• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

We know absolutely nothing regarding the context of that engagement, so I am not making sweeping assumptions based off one event.
 
Holy crap what a depressing post.
The plus side with CSC is that this is feeding into their plans for initial provisioning and sparing, as well as what they are looking for as the support model, so optimistic they will have more ISSCs to cover off what woudl normally be 1st line PM because there won't be many actual technical people onboard, so alongside once they do duty watches etc will be pretty much tapped.
 
I have not heard any news regarding the RCN being opted in or out of any kind of ship based laser program. We can purchase such a system in the future if power demands can be met.
Everybody knows that maritime laser systems are mounted on sharks.

man laser GIF
 
The 30mm point defence cannons are not a replacement for CIWS, they are for point defence against small boats, drones, aviation, etc. They aren't designed for missile defence roles. If you look elsewhere abroad, having a pair of autocannons on modern western combatants is very commonplace. I would not mistake the Russians experience for western systems, considering their point defence guns are entirely inadequate to take on drone threats unlike western systems.

They did trial Martlet missiles twinned to 30mm cannon mounts but it has not moved past such a point, I have heard due to back blast but I unsure of specifics.

It would seem to me that when the RCN swapped out the BAE 5" Mark 45 gun to the Leonardo 5" LW gun, they also switched out the 30mm autocannons to Leonardo's offering. I would point out that the RCN has seemingly not utilized the space on each side where the Phalanx mounts used to be placed, so they are something that could be put back aboard if weight and capability line up.

CSC really isn't thin for close in defence between the 30mm autocannons, 5" gun, 24 CAMM and whatever ESSM is fitted aboard. Many nations are moving away from Phalanx as it is a dated system which has dubious effectiveness against even nonpeer anti-ship missile threats. This is what CAMM is suited for. Do not confuse Armchair Admirals seeing drones and crying for heaps upon heaps of additional guns and missiles aboard ships as being a proper indication of what is required going forward.
24 CAMM aren’t a cost effective method of dealing with small OWUAS.

Anyone not concerned about the increase in Uncrewed attack systems from air, surface and subsurface isn’t paying attention to what is happening, and it is going to get worse.

I have not heard any news regarding the RCN being opted in or out of any kind of ship based laser program. We can purchase such a system in the future if power demands can be met.
 
24 CAMM aren’t a cost effective method of dealing with small OWUAS.

Anyone not concerned about the increase in Uncrewed attack systems from air, surface and subsurface isn’t paying attention to what is happening, and it is going to get worse.
It has been under discussion for a long time, it's just a hard nut to crack with a lot of ideas not working as well as you would think.

Previously not really much you could do against enough suicide bombers, but was mitigated by most people not wanting to die. Not with uncrewed systems that's pretty much out the window.

Improving detection times helps though, so the various IR/visual sensors with some algorithms help with things that don't have a radar or other signal signature.

Always the old school ideas too like torpedo nets; that way at least gives you a standoff from the blast with retractable physical barrier.

Torpedo net - Wikipedia
 
What is the difference between the CAMM ExLS launcher and the MK41? Is it just a sleeved MK41?
 
What is the difference between the CAMM ExLS launcher and the MK41? Is it just a sleeved MK41?

Some useful descriptions.
 
It has been under discussion for a long time, it's just a hard nut to crack with a lot of ideas not working as well as you would think.

Previously not really much you could do against enough suicide bombers, but was mitigated by most people not wanting to die. Not with uncrewed systems that's pretty much out the window.

Improving detection times helps though, so the various IR/visual sensors with some algorithms help with things that don't have a radar or other signal signature.

Always the old school ideas too like torpedo nets; that way at least gives you a standoff from the blast with retractable physical barrier.

Torpedo net - Wikipedia
Time to bring back all the harbour mouth embellishments? Nets, gate boats, gun and missile shore batteries, and so on?
 
24 CAMM aren’t a cost effective method of dealing with small OWUAS.

Anyone not concerned about the increase in Uncrewed attack systems from air, surface and subsurface isn’t paying attention to what is happening, and it is going to get worse.
We do not know the cost of CAMM on a per missile basis, so such a comparison cannot be made. There is a difference in not being concerned and being realistic about the future, many people are having knee jerk overreactions while also underestimating the systems already in place to deal with these threats.
 
What is the difference between the CAMM ExLS launcher and the MK41? Is it just a sleeved MK41?
ExLS can function as either a drop in adaptor to existing Mark 41 systems in order to fire other non-standard weapons (RAM, CAMM, Nulka, Hellfire/JAGM, etc) or can act as a lightweight and small standalone launching platform for the same weapons systems.
 
Time to bring back all the harbour mouth embellishments? Nets, gate boats, gun and missile shore batteries, and so on?
I don't doubt that we should take security of our military installations more seriously but with Russian cruise missiles having 3,000km range the nature of the threats may have changed from the past.
 
We do not know the cost of CAMM on a per missile basis, so such a comparison cannot be made. There is a difference in not being concerned and being realistic about the future, many people are having knee jerk overreactions while also underestimating the systems already in place to deal with these threats.
Benefit of the CAMM over the Phalanx from what I can see is the reload time for the CAMM is significantly shorter than the Phalanx based on what I have learned on this site?
 
Benefit of the CAMM over the Phalanx from what I can see is the reload time for the CAMM is significantly shorter than the Phalanx based on what I have learned on this site?
The advantage that missile based systems have over gun based systems is stretching the engagement range as far from the ship as possible. CAMM can reach out past 25km while Phalanx has an effective range of 1.5km with a maximum range out to 5.5km. You can reload gun based systems at sea compared to missiles generally not being able to be effectively reloaded from VLS tubes. CAMM can engage more targets at further ranges than Phalanx can, keeping the ship safer and giving additional time for more missiles/other systems to engage as well.
 
My error I was thinking the Rolling Airframe missile systems which seem to be more of a direct replacement for the Phalanx

Germany-made-a-huge-purchase-600-new-RIM-116-RAM-Block-2Bs.jpg
 
My error I was thinking the Rolling Airframe missile systems which seem to be more of a direct replacement for the Phalanx

Germany-made-a-huge-purchase-600-new-RIM-116-RAM-Block-2Bs.jpg
Both can use the ships main sensors (Germans do this with SEA RAM IIRC). CAMM also can engage multiple targets from multiple directions and SEARAM as you can see is unidirectional. CAMM has a much longer range allowing for the potential of re-engagement. Also CAMM is flush deck, which has its own advantaged when you are looking at antenna/rader placement.

I like SEA RAM, but I like CAMM better.
 
We do not know the cost of CAMM on a per missile basis, so such a comparison cannot be made.
Actually it’s fairly easy to look up if you have access. I am sure Canada will be paying more than others simply due to acquisition numbers though.
There is a difference in not being concerned and being realistic about the future, many people are having knee jerk overreactions while also underestimating the systems already in place to deal with these threats.
I’m seeing the current potential for an overwhelming non swarm number of OWUAS, when you start getting into AI/ML controlled swarms, missiles options are a non starter. Even using large number of ships to engage.

Unless you start running a nuclear power plant and multiple DE systems, that option isn’t going to provide the defense either.

I don’t have a good answer to counter the threats, I just come up with threats ;)
 
Back
Top