Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Rainbow1910]

To be honest, if I had a ship with AEGIS, I'd want the single 21 shot launcher as well.

Having 2x 11 shot ones is actually less effective, since they wouldn't be tied directly to AEGIS I don't think. And you'd only have 11 shots per side if they were in the same spots as have been shown in past renderings.

Having the 21 shot launcher up high with wide arcs gives the best solution I think.

To clarify, SeaRAM is just Phalanx with the 20mm cannon replaced by an 11 cell RAM launcher, while the full 21 shot launcher is known as the Mk 49 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS). The previous rumour was two 21 shot launchers likely where the Phalanx slots are, but it seems that never came to pass.

Note - it looks like the 'official way' to set this all up based on how I see things is to open the rear cover, rotate the launcher fore/aft, setup the working platform on the mount, setup the overhead rail and chain fall, then load/unload cannisters.

I suspect it could be done by hand without the platform in a pinch to get a couple tubes loaded up in a real emergency.

Rules would have to be bent/broken for that though...and there'd have to be a really good operational reason to do so.

The biggest issue with the model we see is physically getting the missile reloads from their storage area all the way up to that elevated position where the launcher itself is present.

No idea either.

Noah seems to think it might be JAGM as well, which I think is fairly accurate. Lockheed Martin has a number of different navalized JAGM launchers available and the USN is considering fitting them to their Burke class destroyers as a cheap and low impact layer to their small boat/anti-drone defences. It is possible that the launcher we see on the model is a placeholder, a custom RCN model or something like the below decks mount in the right hand first image, but mounted above deck.

The newest variants of JAGM have a 16km~ range and a multi-mode seeker that permit attacking stationary or moving targets even in visual/EW degraded environments. Price tag looks to be something like $325,000 USD per shot roughly, 1/3~ of a RAM shot cost. If we could get something like 27 JAGM per 3x3 launcher (with 1 slot each used for exhaust), that would give the RCD a load of 54 fire and forget missiles at a relatively low cost to deal with closer range targets.

Seems like a pretty good boost in capability to me?

 

[DBNSG]

New Model Of The River-Class revealed

Noah Note

www.truenorthstrategicreview.ca

Noahs early summary

It would be very interesting to have the same scale Halifax class model beside this River for size comparison.

 

[Underway]

If it is JAGM then we can probably make an assumption that this is the first modification in recognition of naval drone warfare. Hellfire family can be used against drones both airborne and waterborne. And it's much cheaper than shooting a RAM, ESSM at a target. But the launchers are not normally in that configuration. They are usually quad launchers with a 5th exhaust tube.

Doesn't look like NULKA and if it was that's a lot of NULKA for a single ship.

 

[Underway]

More reasons I dont' think its JASM. The RAM was obviously moved away from the midships breezeway because that's where the intakes are for the main stack, so you don't want missile exhaust chemicals pulled into there. Also that long railing on the side of the stack is for Replenishment at Sea so you likely don't want missile exhaust blasting anywhere near that either.


Similarly if you look where the "JASM" is placed you usually want your missile exhaust not setting fire to radomes, railings and whatever stuff is overhanging (or close to overhanging).

We'll have to see. I'm only speculating here. Whatever is in that box is pretty tall.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

OK! That's all very interesting. When I first saw it I assumed it was just an expanded pack of Nulka's. So, some new form of chaff we haven't seen yet? Or could it be an active (like the French designed ones) anti torpedo munition launcher?

 

[NavyShooter]

The sliding pad-eye is a detail that I'd thought about, and was pretty sure was going to be in that area, but is now confirmed to me. I was wondering for a bit if they were going to try and rig the RAS deck via the mission bay area.

More details to add....

 

[Troopasaurus]

With the weight savings of removing CAMM, single RAM etc. you would think their would be capacity for extra launchers. If deck penetration is a problem on the forward deck then options like the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher may work to add mk41 capacity still forward of the existing VLS. BAE ADLS

View attachment 99180

 

[Rainbow1910]

More reasons I dont' think its JASM. The RAM was obviously moved away from the midships breezeway because that's where the intakes are for the main stack, so you don't want missile exhaust chemicals pulled into there. Also that long railing on the side of the stack is for Replenishment at Sea so you likely don't want missile exhaust blasting anywhere near that either.

Similarly if you look where the "JASM" is placed you usually want your missile exhaust not setting fire to radomes, railings and whatever stuff is overhanging (or close to overhanging).

We'll have to see. I'm only speculating here. Whatever is in that box is pretty tall.

I think the placement is screwy regardless of what you put into the launchers, as even a soft launched system would be dangerously close to impacting the various items you mention being so close to. Even considering that, you have a potential for a misfire fouling important sections of the ship instead of being carried clear or otherwise dropped somewhere non-important.

