Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

Take the model with a grain of salt. I don’t think we are getting back to 30 plus Mk41 cells until after ship #3…

 

[suffolkowner]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

do you see a link to the naval news interview with LM about our program. Trying to find it

 

[Rainbow1910]

That is an ancient CSC model that LM keeps dragging along to various conferences, it and everything about it is years out of date. 24 cells is what we’re sitting at now.

 

[Underway]

Me, I'm just waiting for the announcement that Canada is going to build CSC for them...

They did talk to Canada and Australia to get their input. I filled out info requests from the UK regarding JSS when they were looking at their new AOR design. Norway did the same across NATO. But for obvious reasons they were probably not going to order from us. No capacity for one... higher risk than the UK or Germany building for them.

 

[Underway]

That is an ancient CSC model that LM keeps dragging along to various conferences, it and everything about it is years out of date. 24 cells is what we’re sitting at now.

Well 24 cells and 42 CIAD missiles. I do wonder what's happening to the ExLS position on the ship.

8x Self Defence Length mk 41 might fit in there (as opposed to tactical or strike length) but I'm not sure those even exist anymore and if they do can they even quad pack ESSM?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Well 24 cells and 42 CIAD missiles. I do wonder what's happening to the ExLS position on the ship.

8x Self Defence Length mk 41 might fit in there (as opposed to tactical or strike length) but I'm not sure those even exist anymore and if they do can they even quad pack ESSM?

Self Defence length Mark 41 cells can fit munitions up to 5.2m long missiles, so ESSM could fit with its 3.66m length. From what I can gather, it was never picked up by any export customers and isn't in active production. The longest missile ExLS can fit is the 3.2m long CAMM, so I would wager there might be issues retrofitting self defence or the longer (6.7m long) tactical length Mark 41 where ExLS previously sat. You begin getting dangerously close to going through the roof of the mission bay or having to make the cells jut higher from the deck.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I thought they were using the ExLS space to site a reload locker for the RAM?

 

[Underway]

Self Defence length Mark 41 cells can fit munitions up to 5.2m long missiles, so ESSM could fit with its 3.66m length. From what I can gather, it was never picked up by any export customers and isn't in active production. The longest missile ExLS can fit is the 3.2m long CAMM, so I would wager there might be issues retrofitting self defence or the longer (6.7m long) tactical length Mark 41 where ExLS previously sat. You begin getting dangerously close to going through the roof of the mission bay or having to make the cells jut higher from the deck.

ExLS dimensions are about the same as the self defense length ones in depth. The main difference would be in 8 cells vs 6 cells wide.

I thought they were using the ExLS space to site a reload locker for the RAM?

Yes, the space still belongs to Combat Systems Dept.

There might be a version of this where there is a single RAM placed on top of the flex/hangar space. Another option is that the ExLS space turns into the mount for the RAM to get it higher, and that mount space underneath becomes the magazine or tool locker for the RAM.

Or its just left for future equipment growth, which is not a bad idea either.

We don't actually know where the RAM will go, and are assuming that it will be placed where the CIWS for the Hunter and City class are placing them (amidships port and stbd). Perhaps they have another more optimal location in mind Iike I stated above, and will have a single launcher instead of two.

 

[Rainbow1910]

ExLS dimensions are about the same as the self defense length ones in depth. The main difference would be in 8 cells vs 6 cells wide.


Yes, the space still belongs to Combat Systems Dept.

There might be a version of this where there is a single RAM placed on top of the flex/hangar space. Another option is that the ExLS space turns into the mount for the RAM to get it higher, and that mount space underneath becomes the magazine or tool locker for the RAM.

Or its just left for future equipment growth, which is not a bad idea either.

We don't actually know where the RAM will go, and are assuming that it will be placed where the CIWS for the Hunter and City class are placing them (amidships port and stbd). Perhaps they have another more optimal location in mind Iike I stated above, and will have a single launcher instead of two.

Interesting, I wasn't aware the standalone launchers were the same dimensions vertically. You might be able to fit additional tubes width wise there by moving the NSM launchers around but that doesn't speak for topweight and stability requirements.

I would hope they would retain one 21 shot launcher per side for a total of 42 missiles, as downgrading from 24 CAMM to only 21 RAM is a rather upsetting loss in capability without gaining back additional cells somewhere. ESSM does cover the loss of CAMM somewhat but the 24 cells are already going to be a bit log jammed between SM-2 and ESSM, not even considering Tomahawk or any other future systems into the mix. Having nearly double the original CAMM loadout in RAM was quite nice in an era where drones and saturation is becoming more of a threat, having potentially less capable missiles in lesser numbers does not bode well.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Interesting, I wasn't aware the standalone launchers were the same dimensions vertically. You might be able to fit additional tubes width wise there by moving the NSM launchers around but that doesn't speak for topweight and stability requirements.

