Article Archive: Current 1999 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
Surface Forces: Peacekeeper Cruisers
   Next Article → SURFACE FORCES : Peacekeeper Cruisers

July 8, 2007: Germany has ordered four F125 class frigates. These ships are unique in that they are optimized for peacekeeping and counter-terrorism missions. To that end, they can stay at sea for up to two years at a time. Each ship will have two crews, and each crew will alternate four months at sea on the ship, and four months back in Germany undergoing training or taking leave.

 

The 6,800 ton ships are highly automated, so a crew of 110 is sufficient. These are large ships, 443 feet long, and half a century ago, would have been called light cruisers. There is berthing space for another fifty personnel (commandoes, aid workers, diplomats, whatever).

 

The ship carries a lot of weapons. There are 48 VLS (Vertical Launch System) cells, which can carry SM-2 anti-aircraft missiles, or Tomahawk cruise missiles. The latter are more likely on peacekeeping missions, the better to send a message to hostile groups ashore. There are two 21 missile RAM anti-missile launchers, plus eight Harpoon anti-ship missiles. There's a 127mm gun, four 27mm auto-cannon, seven 12.7mm machine-gun (five remotely controlled, two manually) and some water cannons. There are several UUV (unmanned underwater vehicles) for clearing mines, and two MH90 helicopters. There are four 34 foot boats and space for a 20 foot cargo container. A powerful aircraft radar (phased array) is on board, plus electronic countermeasures and lots of communications gear.

 

The F125s will cost about $720 million each. The first F125 won't enter service until about 2015. Note that the modern cruiser was developed, over a century ago, partly to keep the peace in far off places. But Europeans have been avoiding using traditional  ship labels like "destroyers" and "cruiser" because they are reminiscent of the bad old days when Europeans were more warlike.

 

Next Article → SURFACE FORCES : Peacekeeper Cruisers
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
french stratege       7/8/2007 7:46:10 AM
But Europeans have been avoiding using traditional  ship labels like "destroyers" and "cruiser" because they are reminiscent of the bad old days when Europeans were more warlike.
No.The real reason is that it make no sense to use this terminology as electronic and integration are the biggest cost part of a ship.A large ship with little systems can cost less than a heavily armed frigate.
But people still connect destroyer and cruiser with the price.
BTW destroyer is only a anglosaxon world.No equivalent and meaningless for German , French or Italians.
Even US navy do not use cruiser terminology while DDX or DD51 are cruisers in fact.
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       7/8/2007 9:17:17 AM
Oh come one.  Everyone knows it is because a "cruiser" would never get through parliament, while a "frigate", will.


 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       7/8/2007 9:31:04 AM
First of all ... some pics:
 
Front View:
http://www.europaeische-sicherheit.de/Ausgaben/2006/2006_06/04_Jedlicka/2006,06,04,01,b.jpg" width=500 border=0>
 
Back:
http://www.europaeische-sicherheit.de/Ausgaben/2006/2006_06/04_Jedlicka/2006,06,04,01,a.jpg" width=640 border=0>
 
To the Naval - terminology:
Destroyer can be translated into German very easily:  "Zerstörer" -  This word is part of the German Naval Terminology - And the German Marine operated 3  "Zerstörer" of the Lütjens Class until 2003. 
At the moment only Frigates, Korvettes and smaller Classes are operated, although the current Frigates are actually "bigger" than the Destroyers we had until 2003. 
 
PS;  Im quite sure the German Marine wont hesitate to call a bigger Ship "Zerstörer" again if it fits into their, or the Nato designation for Destroyer.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       7/8/2007 9:31:20 AM
Oh come one.  Everyone knows it is because a "cruiser" would never get through parliament, while a "frigate", will.
Yes because of the associated cost in politician mind.Not the "warlike" terminology.
 
 
Quote    Reply

PowerPointRanger    TomAYto-TomAHto   7/8/2007 2:31:01 PM
The names ships have evolved over the years.  An 18th-century frigate was a fairly powerful ship.  Whereas today a frigate is considered quite small and weak.  As ships now have more powerful engines and more discrete use of armor; it is easier to have bigger, faster ships.  As has been pointed out elsewhere, what we today call a destroyed would have in the past been called a cruiser because of its size.  I suspect that the shifting use of names may also reflect the roles of ships as much as their size.  Certainly their are budgetary benefits to giving the names of small ships to big ones.  As has also been pointed out, lawmakers are more willing to authorize a destroyed or frigate than a cruiser (believing them to be smaller/cheaper/less provokative).
 
In the US, we've even come up with "Littoral Combat Ship", a name which hardly rolls off the tongue.  This to describe a ship that in the past would be called a destroyer or frigate.
 
This sort of thing is obviously not limited to navies.  Armies have been known to shift the use of names.  What one country may call an regiment, another may call a battalion, etc....
 
