on different mission requirements. Since the various ships of the Danish Navy all have common modules, all these containers can be swapped out among these ships.
In other words, this is a more successful version of the proposed swappable mission modules that was proposed for the US Navy's littorial combat ships. The British Type 26 class is designed with a mid section where there is a module that you can swapped it with different mission specified modules. So are the British Type 31 and Type 32 frigates.
I want the job of building the scale model displays used for demonstrations!
I've read a lot of discussion on what length MK42 VLS cells the Constellation class will have. Is it known for fact if they will get tactical length or Strike length VLS cells, or a mixture of both?
Most likely tactical but could be strike length too since they have reinforced the hull alot compared to the normal FREMM
Well, all non carrier US Navy combatant are supposed to have the ability to launch long range land attack as well as anti ship missiles, I would say at least the Mark 41 VLS since it can launch Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles. Of course, the new Block V variant also have a long range anti ship ability as well. so one missile for both functions. So, perfect for a navy with limited budget since you don't have to spend more money to built another type of missiles plus you don't have to allocate limited weapon storage space for another missile. That is the same advantage for the Standard SM-6 air defense missiles which also have a long range anti ship ability.
@@stealth225 mhhh tf are you saying, both Italian and French variant can install sylver A70 for land strikes
THANK YOU Chris (and Naval news) ... greatly appreciated.
(it is bizarre to see no BB with sonar, but, I'm sure NSW et a; know what they're doing).
Rode a Perry Class Frigate in the North Atlantic @ Sea State 8. Sea State 8 is no joke.
Dear lord can i get to clean up after the exihibit is finished and get to keep all the warshio models!!?wpuld look awesome in my man shed
OK -----------. The MOD 4 is why the 5-inch 64cal mount needs to be the main gun armament on the New Constellation Class Frigate. With 5 times the range and 4 times the destructive power while hitting all the targets the M-110 57mm mount can but at a range the 57mm mount just dreams about (out of the Enemy's range to kill). The new Frigate already has the ability to sail close to Islands the DDG and Cruisers can-NOT go, making the New Frigate the best shore support platform for the Marines (replacing the failed Zumwalt class) if it is equipped with the big gun. Without the big gun the Frigate is still just a fast barge with a few expensive missiles looking for a Mission the DDG's and CG's can't do better.
horrible the shot peas 57 mm, most better original 76 /62. 1 round 57 mm = 2,700 kg, 1 round of 76 = 6,450 kg!.... (ps 127/64 is leonardo not BAe, 127) the Italian cannon fires twice as much ammunition in a minute, which goes further, as well as the guided and volcano version. speaking of mod 4 you mean the 127/62 Anglo-Swedish of the BAe
What they outta do with the frigates is built MK41 VLS systems but turn them at a 45 degree angle. By doing that you can have 80 cells
And Basically removes whatever deckspace that could be used for something better (ie:Ashm) and overcomplicate a very simple process (Maintenance and removal of a VLS Cell).
Isn't that just a mk57?
@@shatteredstar2149 mk57s are not angled.
I suppose you are talking about the BAE's Adaptive Deck Launcher. Iirc the thing is too big and dosent make any sense and as another person pointed it over complicates the process
The if the towed sonar array is heavy enough it can detect submarines by wacking them.
I always love the ironic elevator music they use in these videos of advamced weaponry. *Giggles
They talk about seakeeping, so why is constellation doesn't have fins? Either active fixed fins or passive retractable?
If we indoensia buying that ship..an we get the latest weapon n sensor radar? Or down grade because we non block country
new warship addition 2 d game Modern Warships, new Class for everyone to test
Aah ! Some more expensive dream toys that do unimaginable wonderful things ? I'll take one ! Just hope the weather stays fine ?
FFG-62 never had a bulbous bow or hull-mounted sonar.
Nice video
More information eight minutes than some robot voice channel with crappie music:)
At least you chose not to put a 5" gun on your primary ASW frigate, unlike the RN (Yes, I know it's a 4.5").
Chris, love the 41mm Rolex Oyster Perpetual your rocking. Good taste 👊👌
New Canadian "frigate" (destroyer) is bristling with missiles and guns including a 5 inch gun on the focsle
It’s such a good looking ship! Wish they would o more in-depth with that one.
