Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Kirkhill]

"The weapons are available. You need, actually, more intelligence."

From the President of Shield Ai as to why his V-Bats don't need to be armed.

Shield AI cofounder says the need to arm the V-BAT drone is a big misconception

While Shield AI is looking into weapons for the V-BAT, the world's best militaries already have a slew of other strike options, Brandon Tseng told BI.

www.businessinsider.com

"If you have been in these combat zones, the US allies who fought closely with us in Afghanistan, they do not ask for organic fires on board the V-Bat," Tseng said. "Because everybody is so used to just saying: 'Okay, I have a targeting package. What fires asset do I have lined up? Is it a one-way attack drone? Is it HIMARS? Is it artillery? Is it an SM-6? SM-3?"

"Doesn't matter. You can find weapons,"

...

Even more true if you are sailing in company with $10,000,000 OSVs carrying 16 more strike length cells each.

 

[Lumber]

Swap your 12 SM2s for 12 SM6s.
Then you can add them to your 24 NSMs if the situation warrants.

The SM6 range seems to be highly Trumpian. Some place in the 200 to 1000 km range depending on sources and assumptions.

And if you still think the SAM:SSM ratio is still wrong you can always swap some of those ESSMs for a few 1600 km MST Tomahawks.

Block Va (MST) Tomahawks don't have that kind of range. Closer to 500km, and anything you shoot at at that range will be hard to find and hit by the time you get there. Longer range on anti-ship missiles isn't all it's cracked out to be, unless you have the capability to update the location of the target to the missile in flight, and as far as I'm tracking right now, not one has that capability.

 

[Underway]

Block Va (MST) Tomahawks don't have that kind of range. Closer to 500km, and anything you shoot at at that range will be hard to find and hit by the time you get there. Longer range on anti-ship missiles isn't all it's cracked out to be, unless you have the capability to update the location of the target to the missile in flight, and as far as I'm tracking right now, not one has that capability.

Hence why Ballistic Anti Ship Missiles are so interesting. They get to the target area very quickly from long ranges, then do a normal anti-ship missile profile when they get down to thicker atmosphere.

 

[Lumber]

Hence why Ballistic Anti Ship Missiles are so interesting. They get to the target area very quickly from long ranges, then do a normal anti-ship missile profile when they get down to thicker atmosphere.

Which is why it drives me nuts every time the media says something like "ASBMs are un-interceptable!!". It needs to slow down to find its target.

 

[IKnowNothing]

The doctrine on ASM usage refers to specific salvo weights when planning engagements that are required to penetrate enemy AAW defences. You need X NSM/Harpoon/whatever per enemy ship you are attacking to ensure a hit.

Hughes equations right?

Not knowing (and not asking for) the success rate variables that feed those equations it seems to this layman that with with how robust local AAW defenses are getting that "X" is an absurdly high number relative to standard loadouts.

Going OT for the RCD thread- those ratios how they apply to the "Fleet in being" concept change my appreciation for value of a "self-defense only" CDC even without force tier missiles- especially when paired with the threat of a nearby sub.

 

[Lumber]

Hughes equations right?

Not knowing (and not asking for) the success rate variables that feed those equations it seems to this layman that with with how robust local AAW defenses are getting that "X" is an absurdly high number relative to standard loadouts.

I'm not sure what number you think "absurdly" high is, nor am I going to tell you what the actual salvo sizes are against various enemy warships (or what we know of our enemy's planned salvo sizes against us), but I think you might be surprised.

Going OT for the RCD thread- those ratios how they apply to the "Fleet in being" concept change my appreciation for value of a "self-defense only" CDC even without force tier missiles- especially when paired with the threat of a nearby sub.

Almost the entire US navy surface fleets lacks purpose-built anti-ship missiles. Their Block IIA Arleigh Burkes and beyond had their Harpoons removed. Blocked Va MST Tomahawks only came into service last year. Up until that point, the only weapons they had for surface warfare were SM-2s (which require line of sigh) or SM-6s (which as not meant for ASuW, expensive as hell, and "needed" for long range air defence). Even the airwings on their carrier strike groups aren't meant to perform "SUCAP" (surface CAP). Technically an F-18 can carry Harpoons, they just don't. The older Arleighs, the Ticos, and now some of the LCSs carry them, but if you look at the list of ships that compose a Carrier Strike Group (which surprisingly you can find online), you can see that their are CSGs which have only Flight IIA Arleighs in their DESRON and no TICOs, so they aren't even taking along a single "older" Arleigh to have a few Harpoons in the CSG. So how did the the largest navy the world has ever seen expect to conduct ASuW?.... submarines.