I would hope they would retain one 21 shot launcher per side for a total of 42 missiles, as downgrading from 24 CAMM to only 21 RAM is a rather upsetting loss in capability without gaining back additional cells somewhere. ESSM does cover the loss of CAMM somewhat but the 24 cells are already going to be a bit log jammed between SM-2 and ESSM, not even considering Tomahawk or any other future systems into the mix. Having nearly double the original CAMM loadout in RAM was quite nice in an era where drones and saturation is becoming more of a threat, having potentially less capable missiles in lesser numbers does not bode well.

It could be an even greater disparity in missile count were they to select a single SeaRam system as it only carries 11.

 

[Underway]

It could be an even greater disparity in missile count were they to select a single SeaRam system as it only carries 11.

They have been very clear that its RAM, not SeaRAM.

 

[Underway]

Interesting, I wasn't aware the standalone launchers were the same dimensions vertically. You might be able to fit additional tubes width wise there by moving the NSM launchers around but that doesn't speak for topweight and stability requirements.

I would hope they would retain one 21 shot launcher per side for a total of 42 missiles, as downgrading from 24 CAMM to only 21 RAM is a rather upsetting loss in capability without gaining back additional cells somewhere. ESSM does cover the loss of CAMM somewhat but the 24 cells are already going to be a bit log jammed between SM-2 and ESSM, not even considering Tomahawk or any other future systems into the mix. Having nearly double the original CAMM loadout in RAM was quite nice in an era where drones and saturation is becoming more of a threat, having potentially less capable missiles in lesser numbers does not bode well.

It's contingent. 2x RAM amidships does have more ready missiles. But that's also a place where you might not be able to reload from say an ExLS "magazine" as that's a deck above. 1x RAM with better arcs that can reload is arguably a better solution in some situations.

 

[Rainbow1910]

It's contingent. 2x RAM amidships does have more ready missiles. But that's also a place where you might not be able to reload from say an ExLS "magazine" as that's a deck above. 1x RAM with better arcs that can reload is arguably a better solution in some situations.

Even with a magazine somewhat close by, reloading these launchers isn't exactly a speedy process given you need to transport 7 crates of 3 missiles each to the launcher for a full reload, set up a chain pully system and man handle all of the reloads into place. Seems like a design oversight then if they did not account for where they would have reloads and how they would reload the system at sea, given how that is one of the draws of RAM in general. CSC originally had SeaRAM and transitioned to CAMM, and is now back to RAM again. Did they originally not plan for reloads?

I'm not especially impressed with 1 launcher even if its on the centerline with the ability to be reloaded, I'm tired of this design looking at constant downgrades in the design process.

 

[Swampbuggy]

They have been very clear that it’s RAM, not SeaRAM.

I hadn’t seen that. Glad for the clarification.

 

[Underway]

Even with a magazine somewhat close by, reloading these launchers isn't exactly a speedy process given you need to transport 7 crates of 3 missiles each to the launcher for a full reload, set up a chain pully system and man handle all of the reloads into place. Seems like a design oversight then if they did not account for where they would have reloads and how they would reload the system at sea, given how that is one of the draws of RAM in general. CSC originally had SeaRAM and transitioned to CAMM, and is now back to RAM again. Did they originally not plan for reloads?

Of course there wasn't a plan for reloads, because Sea Ceptor was there in the early design. RAM is added on to reduce risk in the implementation and integration phase (because the US won't/can't/costs to much to integrate CAMM into Aegis and RAM already is integrated). If there is a plan now its not going to be ideal.

I'm tired of this design looking at constant downgrades in the design process.

Not uncommon. The contractor promises the moon, gets halfway through to where you can't restart the project and then tells you they can't do what they committed to originally. Then you change the requirements to what they can do or you re-tender the bid. You accept a lower end product and fix it on the Navy side eventually when they go into their first refit (~year 5) if there is money available.

All the T26 are going through this process, Hunter class is having a terrible time trying to figure out how to integrate CEAFAR into an Aegis ship, not to mention they had to increase the size of the ship to fit the radar and the extra missiles, thus costing them excess power and a lower top speed.