What is the difference between home version and export version of the same design
Most often, a "home version" is the finished design for the original customer. Calling something "export version" just means that they are indicating that any potential customer may to a large degree modify the basic ship design. Models and artistic renders of any "export versions" are merely suggestions as to how the ship could be outfitted.
I see a hell of a lot of 50 cals on the display model
To counter attacks from pirates and insurgents operating fast speed boats.
Was there a bow-mounted sonar in the first place?
You Tube Channel "Sub Brief" a former US Navy Submariner, has informed that another 16 vls launchers is being considered on top of the 32 vls launchers already designated for the US Frigate the Constellation. Is this true? think of how many ESSM missiles you can load on this mini Arleigh Burke?
7:14 - Afghanistan comes to mind, you can send in a drone to resupply a FOB or unit out patrolling without risking a helo and lives of its crew.
Why us ship still use that superstructure ?
Holy Shit! Are the Connies really going to have 64 NSM's each and 32 VLS or whatever the correct number of VLS is! That's going to be one scary little ship! (Even if it's not really little)
First when I saw that I thought it has 16 launchers and when they zoomed in there are 4 launchers in a single tube UFF
Lockheed martin: We cant build shit, so we sell it to Saudi's
Are you kidding me? They're replacing the CWIS with a glorified laser pointer that takes 4 seconds to shoot down a small drone. Whats going to happen when it has to defend against a stray supersonic anti-ship missile that makes it through?
To whoever reads this. I hope you'll have great day and may god bless you. (I mean it)
You too bro!
Also why isn t germany useing subroc (they used to ) or captormines ? With russia on the doorstep those weaponsytems would make sense .To me at least.
Wow 16 quad packs is a whole lot of naval strike missiles. Still wish they put a 5” gun on the deck, heck at least a 76mm.
No gun, no sonar, no CWIS, how many VLS? Neutered version
The lighting of the exhibit looks so dirty white/ cream so gloomy.. in south korea they provide better bright lighting in their military exhibits to highlight their pieces
Nice one
Que jugete mas bonito yo tuve uno de niño
I think they should build more LCS and make them better... If the goal is to get ready to fight china and patrol the seas for commerce, then we need fast, nibble vessels as intermediaries between small autonomous platforms and capital ships. In a war, the chinese will send C4-strapped remotely controlled toy ships at an American armada. We need vessels like the LCS in those situations.
Constellation-class has only tow-array sonar and no bow-mount sonar.
I love this vedio.
Arleigh Burke is the KING!
May I ask why USN still chose to opt for naked pole masts on the Constellation-class instead of adapting the original stealth angular mast from FREMM?
They don't need them, the original masts were designed to house radar equipment, all that equipment is in the superstructure do to the Aegis system, so they can eliminate all the topside weight and lower the center of gravity for better sea keeping
@@mattheww2797 In other words, the US Navy don't need stealth for this class of ships.
That's also evident from the new panels on the bow.
They're tranforming the FREMM into an old style vessel, having seakeeping and weapon density as top priorities.
Cause it looks better
Almost as powerful as a Australian OHP upgrade with it's 32 SM-2s, 32 ESSMs, 8 Harpoons, 6 tubes, Pharynx and space for 2 helos. Wait, that was 20 years ago.
Are you talking about the connie? Because I don't know where did you get your OHP stats from , they had only 8 Mk41 VLS cells ( self defense version only) while the connie has 32 Mk41 VLS ( Self Defense, Tactical , maybe even Strike) . Connie has 16 NSM launchers which is a much better missile. Constellation uses RAM which is much better than Phalanx, it also has space for 2 helos. Also Constellation will be equipped with the SPY-6 radar which basically blows out any sensor on the OHP .
The above does assume you are talking about the constellation class if you were talking about the MMSC you would be less wrong. Also I doubt that 32 SM-2 were present ( or could be handled after the ship was upgraded with Mk 41 VLS
@@stealth225 The upgrade OHP had quad packed ESSM so 32 of them. The Mk13 had been upgraded to handle SM-2 and had a 40 round magazine. I am presuming it had a mix of SM-2s and harpoon.
@@briananthony4044 that is true but I doubt they carried that many SM-2, iirc that loadout was before being upgraded with the VLS
@@stealth225 US ships just don't seem to be well armed compared to the Russian or newer Chinese ships.
