Recent content by Thumper81

Transducers on the outside, through pressure hull glands, and then to the processing on the inside. Sonar transducers don't work well when they're not in the water.

I thought Babcock did all the EDWP Sub maintenance? They just happen to be at VSL (Seaspan). I never saw Seaspan people on the East Coast, just Babcock. Mind you, FMF still does a lot of it too.

I guess they are no longer going with this for the GFCS as they are going with the mk 45 gun: https://electronics.leonardo.com/en/products/na-30s-mk2 I know the Arleigh Burke's use the AN/SPQ-9B for GFCS. Are we doing the same to keep common with Aegis? I know the Oto-Melera was a better gun...

With CAMM, the seeker goes active immediately after launch as it's shorter range system. With ESSM and Standard, uplink is the way to go. You only need terminal guidance near the end with illuminators (on semi-active versions). Even with active versions, the missile will only go pitbull at...

I noticed they got rid of the X-Band illuminators. I saw they purchased SM-2 Block IIIC, which are active seekers, but can use the semi-active as a backup. This is the same as ESSM Block II. I know the uplink is provided by the SPY-7. Looks like fire-control and radar are going to be merged.

I highly recommend this video (also this whole channel) for icex operations.

I think it's because her draft is too deep for the harbour. We've had nuke attack boats at A jetty many times.

The feed horn on the CEROS is for the CWI and yes it's Kevlar the wires. It doesn't really affect the radar performance. That being said, I've had to replace a couple of those now and it's a pain in the a**. The CWI was an afterthought for Saab as they never intended it to do missile...

I can see them reusing the Steamer's names (St. Laurent, Mackenzie, Restigouche, Fraser, etc.). Basically Canadian rivers.

The British are using the Type 26 to replace the Type 23, which is designed specifically for ASW.

Sacrificing ASW? The Type 26 was designed as an ASW Frigate by the British as it's primary function. Yes we are putting more above-water warfare systems on it but the CSC will still have an HMS and a TAS plus the Cyclone and possibly AUVs/ROVs. This makes them as good or even more capable...

We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.

Well damn.  You could have 28 SM-2's and 16 ESSM's :o

Hey Underway, I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 16 ESSM, and 16 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a...

I foresee the return of the Standard Missiles(SM-2 or SM-6. Probably not SM-3).  The no Phalanx option feels like a bad idea (reaction time, minimum engagement range, etc).  Perhaps get SeaRAM(Phalanx with RAM missiles) instead of Phalanx for CIWS.  Are they planning on having some smaller...