Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Underway]

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?

Its a navigation radar for sure. There is also one astern above the hangar because the forward one is blocked aft by the mast.
The likely reason its in that enclosure is that the enclosure is designed to only let in and out the specific wavelengths of the nav radar. And that ensclosure's smooth shape (and likely ability to absorb the main radars frequencies) means the normal T=shape and rotation of the Nav Radar will not interfere with all the other electronic stuff forward on the mast, in particular the main radar.

If you look aft you'll see another navigation radar starbord side top of the hanger with no enclosure, because its not going to interfere with anything back there.


One other thing I noticed about the main mast as I'm comparing old drawings and new angles from these images. Its no longer just a big cone shape, its more of a fin, cutting the air forward and aft. A shark fin! (@Oldgateboatdriver will probably correct me and make me call it a sail or something nautical, but shark fins are so much cooler!)


Fin shape

Vs old conehead shape

 

[calculus]

Its a navigation radar for sure. There is also one astern above the hangar because the forward one is blocked aft by the mast.
The likely reason its in that enclosure is that the enclosure is designed to only let in and out the specific wavelengths of the nav radar. And that ensclosure's smooth shape (and likely ability to absorb the main radars frequencies) means the normal T=shape and rotation of the Nav Radar will not interfere with all the other electronic stuff forward on the mast, in particular the main radar.

If you look aft you'll see another navigation radar starbord side top of the hanger with no enclosure, because its not going to interfere with anything back there.


One other thing I noticed about the main mast as I'm comparing old drawings and new angles from these images. Its no longer just a big cone shape, its more of a fin, cutting the air forward and aft. A shark fin! (@Oldgateboatdriver will probably correct me and make me call it a sail or something nautical, but shark fins are so much cooler!)

View attachment 99210
Fin shape

Vs old conehead shape

I noticed the same thing, but I think it's a perspective issue, as the model shown yesterday does not show that feature.

 

[Underway]

I noticed the same thing, but I think it's a perspective issue, as the model shown yesterday does not show that feature.

Fin

 

[Underway]

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.

I was honestly thinking what does JAGM give this ship over the 127mm. It didn't feel like much except perhaps more accuracy.

I agree, its tough to think about the hard kill and wonder about it. We naturally tend to overvalue the flashy charismatic features of warships and undervalue things like soft kill which do not feel overly cool.

Tomahawk is a mission fit missile. You're not going to just carry them around. I expect the standard loadout will be fairly defensive.

The design philosophy for these ships was always, "what can we do to bring sailors home", and that directly feeds into the majority of the decisions. Very robust next gen EW suite, easily enough VLS to provide a porcupine of responses (48 ESSM, 21 RAM, 127mm) that are hard kill. SM2 are designated not for self defence but TG defence.

I also think their sensors are the best of the variants as well.

---

Aesthetics, which mean nothing, this ship looks cooler than the others two types with that mast. Certainly better than the cancerous growth on the top of the Hunter class.

 

[Lumber]

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




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.

SO MUCH SOFTKILL!!

 

[Underway]

SO MUCH SOFTKILL!!

Its a lot.

There are also the other launchers on the bridge wings.

It think those might be Surface Ship Torp Defence Launchers though, they look very similar to the UK version and those are made by Ultra Electronics in NS (SEA SENTOR Expendable Acoustic Device Launcher) . Or perhaps multi-purpose launchers like Sea Gnat.

 

[Lumber]

Its a lot.

There are also the other launchers on the bridge wings.

It think those might be Surface Ship Torp Defence Launchers though, they look very similar to the UK version and those are made by Ultra Electronics in NS (SEA SENTOR Expendable Acoustic Device Launcher) . Or perhaps multi-purpose launchers like Sea Gnat.

Getting a remote launchable acoustic decoy system is something navies desperately need so this would be a good addition.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I was honestly thinking what does JAGM give this ship over the 127mm. It didn't feel like much except perhaps more accuracy.

I agree, its tough to think about the hard kill and wonder about it. We naturally tend to overvalue the flashy charismatic features of warships and undervalue things like soft kill which do not feel overly cool.

Tomahawk is a mission fit missile. You're not going to just carry them around. I expect the standard loadout will be fairly defensive.

The design philosophy for these ships was always, "what can we do to bring sailors home", and that directly feeds into the majority of the decisions. Very robust next gen EW suite, easily enough VLS to provide a porcupine of responses (48 ESSM, 21 RAM, 127mm) that are hard kill. SM2 are designated not for self defence but TG defence.

I also think their sensors are the best of the variants as well.

