Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Underway]

I'm not surprised as it follows the trend of ejecting non-AEGIS integrated equipment wherever possible to seemingly simplify and speed up the design finalization/construction process for atleast the first few vessels. The RCN is desperate to get the River class under construction and in the water in order to start retiring the Halifax class, so it makes sense.

My guess is also that weight and space are potential concerns, as the Italian 5" gun is larger, heavier and has a substantial internal footprint. The 5 inch Mark 45 Mod 4 apparently has a weight of approximately 24,700kg~ in its largest form, while the OTO 127/64 LW has a weight of 33,000kg~ (+ or - 5%). The Italian gun also comes with a multi-drum automatic loading system which seems to take up more space than the BAE equivalent.

Its equal parts risk reduction and dealing with Leonardo.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I'm not surprised as it follows the trend of ejecting non-AEGIS integrated equipment wherever possible to seemingly simplify and speed up the design finalization/construction process for atleast the first few vessels. The RCN is desperate to get the River class under construction and in the water in order to start retiring the Halifax class, so it makes sense.

My guess is also that weight and space are potential concerns, as the Italian 5" gun is larger, heavier and has a substantial internal footprint. The 5 inch Mark 45 Mod 4 apparently has a weight of approximately 24,700kg~ in its largest form, while the OTO 127/64 LW has a weight of 33,000kg~ (+ or - 5%). The Italian gun also comes with a multi-drum automatic loading system which seems to take up more space than the BAE equivalent.

I've attached some images of both systems below for folks to compare.

View attachment 97411

View attachment 97412

View attachment 97413

View attachment 97414

Ultimately given the rumours and ongoing concerns with related Type 26 derivatives having eaten up substantial amounts of reserve weight for future upgrades just to implement the changes required, I am not surprised we are seeing some of the "gold plating" be removed and still good but obviously less capable design. The Italian gun has much more advanced/potent ammunition choices (more costly/complex though) for dealing with a variety of targets (drones), alongside a faster rate of fire and much deeper/versatile ready magazine system. This is definitely a tradeoff however if it can get back weight and space (potentially for more VLS?), it obviously must be important to be giving up important capability.

Here’s hoping there’s some positive trade off in swapping out the main gun. I have to say my enthusiasm is waning a bit for this ship, in certain respects. I know it’s going to be a generational leap over the HALIFAX and I know it’s going to be a world class sub hunter. The issue is that it seems to be suffering a continual watering down of its capabilities. At first, it was looking to be the most potent Type 26 derivative and probably should’ve been, given the Aussies and Brits have dedicated AAW vessels. But, we went from 32 (or more) VLS cells to 24. I think that’s a significant reduction. With 32 you could have loaded out 24 SM2 missiles and 32 ESSMs. Then, it became less of an issue because ExLS was included. So, 24 CAMM became part of the package or whatever else could be launched from them. Then, that got chopped. Ok. RAM time…admittedly, there wasn’t any thing concrete about which system was being looked at, whether SeaRam or the 21 cell launcher, but at least with two of the latter, there’d be a compliment of 42 point defence missiles to maybe hedge your bets on more Standards than ESSM’s in the main vls.

But, it seems like there’s only one according to the latest (admittedly not confirmed) info.

Finally, now it looks like the exceptional main gun with its high firing rate, Vulcano long range projectiles and various other desirable attributes is being dropped in favour of a lesser unit.

Forgive my frustration, and I hope the tradeoff is measured in getting ships in the water sooner, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t waiting for another shoe to drop before the design gets finalized.

 

[Maxman1]

Yep. Rules that you follow???? That's for losers.


Welcome to the RCN.