With the weight savings of removing CAMM, single RAM etc. you would think their would be capacity for extra launchers. If deck penetration is a problem on the forward deck then options like the BAE Adaptable Deck Launcher may work to add mk41 capacity still forward of the existing VLS. BAE ADLS

It seems most likely that overall weight is the problem, not so much strictly available space. The RCN has already done extensive modifications to the baseline Type 26 design with the integration of AEGIS and SPY-7, there is likely caution being taken not to overload the design like it seems the Australians have done. They have apparently been dealing with stability, weight and future margin issues alongside a laundry list of other items partially caused by their insistence on 32 VLS.

The RCN also desperately needs the first few RCD's ASAP, so have been cutting back on costly and unnecessary additions/modifications to finalize the initial batch for production. 24 VLS is the base standard for the Type 26.

 

[NavyShooter]

24 strike length is still VERY versatile.

Picture 4 TASM, 12 SM-2, and still having space for 32 ESSM in quad packs?

Or whatever mix you want. Add a couple of ASROC....

I went to Google and put in "optimal missile loadout for a 24 cell VLS launcher in a modern warship"

It came back as follows:

16 ESSM Block 2 Quad packs (64 total missiles)​

4 SM-2/SM-6​

2 TLAM​

2 VLA (VLS Launched ASROC)​

If you've got no helo, the maybe more ASROC. If you trust the NSM's on the hangar top, then drop the TLAM and add a couple more SM-2/SM-6.

More is better - but - realistically, how many missiles are we going to end up having on-hand to put aboard?

I recall tales from the history books in the early days of the 280's post TRUMP where we only had 2x sets of missiles to share between 4 ships, (and they only had 29 missiles in their 32 cell blocks - 3 of the cells were taken up with a crane) and those 2 sets of missiles ended up getting cycled down to the US on a partial basis to re-certify them on a rotational basis.

 

[Lumber]

Doing a CIWS upload/download with a well practiced team can be about a half hour or less.

During the day in calm seas...

 

[Lumber]

Doesn't look like NULKA and if it was that's a lot of NULKA for a single ship.

GIVE ME ALL THE NULKAS!

(seriously, you can never have enough soft kill)

 

[DBNSG]

24 strike length is still VERY versatile.

Picture 4 TASM, 12 SM-2, and still having space for 32 ESSM in quad packs?

Or whatever mix you want. Add a couple of ASROC....

I went to Google and put in "optimal missile loadout for a 24 cell VLS launcher in a modern warship"

It came back as follows:

16 ESSM Block 2 Quad packs (64 total missiles)​

4 SM-2/SM-6​

2 TLAM​

2 VLA (VLS Launched ASROC)​

If you've got no helo, the maybe more ASROC. If you trust the NSM's on the hangar top, then drop the TLAM and add a couple more SM-2/SM-6.

More is better - but - realistically, how many missiles are we going to end up having on-hand to put aboard?

I recall tales from the history books in the early days of the 280's post TRUMP where we only had 2x sets of missiles to share between 4 ships, (and they only had 29 missiles in their 32 cell blocks - 3 of the cells were taken up with a crane) and those 2 sets of missiles ended up getting cycled down to the US on a partial basis to re-certify them on a rotational basis.

Well back in 2020 We asked the Yanks for some SM-2III's

https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/11/2003607828/-1/-1/0/CANADA_20-82.PDF

 

[Underway]

OK! That's all very interesting. When I first saw it I assumed it was just an expanded pack of Nulka's. So, some new form of chaff we haven't seen yet? Or could it be an active (like the French designed ones) anti torpedo munition launcher?

GIVE ME ALL THE NULKAS!

(seriously, you can never have enough soft kill)

I have the answer.

Its LEED launchers. Long Endurance Electronic Decoy. So for you @Lumber you'll have to make due with the next gen Nulka instead of the OG version.

Nulka Combat Use Shows Warships Need Longer-Lasting Electronic Warfare-Enabled Decoys

“By all indications, LEED will not only have a longer endurance than Nulka, giving it more time on station and allowing it to operate further away from the ships it is shielding, but it will also have significantly greater autonomous and networked capabilities. If these decoys can operate together in highly autonomous swarms and readily exchange information with other electronic warfare nodes like SEWIP [Surface Electronic Warfare Improvement Program] systems onboard ships, it will allow them to present much more complex targeting challenges for an opponent and the seekers on their munitions. This could also help expand the total area of coverage offered by these decoys and enable them to rapidly shift focus if new, higher-priority threats appear.”

“Increased endurance and maneuverability will open up the ability for LEEDs to move like the ships that launch them while giving off similar signatures. This, in turn, will allow them to mimic individual vessels or, when working in groups, ghost fleets and do so at extended distances if required. In addition to presenting false targets for incoming missiles, this could confuse and draw away enemy forces who will have to devote extra resources to figuring out where the real threats lie.”

Because they are soft launched "drones" you don't need to worry about exhaust, and if they are offset far enough from the railings they'll easily clear the ship (the angle of the image is bad for guessing how far offset they are).

