- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,210
Exls space is there but the Sea Cepters are giving way to RAM launcher above the hanger port quarter.
NSm
Yep
Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
I haven’t seen any images on RCN or LM sites showing RAM launcher. ExLS is still there, so one might assume LM is pushing ahead with RAM launched from ExLS.
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,210
It's not via ExLS.
-there is an image with the Mk49 launcher released out there somewhere
-RAM had never been fired from ExLS ever in testing (its a cool image on a flossy brochure)
-RAM doesn't have a way to reorient towards a target from a vertical launch (which would also stop its "rolling" and seriously reduce its range assuming it used victory thrust).
I agree with you, but LM still posts on their site a 2010 brochure with RAMblk2 and ExLS is still shown on River illustrations. I’m not happy about Canada using ExLS until some other sucker proves it on their ships
Swampbuggy
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 329
- Points
- 730
Just the one launcher then for RAM?
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,855
- Points
- 810
This is the only public render I have seen that has included the RAM launcher thus far.
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,210
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,855
- Points
- 810
As always, I do have questions regarding that render though given how weird a lot of the aspects are.
Why are the anti-ship missiles the older Harpoon models and grouped up/shuffled off the starboard side? That isn't an arrangement I've seen on many vessels with all that space available.
Why can't you retrofit two RAM launchers and put them abaft the funnel like where the UK/AUS Type 26 variants place their Phalanx mounts? Putting a single RAM up so high, with likely a bunch of aerial overlap seems sub-optimal compared to one per side down lower where they could potentially be reloaded at sea? It's also mounted right level with the diesel exhausts just beside it.
Best to take renders with a grain of salt, especially as the River class seems to be plagued by constantly changing renders or recycled old crap.
- Reaction score
- 3,743
- Points
- 1,190
Also it now has (is back to) the BAE 5" gun and not the Leonardo 127mm.
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,855
- Points
- 810
All of the public facing info still has the Leonardo 127mm and 30mm gun systems as present on the River class, with contracts being signed for these years ago. Makes little sense to switch back to an actively inferior set of systems.
- Reaction score
- 3,743
- Points
- 1,190
Ummm... I'm not sure what else to say, but it's already happened. Not sure about the 30mm, but the main gun is, with 100% certainty, now the 5 inch.
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,855
- Points
- 810
That’s unfortunate if it’s true, the Italian system seems to be flat out superior to its much less impressive BAE counterpart.
Edit: On further consideration, I’d guess they are concerned about integration and reverted back to the initial spec weaponry.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 2,753
- Points
- 1,090
we bought them?
too much design modifications?
- Reaction score
- 8,462
- Points
- 1,210
If that's the case then yes, its likely an integration "save money and time" issue. Unless something else came up with Leonardo being unable to deliver what we needed or somesuch.
The gun was originally going to be part of the CMS portion of the combat management, but moving to the BAE 5" likely means its integrated with Aegis. Also its probably cheaper, and easier to get ammo for in Canada.
I liked the Leonardo gun better as well. But project risk is risk... and this destroyer is a no fail.
The gun was originally going to be part of the CMS portion of the combat management, but moving to the BAE 5" likely means its integrated with Aegis. Also its probably cheaper, and easier to get ammo for in Canada.
I liked the Leonardo gun better as well. But project risk is risk... and this destroyer is a no fail.