 

[Underway]

Here’s hoping there’s some positive trade off in swapping out the main gun. I have to say my enthusiasm is waning a bit for this ship, in certain respects. I know it’s going to be a generational leap over the HALIFAX and I know it’s going to be a world class sub hunter. The issue is that it seems to be suffering a continual watering down of its capabilities. At first, it was looking to be the most potent Type 26 derivative and probably should’ve been, given the Aussies and Brits have dedicated AAW vessels. But, we went from 32 (or more) VLS cells to 24. I think that’s a significant reduction. With 32 you could have loaded out 24 SM2 missiles and 32 ESSMs. Then, it became less of an issue because ExLS was included. So, 24 CAMM became part of the package or whatever else could be launched from them. Then, that got chopped. Ok. RAM time…admittedly, there wasn’t any thing concrete about which system was being looked at, whether SeaRam or the 21 cell launcher, but at least with two of the latter, there’d be a compliment of 42 point defence missiles to maybe hedge your bets on more Standards than ESSM’s in the main vls.

But, it seems like there’s only one according to the latest (admittedly not confirmed) info.

Finally, now it looks like the exceptional main gun with its high firing rate, Vulcano long range projectiles and various other desirable attributes is being dropped in favour of a lesser unit.

Forgive my frustration, and I hope the tradeoff is measured in getting ships in the water sooner, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t waiting for another shoe to drop before the design gets finalized.

Well the thing that hasn't changed is you can't beat the radar nor the CMS. Battle prove

Here’s hoping there’s some positive trade off in swapping out the main gun. I have to say my enthusiasm is waning a bit for this ship, in certain respects. I know it’s going to be a generational leap over the HALIFAX and I know it’s going to be a world class sub hunter. The issue is that it seems to be suffering a continual watering down of its capabilities. At first, it was looking to be the most potent Type 26 derivative and probably should’ve been, given the Aussies and Brits have dedicated AAW vessels. But, we went from 32 (or more) VLS cells to 24. I think that’s a significant reduction. With 32 you could have loaded out 24 SM2 missiles and 32 ESSMs. Then, it became less of an issue because ExLS was included. So, 24 CAMM became part of the package or whatever else could be launched from them. Then, that got chopped. Ok. RAM time…admittedly, there wasn’t any thing concrete about which system was being looked at, whether SeaRam or the 21 cell launcher, but at least with two of the latter, there’d be a compliment of 42 point defence missiles to maybe hedge your bets on more Standards than ESSM’s in the main vls.

But, it seems like there’s only one according to the latest (admittedly not confirmed) info.

Finally, now it looks like the exceptional main gun with its high firing rate, Vulcano long range projectiles and various other desirable attributes is being dropped in favour of a lesser unit.

Forgive my frustration, and I hope the tradeoff is measured in getting ships in the water sooner, but I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t waiting for another shoe to drop before the design gets finalized.

To keep your enthusiasm, the sensor suite and EW package are going to be better than expected. The data sharing and connectivity are ridiculously high. But that's not something that's easy to explain or get excited about if you haven't been working with that stuff before.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Well the thing that hasn't changed is you can't beat the radar nor the CMS. Battle prove

To keep your enthusiasm, the sensor suite and EW package are going to be better than expected. The data sharing and connectivity are ridiculously high. But that's not something that's easy to explain or get excited about if you haven't been working with that stuff before.

It actually does help, … the part that bothers me, is that it feels like the ship is turning into an exceptional ASW vessel, with strong ASuW credentials, but isn’t fully stepping into the role that the 280’s once played, though the situational awareness, comms and networking probably make it a far better Command ship. It also feels like some of the stated goals are being diluted (vis a vis land strike). With the reduction in VLS cells, the choice of main gun becomes more of a priority if bombardment is still on the list of priorities. If these ships stick with the task force doctrine, I guess some of that wide area missile defence vs land attack horse trading in the VLS will be mitigated, but I have honestly wished from the beginning that there would be a second vessel more dedicated to aaw (like Alvaro de Bazan derivatives). I really worry that the lack of missile depth will be a lingering concern, particularly if the first couple of CSC are paired with CPF’s in a TG.