@@briananthony4044 16 NSM is a lot. The SM series can also be used to attack ships ( though it is not recommend except in the case of SM-6) , Tomahawk Block 5 can perform as a Anti Ship missile not to mention the carrier carries alot of Harpoons/ LRASM
The mmsc is what the navy should have purchased. Well, without the expensive bugs also.
MMSC uses a different type of propulsion system than the freedom class LCS , it is slower ( 35 knots vs 45 for LCS) but it has a much better range
Is this going to be another boondoggle like those billion dollar lcs class ones?
👍👍👍
King of Saudi Arabia, got some weapons on his ship, why don't we?
Big mistake having only Missiles, Russians always have a mix of cannon etc
It has a cannon on it genius.
That was the Arsenal Ship concept. Yes, it was a stupid idea. While it does have more missiles, up to 500, it also has less advanced sensor and cost more than a more advanced Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Then the Arsenal ship evolved into the Zumwalt class destroyer, which had two bigger 8 inch gun, but less missile capability but with phased array radar and Aegis. Guess it was even worse since it was too expensive to produce the guns and the ammo since it has to produce from scratch. Ironically, US Navy took the phased array radar and the Aegis off the requirement, which made it less capable than the Arleigh Burke class it was supposed to replace. Even more ironic, it is supposed to be guided into battle and take command from the same class it is supposed to replace. So, Congress decided to only buy 3 and cancelled the other 29 and continue production of the more capable and ironically more cost effective Arleigh Burke class destroyer. Of course, we are still stuck with the 3 very expensive Zumwalt destroyers with no weapons allocated to them, looking for a role.
Type 26 man...
Needs a real naval gun system, not this 2-inch pop gun. At least the Otobreda 76 mm naval gun.
USN ships don't really use the 76mm anymore so no particular need
@@stealth225 I don't really agree. So 5"54 and 2" is it for the Navy. Might want to get those hyperVel rockets going ASAP.
@@panhandlemikee5573 I don't think so there is a hyper velocity shell for 2 inch gun. Though there are 2 guided shells planned
@@stealth225 Hope the 2" guided shell works better and cheaper than the 155 AGS. For some reason, I bet the Navy will screw it up. Ha Ha.
@@panhandlemikee5573 AGS worked it cost is often overstated, it costs was 350k vs 800k that is often said . The Excalibur round of the army cost of half AGS but has economy of scale and risk reduction factors
Another money tree for the MIC
So no hull mounted sonar , why is that? Germany also dosn t mount one on the F 126 (Mks 180). Does that mean that it has only passiv and no active sonar? Don t you need a sonar that is deployed at all times like in sallow waters and takes no time to activate. Should be still useful like for detecting torpedos.
Well as part of controlling cost there was decision made to used VDS and towed array which are much better than HMS( hull mounted sonar)
@@stealth225 what is VDS ? And yeah there is no doubt that it is better ! But that dosn t mean that it is obsolet because tow array also comes with drawbacks. Like deploy time / you can t use it everywhere (sallow waters/harbors etc.) / it limites your moveability and speed while deployed/ when beeing shot at and you have to speed up or move drasticly you risk loseing it and go blind. A combo with both seems to be better . A question also can towed array be both active and passiv sonar ?
@@christianjunghanel6724 variable depth system . I think towed array should be able to do both passive and active. And you are correct a combination of both systems is better but the USN had to control costs so no hull sonar
@@stealth225 thats worriesome for both us and germany
Your principal ASW Weapon is your Embarked Helicopter.
Questionable name for a convention center
Constellation class frigate. The navy threw out the best of the fremm by deleting the enclosed line and anchor handling areas, a 6 pound gun forward? Really only a few other countries do that. The Russians Chinese, Koreans both French Italian Turks put between. 76mm to a 127mm. The Italian FREMM has a 127mm forward and a 76mm on top of the helicopter hanger
Laser weaponry to defeat small drones, eh? I wonder if the range is better than a conventional gun.