The LEEDs are 10min endurance decoys that can especially deal with saturation attacks, because they potentially can pull missiles off ships for long periods of time in multiple directions, and cause confusion.

9 launchers on each side (18 total) is pretty damn good.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Because they are soft launched "drones" you don't need to worry about exhaust, and if they are offset far enough from the railings they'll easily clear the ship (the angle of the image is bad for guessing how far offset they are).

The LEEDs are 10min endurance decoys that can especially deal with saturation attacks, because they potentially can pull missiles off ships for long periods of time in multiple directions, and cause confusion.

9 launchers on each side (18 total) is pretty damn good.

Some alternate angles released by the RCN on Twitter today showing the launchers are indeed offset enough to clear the nearby structures, I'm inclined to agree with you at this point I'd say. What I thought was a Nulka launcher on the hanger roof looks to be some kind of radar or other vertical structure, so it would seem that Nulka is out and potentially replaced by a large bank of LEED amidships? Very interesting development if true, LEED looks like an experimental and very high end US capability, being able to be effectively autonomous swarmed decoys controlled via the EW suite aboard to help defend the vessel.

Not to denigrate the vital importance of soft kill measures, I do feel lacking JAGM or another hard kill measure leaves the RCD a bit exposed when it comes to actually having to kill opposing systems, given its hard kill measures keep getting downgraded as time goes on. 24 VLS, 21 RAM, the 127mm main gun and 30mm secondary guns aren't exactly slouches, but it's also really lacking in magazine depth and barrage saturation against larger threats. It's one thing to pack aboard a large number of ESSM to deal with larger threats, but the vital SM-2 is single packed and we're fighting for cell real estate before we even start talking about the planned Tomahawk or potential future systems.

 

[GR66]

Not to denigrate the vital importance of soft kill measures, I do feel lacking JAGM or another hard kill measure leaves the RCD a bit exposed when it comes to actually having to kill opposing systems, given its hard kill measures keep getting downgraded as time goes on. 24 VLS, 21 RAM, the 127mm main gun and 30mm secondary guns aren't exactly slouches, but it's also really lacking in magazine depth and barrage saturation against larger threats. It's one thing to pack aboard a large number of ESSM to deal with larger threats, but the vital SM-2 is single packed and we're fighting for cell real estate before we even start talking about the planned Tomahawk or potential future systems.

Well there's always this option from another thread...

Lockheed fires HELLFIRE from GRIZZLY containerized launcher

Lockheed Martin on March 24 said it had completed the first integrated live-fire and vertical-launch test of a HELLFIRE missile from its new GRIZZLY containerized launcher. The company said the test demonstrated the system’s ability to load and launch a

defence-blog.com

 

[calculus]

An analysis from Navy Lookout:

Canadian Navy reveals latest modifications to River-Class Destroyer - Navy Lookout

The latest model of the future River-class Destroyer (RCD), based on the Royal Navy's Type 26 frigate design, was displayed to the public by the Royal Canadian Navy yesterday. Here we look briefly at the discernible changes since the last version in 2024. This is not an exhaustive analysis...

www.navylookout.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

It's also something to consider as well that the launcher might not be dedicated to one system, but more of a generic soft launch system for various items such as decoys and even hard kill drone systems. It's fairly sizable and present on both sides, that's a hell of a lot of decoys alone.

 

[Underway]

It's also something to consider as well that the launcher might not be dedicated to one system, but more of a generic soft launch system for various items such as decoys and even hard kill drone systems. It's fairly sizable and present on both sides, that's a hell of a lot of decoys alone.

I will almost guarantee that it will become a drone launching version of the Mk41, where you can make various other drones or devices launch from there with an insert or conversion package.

 

[calculus]

Any idea what 's in that semicircular radome forward of the mast? Some indication by a poster that it could be Next Generation Surface Search Radar (AN/SPS-73(V)18). Thoughts?

 

[Underway]

An analysis from Navy Lookout:

Canadian Navy reveals latest modifications to River-Class Destroyer - Navy Lookout

The latest model of the future River-class Destroyer (RCD), based on the Royal Navy's Type 26 frigate design, was displayed to the public by the Royal Canadian Navy yesterday. Here we look briefly at the discernible changes since the last version in 2024. This is not an exhaustive analysis...

www.navylookout.com

Love me my Navy Lookout.

The loss of the FC Radar they mention is likely because the ships main radar can do fire control, as its full integrated into Aegis. The FC needed for the Leonardo was a seperate system. It seems in retrospect to be a smart choice, less weight, already integrated design work and now no need for an extra piece of radar equipment.

Pointing out the integrated mast is a nice catch. Integrated masts are usually a better option than seperate masts. Having space available above the mission bay for antenna is going to pay off I can guarantee.

I'm not sure on their take that there is space available for more VLS forward, at least not of the Strike Length size, but they correctly point out that this is an ASW focused ship.