 

[Rainbow1910]

It actually does help, … the part that bothers me, is that it feels like the ship is turning into an exceptional ASW vessel, with strong ASuW credentials, but isn’t fully stepping into the role that the 280’s once played, though the situational awareness, comms and networking probably make it a far better Command ship.

Considering the Iroquois class was an ASW ship kludged into an AAW ship through a questionable refit, ending up with a transitionary vessel that soldiered long past its expiration date, the River class will be superior to them in effectively every margin. The combination of AEGIS and SPY-7 blow the non-3D radar sets and CMS from the Iroquois class out of the water, only having 5 less cells than them with a more potent gun, EW/decoy and other self defence armaments (Block II ESSM & RAM). River class ships will be able to interact and interlace their sensor networks with each other and other AEGIS/CEC equipped vessels to a frankly insane degree.

It also feels like some of the stated goals are being diluted (vis a vis land strike). With the reduction in VLS cells, the choice of main gun becomes more of a priority if bombardment is still on the list of priorities. If these ships stick with the task force doctrine, I guess some of that wide area missile defence vs land attack horse trading in the VLS will be mitigated, but I have honestly wished from the beginning that there would be a second vessel more dedicated to aaw (like Alvaro de Bazan derivatives). I really worry that the lack of missile depth will be a lingering concern, particularly if the first couple of CSC are paired with CPF’s in a TG.

I don't think traditional coastal bombardment is an especially relevant or high priority for the RCN however, it can still be adequately undertaken by Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles and whatever model of 5 inch gun is present on the design. Another thing people seem to forget is that unlike other nations who operate a split fleet of general purpose/ASW combatants and AAW combatants, the RCN will have dual purpose vessels as their entire fleet. These smaller split AAW fleet sections are much more vulnerable to maintenance concerns limiting deployability, while that isn't a concern for the RCN when any River class can take on either role with the change of magazine config. These specialist vessels are individually more potent, but fewer in number and concentrate capability onto a single point of failure.

The RCN specifically wished to avoid a split fleet type with the Canadian Surface Combatant, originally the Single Class Surface Combatant Project for this very reason. Alongside the inherent advantages in logistics and training that operating a largely homogenous fleet provides. All of the designs more suited to AAW work present in the original CSC bid were all quite old and frankly would be impractical to operate on the timeline we find ourselves on now.

 

[Underway]

It actually does help, … the part that bothers me, is that it feels like the ship is turning into an exceptional ASW vessel, with strong ASuW credentials, but isn’t fully stepping into the role that the 280’s once played, though the situational awareness, comms and networking probably make it a far better Command ship. It also feels like some of the stated goals are being diluted (vis a vis land strike). With the reduction in VLS cells, the choice of main gun becomes more of a priority if bombardment is still on the list of priorities. If these ships stick with the task force doctrine, I guess some of that wide area missile defence vs land attack horse trading in the VLS will be mitigated, but I have honestly wished from the beginning that there would be a second vessel more dedicated to aaw (like Alvaro de Bazan derivatives). I really worry that the lack of missile depth will be a lingering concern, particularly if the first couple of CSC are paired with CPF’s in a TG.

You should be concerned with VLS numbers. The RCN is also concerned about the number of VLS. The CRCN has stated that publicly. That's one of the reasons the RCN TG config increased to 4 RCD's from 3 in some of the documents. But as per normal with all things there are trade offs.

I know that the RCD will be more capable of an AAW fighter than the Alvaro de Bazan (not the Hobarts though) despite the less VLS. I suspect it will be better than the Hunter class as well . The reason for this is the radar is better and the combat management system is better in both cases. Spain gets the export version of Aegis. Canada, Australia and Japan get the US version of Aegis.