Given all that, the River Class will still be a nasty porcupine with underwater radiated noise on the level of an SSN. As a sensor it will bet better then almost any other ship afloat in the world.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Of course there wasn't a plan for reloads, because Sea Ceptor was there in the early design. RAM is added on to reduce risk in the implementation and integration phase (because the US won't/can't/costs to much to integrate CAMM into Aegis and RAM already is integrated). If there is a plan now its not going to be ideal.

I've been told that the RCN originally wanted SeaRAM aboard CSC (Physical models from SNA 2019 confirm this and there was an expectation that CAMM would be removed in favor of it after winning the bid) but was forced off in favor of CAMM due to concerns about additional costs of redesigning the vessel to fit them/remove CAMM. So CAMM went back into the design until there was integration concerns with AEGIS, where old preferences for RAM came back with these new concerns and in turn pushed CAMM itself out.

Scuttlebutt I've heard is one full 21 shot RAM launcher per side where the Phalanx mounts are in the UK and AUS variant, although with how often things seem to change, that info might be outdated now.

Given all that, the River Class will still be a nasty porcupine with underwater radiated noise on the level of an SSN. As a sensor it will bet better then almost any other ship afloat in the world.

The River class is a top shelf ASW vessel as far as sensors and sound mitigation goes but my bigger concern is that all a River class will have at the moment to deal with underwater threats is effectively a single Cyclone, or two if you want to play musical chairs and try to operate two helicopters with only one hanger door. Especially if people start hacking away at the mission bay, you can say goodbye to any unmanned companion ASW vehicles or other weapons systems in favor of more VLS. Seems like a very dangerous point of failure to have your very expensive ASW assets gutted by having its single helicopter down unless one wants to bring a knife to a gunfight and start throwing ship launched LWT's at a submarine.

 

[Underway]

I've been told that the RCN originally wanted SeaRAM aboard CSC (Physical models from SNA 2019 confirm this and there was an expectation that CAMM would be removed in favor of it after winning the bid) but was forced off in favor of CAMM due to concerns about additional costs of redesigning the vessel to fit them/remove CAMM. So CAMM went back into the design until there was integration concerns with AEGIS, where old preferences for RAM came back with these new concerns and in turn pushed CAMM itself out.

Scuttlebutt I've heard is one full 21 shot RAM launcher per side where the Phalanx mounts are in the UK and AUS variant, although with how often things seem to change, that info might be outdated now.

I think you are correct as well. I just wanted to point out that we didn't have perfect confirmation at this point.

The River class is a top shelf ASW vessel as far as sensors and sound mitigation goes but my bigger concern is that all a River class will have at the moment to deal with underwater threats is effectively a single Cyclone, or two if you want to play musical chairs and try to operate two helicopters with only one hanger door. Especially if people start hacking away at the mission bay, you can say goodbye to any unmanned companion ASW vehicles or other weapons systems in favor of more VLS. Seems like a very dangerous point of failure to have your very expensive ASW assets gutted by having its single helicopter down unless one wants to bring a knife to a gunfight and start throwing ship launched LWT's at a submarine.

I'm not worried about ASW. ASW is a full team sport. A single ship of any type vs a submarine starts at a disadvantage. But a River class + Cyclone team that starts shifiting to a more equal fight. And that doesn't even include task group operations or calling an MPA either.

The mission bay I think is a sacred cow at this point as it future proofs the ship.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Of course there wasn't a plan for reloads, because Sea Ceptor was there in the early design. RAM is added on to reduce risk in the implementation and integration phase (because the US won't/can't/costs to much to integrate CAMM into Aegis and RAM already is integrated). If there is a plan now its not going to be ideal.

Not uncommon. The contractor promises the moon, gets halfway through to where you can't restart the project and then tells you they can't do what they committed to originally. Then you change the requirements to what they can do or you re-tender the bid. You accept a lower end product and fix it on the Navy side eventually when they go into their first refit (~year 5) if there is money available.

All the T26 are going through this process, Hunter class is having a terrible time trying to figure out how to integrate CEAFAR into an Aegis ship, not to mention they had to increase the size of the ship to fit the radar and the extra missiles, thus costing them excess power and a lower top speed.

Given all that, the River Class will still be a nasty porcupine with underwater radiated noise on the level of an SSN. As a sensor it will bet better then almost any other ship afloat in the world.

Sounds ALOT like the banking sector....

 

[Cloud Cover]

Nice recent image of HMS Cardiff, a T26, which illustrates the unprecedented size of these UK frigates.

Cardiff is the replacement for HMS Northumberland which is withdrawn from service as of yesterday due to a rotten hull that cannot be repaired.