JAGM gives you another bank of systems that can simultaneously meet a saturation attack in combination with the rest of the weapon systems aboard, being a low cost (1/3 cost of a RAM shot), fire and forget and with an advanced seeker able to do laser designation, millimeter wave or infrared imager for targeting in populated and potentially EW degraded environments. JAGM has the same claimed range as RAM, if not a hair longer and permits RAM to be kept filled as a backstop for larger threats like missiles, while JAGM takes out less dangerous threats like air and sea drones alongside the main gun further out from the ship. It also provides redundancy in the case of a malfunction or damage to the main gun system. JAGM is also a small footprint weapon that can readily be reloaded at sea, saving higher end interceptors for more relevant threats. If you are deployed abroad, it quickly becomes uneconomical and logistically impossible to be ripping SM-2, ESSM and even RAM at every flying lawnmower drone that comes your way.

SM-2 is going to be required even outside of task group defence, as that is your high capability mid-long interceptor. If you are facing a moderate to high end missile threat, you want to engage with SM-2 as far away from the ship as possible to kill that threat before it comes close enough to engage it with your shorter range systems. Adversaries are increasingly utilizing mixed attacks of low, medium and high end systems in concert to overwhelm defences especially on single warships. Non-state actors like the Houthi's are getting access to anti-ship missiles and other dangerous systems, rogue states like Iran, North Korea and former backwaters are seeing the adoption of increasingly capable systems to attack warships, and these are all still far divorced from the peer state actors like Russia and China.

I definitely see the value of soft kill systems, but we're entering an increasingly dangerous world where the minimum bar for entry as a combatant is rapidly being raised. There comes a point where even formerly less dangerous waterways and opponents start pushing heavily against what you thought could bring your sailors home. A ship needs a good setup containing both measures and while adequate, I feel the hard kill section of the armament is not where it should be.

Tomahawk is indeed a mission fit missile however, they eventually will be carried and they will be eating into the available cells present. That will require additional vessels to provide coverage, which is its own rapidly expanding list of issues depending on who, what, when, where, etc.

 

[Underway]

JAGM gives you another bank of systems that can simultaneously meet a saturation attack in combination with the rest of the weapon systems aboard, being a low cost (1/3 cost of a RAM shot), fire and forget and with an advanced seeker able to do laser designation, millimeter wave or infrared imager for targeting in populated and potentially EW degraded environments. JAGM has the same claimed range as RAM, if not a hair longer and permits RAM to be kept filled as a backstop for larger threats like missiles, while JAGM takes out less dangerous threats like air and sea drones alongside the main gun further out from the ship. It also provides redundancy in the case of a malfunction or damage to the main gun system. JAGM is also a small footprint weapon that can readily be reloaded at sea, saving higher end interceptors for more relevant threats. If you are deployed abroad, it quickly becomes uneconomical and logistically impossible to be ripping SM-2, ESSM and even RAM at every flying lawnmower drone that comes your way.

You are not wrong, but honestly I'd rather have a Nulka variant than 16 JAGM, should it come to one or the other. Cheap redundancy will have to come from the 30mm ripping out at the lawnmower drones using airburst munitions and high rate of fire.

SM-2 is going to be required even outside of task group defence, as that is your high capability mid-long interceptor. If you are facing a moderate to high end missile threat, you want to engage with SM-2 as far away from the ship as possible to kill that threat before it comes close enough to engage it with your shorter range systems. Adversaries are increasingly utilizing mixed attacks of low, medium and high end systems in concert to overwhelm defences especially on single warships. Non-state actors like the Houthi's are getting access to anti-ship missiles and other dangerous systems, rogue states like Iran, North Korea and former backwaters are seeing the adoption of increasingly capable systems to attack warships, and these are all still far divorced from the peer state actors like Russia and China.

When I did my math I only spoke of 48 ESSM. That's 12 cells. The other 12 would have SM2's which are task group team missiles. Ships are not alone, and we have to think of the whole team on the pitch to properly assess I think.

I definitely see the value of soft kill systems, but we're entering an increasingly dangerous world where the minimum bar for entry as a combatant is rapidly being raised. There comes a point where even formerly less dangerous waterways and opponents start pushing heavily against what you thought could bring your sailors home. A ship needs a good setup containing both measures and while adequate, I feel the hard kill section of the armament is not where it should be.

I can't disagree, and your concerns are valid. The RCN does want more missiles on those ships. But that's going to have to come in later flights I think.

 

[Underway]

Better angle on my shark fin mast lol

 

[Barnold]

Yeah, from this angle, the rear facet of the mast appears to be narrower than the side facet at it's base, but it's especially noticeable if you compare their widths at the top.

 

[NavyShooter]

I think it is longer than it is wide - I'm gonna have to do some redesign I guess.

sigh