As for me, I'm indifferent to it all.  I look at what a ship can do & make judgements on that basis.  You might call it a submarine, but if it sinks, I'm going to wait and see if it re-surfaces.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Captain Slog       7/9/2007 10:53:44 AM
Classification of warships has been evolving for a long time, and will no doubt continue to do so. Sadly there are political issues involved, as mentiond above, but name changes themselves are nothing new.
Consider the term Destroyer, this was origianlly "Torpedo boat Destroyer" in the early part of the last century, as they were conceived for that purpose. In WW 1, RN Destroyers were primarily there to protect the battle fleet from torpedo attack, and only as a secondary mission to make torpedo attacks of their own so had a larger gun armament and fewer torps than their German opponents, who were their primarily to deliver massed torpedo attacks in support of their battle fleet, which being outnumberd, needed as offensive equaliser more that a defensive one.
Same name - different role.
During the cold war some US politician noticed the Russian navy was briming with crusiers, while the USN has very few.
The answer was simple, the USN renamed various large "Destroyer Leaders" and "large Frigates" as Cruisers - which they were already in everything but name.
Frigates came back into naval use in WW 2, to differentiate ships of destroyer size optimised for escort duty, such as the RN Black Swan class - the USN called similar ships Destroyer Escorts - different name, same role :)
Incidently the term "Cruiser" was rarely used on its own. Ships were either Armoured Cruisers, Patrol Cruisers, Scout Cruisers, Second Class Cruisers [really! that must have been great for crew morale!!], and later Heavy Cruisers and Light Cruisers [again misleading terms as "light" cruisers could well be heavier than "heavy" cruisers] and AA Cruisers.
In the untimate tribute to political interference, the current RN aircraft carriers were called "through deck cruisers" to keep the "suits" happy.
 
Then again the US Army no longer builds light tanks, it builds "mobile gun platforms" for political reasons too.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    Mission name.   7/9/2007 12:00:30 PM
Things are a lot clearer if  you use a describer instead of a generic.

Mine warfare ships;
Amphibious ships by type function
helicopter
landing craft
troop carrier
tank landing
Air defense escorts/anti-air warfare ships 
Submarine defense/anti-submarine warfare ships.
Logistics ships classified by cargo/function
ammunition
dry consumables
fuel
maintenance
Patrol gun/missile boats
Submarines by type
guided missile
ballistic missile
patrol

You get the idea..

It helps to know that the Forbin is a point to horizon limited air defense / anti-air warfare target escort while the Daring is an area air defense / anti air warfare fleet escort.

Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

hooded swan    Bravo   7/10/2007 5:26:40 AM
The editors of this site repeatedly harp on the use of the term of "frigate" by Euro navies to the point of obsession.  I am sure they are very much aware that sailing era frigates were the "cruisers" of their day.  And that the 1st USN warships that were better than anything they came up against were the frigate Constitution & its sisters.

The F125 class will be bigger & better armed than anything that Federal Germany has had before them.  In contrast, the upcoming Zumwalts will have 80 vertical launch cells vs 96 cells on the current Burkes vs 130 total cells on the old Ticonderogas.  What kind of progress is that?

And while I am ranting...  Why does the Navy persist in spending big $$ on developing the Advanced Gun System when the Army is already getting the Guided Unitary Rocket for its MLRS?  Seems to me there's now no reason not to arm warships with MLRS.
The names ships have evolved over the years.  An 18th-century frigate was a fairly powerful ship.  Whereas today a frigate is considered quite small and weak...
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       7/15/2007 2:38:33 AM

The editors of this site repeatedly harp on the use of the term of "frigate" by Euro navies to the point of obsession. I am sure they are very much aware that sailing era frigates were the "cruisers" of their day. And that the 1st USN warships that were better than anything they came up against were the frigate Constitution & its sisters.

The F125 class will be bigger & better armed than anything that Federal Germany has had before them. In contrast, the upcoming Zumwalts will have 80 vertical launch cells vs 96 cells on the current Burkes vs 130 total cells on the old Ticonderogas. What kind of progress is that?

And while I am ranting... Why does the Navy persist in spending big $$ on developing the Advanced Gun System when the Army is already getting the Guided Unitary Rocket for its MLRS? Seems to me there's now no reason not to arm warships with MLRS.


The names ships have evolved over the years. An 18th-century frigate was a fairly powerful ship. Whereas today a frigate is considered quite small and weak...



By the way aren't frigates also reminiscent of the "bad old days when Europeans used to be more warlike?" I'm sure Jack Aubrey would be amused at you calling him "unwarlike."
 
Quote    Reply

BLUIE006    looks the stuff   7/25/2007 5:57:56 AM
 
I  really  like these  things, I  am  suprised that they  didn't get  considered  more  seriously  by  the AUS,  although  i'd  say it  would be the  lack of SPY-1D  radar...
 
Maybe  they  can replace the FFGs??? 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2