Me be like: Sana ol
Italian Technology
No discussion of reload, rearm on the missile systems. 8 shots ain’t’nuff!
of course there will be reloads and such. can't give away all of the info
@@rickdiesel2k “of course”? Logic would say yes, however ain’t no one nowhere discussed the issue. Thus ???????
then I welcome you to the Norwegian frigate, they are build for ASW-role as main mission (they love to feast on submarines), they have either 8 or 16 cell VLS, with only ESSM (each cell is quad packed) so they would carry anything from 32 to 64 ESSM, depending ship (apparently, there was almost impossible to get strike length VLS, since the production in US was busy, producing full length VLS, for US Navy)
The US Frigate, is basically and up-scaled Norwegian frigate (Navanti F300 design) but with ASW and escort as it's main role and AAW and ASuW as an secondary role,
while the US frigate is an ASuW frigate, with AAW and ASW as secondary role.
(ASuW: Anti Surface Warship)
I find it weird that US Navy doesn't equip the frigates with a hull mounted sonar, since ASW is one of the thing US are focusing a lot on. They could at least equip it with an smaller light hull mounted sonar. Only relaying on a towed array with variable depth, the time it needs to deploy, can be the difference between surviving or die. The frigate is basically totally deaf, until it deploy the towed sonar, some also have a limit on how fast you can move, and if you suddenly need to move fast, you can't, because that will damage the sonar, or you have to droop it....
In the mean while, the Norwegian frigate, that was build by Navanti on a F300 design, a smaller version of F100, with the same equipment as the FREMM design, just the previous generation, can do all they want from the FREMM design, and still have space for more equipment, if needed. Apparently the F300 design was designed to have up to 3x8 cell VLS and can have the 76mm gun replaced with either a 57 or 127 mm gun + a second 40 mm or 76 mm gun!
Spot the Chinese spies, win a prize!
Seems to me the navy is completely neglecting the ability to provide gunfire support. Missiles are very expensive as are aircraft. 3, 5, or even 6" shells are cheap and you don't risk losing a pilot.
Naval gunfire support is dying out anyway. Too risky to be close enough to the shore to provide naval gunfire support to land units, and smaller guns (such as 40mm or 76mm, compared to 120+ mm) are generally better suited to defend against swarm attacks due to the ship being able to store more rounds and they also tend to have a higher rate of fire.
Also, I think the DOD, US Navy and Fincantieri knows what they are doing. I don't think it's neglect, more a strategic decision.
@@hugoebenfeldt6615 It is dying out because navies don't want to do it not because the reasons you cite. Missiles are expensive and cannot keep up the length of suppression naval guns can. You've bought the BS. Even the German Navy recently revisited upgunning. They did not adopt the 15 cm they were looking at and instead jumped from the 76mm they were using to the 127mm in the latest Baden-Württemberg-class frigates. USS Chaffee used her gun as late as 2007 on the African coast to bombard Jihadists. In 2011 the French navy fired 3,000 shells into Libya. You want to come up with the $ for 3,000 missiles or bombs? Ever hear of the super long range Advanced Gun System the US Navy was developing? They would not have bothered trying if there was not a clear mission requirement. You need to give common sense a try and not believe whatever you are told.
@@lmyrski8385 Alright, calm down. I'm not saying guns are completely worthless or anything. I'm just saying that in high-end combat scenarios guns are pretty redundant except as protection to swarm attacks and close-in air defence (40/57mm or CIWS). Since the Russian illegal occupation of Crimea and China's increase in naval capability, focus has shifted from low-to-medium conflicts to high-end conflicts against forces such as these. The LCS-concept, Baden-Würtemberg and many other western surface combatants introduced to service recently was thought of pre-2013, when the main goals of a navy was supporting the war on terror, anti-piracy missions and supporting special forces operations. This is why the Baden-Würtemberg class of frigates was fitted with the 127mm naval gun and the Vulcano munition. To support these kinds of missions.
This however has changed. The Constellation-class is very much designed to counter a Chinese numerical advantage in the Pacific and to be a less expensive combatant compared to the larger destroyers/cruisers which could then focus more on air defence and long-range land strike missions (with distances to targets only a missile can have). We also don't have all the facts available to us. Perhaps fitting it with a larger gun would infringe on space needed for the VLS cells?
In a fight against a navy such as the Chinese, a larger gun just is not going to make any difference, due to anyone with even the slightest of common sense would not position such an expensive asset just a few kilometres of enemy shores. Ships are too expensive and takes too long to replace for them to be risked. A smaller gun with better air defence and swarm attack capabilities might make a difference however.