 

[MacNav63]

Considering the Iroquois class was an ASW ship kludged into an AAW ship through a questionable refit, ending up with a transitionary vessel that soldiered long past its expiration date, the River class will be superior to them in effectively every margin. The combination of AEGIS and SPY-7 blow the non-3D radar sets and CMS from the Iroquois class out of the water, only having 5 less cells than them with a more potent gun, EW/decoy and other self defence armaments (Block II ESSM & RAM). River class ships will be able to interact and interlace their sensor networks with each other and other AEGIS/CEC equipped vessels to a frankly insane degree.


I don't think traditional coastal bombardment is an especially relevant or high priority for the RCN however, it can still be adequately undertaken by Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles and whatever model of 5 inch gun is present on the design. Another thing people seem to forget is that unlike other nations who operate a split fleet of general purpose/ASW combatants and AAW combatants, the RCN will have dual purpose vessels as their entire fleet. These smaller split AAW fleet sections are much more vulnerable to maintenance concerns limiting deployability, while that isn't a concern for the RCN when any River class can take on either role with the change of magazine config. These specialist vessels are individually more potent, but fewer in number and concentrate capability onto a single point of failure.

The RCN specifically wished to avoid a split fleet type with the Canadian Surface Combatant, originally the Single Class Surface Combatant Project for this very reason. Alongside the inherent advantages in logistics and training that operating a largely homogenous fleet provides. All of the designs more suited to AAW work present in the original CSC bid were all quite old and frankly would be impractical to operate on the timeline we find ourselves on now.

Curious with regard to coastal bombardment or land attack. Did the subsequent launch of the submarine program, with its potential for ground attack, result in any changes in thinking about the RCDs?

 

[Swampbuggy]

Considering the Iroquois class was an ASW ship kludged into an AAW ship through a questionable refit, ending up with a transitionary vessel that soldiered long past its expiration date, the River class will be superior to them in effectively every margin. The combination of AEGIS and SPY-7 blow the non-3D radar sets and CMS from the Iroquois class out of the water, only having 5 less cells than them with a more potent gun, EW/decoy and other self defence armaments (Block II ESSM & RAM). River class ships will be able to interact and interlace their sensor networks with each other and other AEGIS/CEC equipped vessels to a frankly insane degree.


I don't think traditional coastal bombardment is an especially relevant or high priority for the RCN however, it can still be adequately undertaken by Naval Strike Missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles and whatever model of 5 inch gun is present on the design. Another thing people seem to forget is that unlike other nations who operate a split fleet of general purpose/ASW combatants and AAW combatants, the RCN will have dual purpose vessels as their entire fleet. These smaller split AAW fleet sections are much more vulnerable to maintenance concerns limiting deployability, while that isn't a concern for the RCN when any River class can take on either role with the change of magazine config. These specialist vessels are individually more potent, but fewer in number and concentrate capability onto a single point of failure.

The RCN specifically wished to avoid a split fleet type with the Canadian Surface Combatant, originally the Single Class Surface Combatant Project for this very reason. Alongside the inherent advantages in logistics and training that operating a largely homogenous fleet provides. All of the designs more suited to AAW work present in the original CSC bid were all quite old and frankly would be impractical to operate on the timeline we find ourselves on now.

No doubt, but was I was getting at is more in terms of role than a line by line comparison between an Iroquois and a River. I would naturally expect a vessel designed almost 60 years ago (though updated later) to have less capability to detect, process and prosecute.

Maybe the answer lies in @Kirkhill ’s pitches for arsenal ships cued by the CSC, if the weight constraints are going to be an issue for future growth.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Curious with regard to coastal bombardment or land attack. Did the subsequent launch of the submarine program, with its potential for ground attack, result in any changes in thinking about the RCDs?

Wondered that too. Thought maybe it’s an edge for kss3.

 

[suffolkowner]

did the land attack case ever make sense? I would think being close enough to land to hit it with the gun would mean you are close enough that they can hit you?
You have a 20nmi range?
on the missiles if we place two SeaRam where the CIWS were/are we get 2x11=22
plus the 24 mk41 fill as desired
can the 30mm act effectively as a CIWS as well?