Is it the right choice to focus this much on high-end conflicts? Maybe. I don't know. Nobody does actually, as it is merely a response to an analysis of a future combat scenario. But I am very sure it is not that the entire Department of Defense, US Navy and Fincantieri somehow forgot that guns has been useful in the past two decades in low-end conflicts. The requirements sent out by the navy was not something they came up with over lunch. It is a list of requirements based on detailed analysis of past, present and future scenarios and what capabilities the navy might need then.
PS. I am well aware of the AGS. It was cancelled because the cost of the munition started to close in on missiles, and with a fraction of the range of modern land-strike missiles. The system was originally concieved due to the navy realising that even the 127mm guns could not support ground forces...
@@hugoebenfeldt6615 This, so much this.
Zumwalt and especially Baden-Wurttemberg are modern expressions of the "colonial gunboat"; to put it simply they were designed to operate against tin-pot dictatorships with garbage maritime awareness (Zumwalt), defeat the mythical Boghammar swarm boogeyman that was overhyped ever since Millenium Challenge 2002 (the LCS), and suppressing terrorists and pirates in failed states (Baden-Wurttemberg and most of the Eurofrigates).
Constellation is meant to give the USN something capable enough for WWIII, yet expendable (compared to Burke and Tico) so they can be sallied into the gray zone and counter China's corvette and maritime militia swarms. You dont need big guns for blowing up spyships that double as poachers and illegal fishermen.
So we got the design that's turned into a money pit with no timeframe for when the first ship will be completed. Smh
Recently, Russia ahead of Trend Heavy-Frigate with Powerful Missiles included Hypersonic missile, hmmm
Italy offers 4 FREMM (constelation like) frigates, with 32vls, 1 5inch gun, 1 76mm gun and 2 30mm guns to Greece
Lockhead M. offers 4 frigates with only 11vls, 1 ram laucher (21 missiles) and only a 76mm gun (even the 30mm guns are removed) at the same price
considering that even the US navy now orders European frigates I cant understand how they managed to make such a shity offering
The MMSC is more of light Frigate. Also any source on that cost I highly doubt it they cost the same.
@@stealth225 point is, every single offer is light years ahead of hf2 as lm calls it. And all within budget
@@stavrosstamelos6890 that would be true I was just saying that most likely the price for HF-2 would be cheaper ( less capable also) , I am not saying other competitors are not good or in budget
@@stealth225 Greece offers 2 Billion for 4 new + 2 used multi porpose frigates. The price includes all weapons and equipment.
I know it sound funny but they realy came and offered the 4 MMSC with 11vls each. (its 11 and not 9 my bad)
Here you can see all the offerings except the German one:
th-cam.com/video/uIO8JvUX0rI/w-d-xo.html
@@billwhoever2830 If we wanted corvettes we could take gowind or the sigma class not the little crappy ships,we have corrupted politicians that is the reason they negotiate with usa.The best offers are by far the FDI or the Fremm.
I'd rather go to war with this ship than a Literal Crap Ship (LCS).
Littoral Combat ship you mean ? 😂 Yes i agree its a garbage ship with less capabilities !
The Danish Navy are very successful with a common swappable container module system with their systems. The problem of the US Navy's Littoral Combat ship is that some bean counter that since LCS were cheaper than a navy destroyer, you can buy more of them and add more container module to them to turn them into a full blown warship. Of course, any time you have to redesigned a weapon program to do everything instead of a specified function, the price tag goes up. Well, the LCS were designed as a patrol/escort type ship. It was never designed as a substitute for a full blown warship like a destroyer. I actually hear a reporter actually argued that since the LCS was a cheaper alternative to a Arleigh Burke class destroyer, the US Navy should buy more of them since they have swappable mission module. FYI: while the Danish Navy do use a common swappable container module system with their navy ships, they don't tried to tried to turn an offshore patrol vehicle into a full blown destroyer since each type of ship has a specific number of module slot. So, an offshore patrol vehicle would have less slot than a frigate.
@@bermanmo6237 the LCS better off as Cyclone's replacement, a patrol vessel or as Navy SEAL mobile forward base. With VLO design, it could go close enough to deploy a SEAL platoon.
American Fremm. Better is the original European project
It seems that warships have become more defensive in nature.
Soo..whats the point?
Buy ASW aircraft. Much cheaper.
Less crew. And more survivable