I think you might be right. I zoomed in on that image, and while blurry, it does look to be larger at the very least.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 928
- Points
- 810
I agree it is the lamer and safer choice however, it isn't a bad choice overall. I can think of a lot worse, thankfully it's not a repeat City or Town class like basically the rest of the RCN.
They won't use ExLS to launch nulka, there is dedicated nulka launchers clearly aboard in the renders ahead of the smokestack. I've heard a lot of rumors from early in the program that RCN never wanted CAMM, that is was forced upon them to keep commonality with the base model after they originally wanted a SeaRAM launcher per side in place of Phalanx on the UK/AUS models. Apparently things have shifted back over due to integration concerns between CAMM and AEGIS/CMS-330, I've heard CAMM and ExLS are going entirely and will be potentially replaced by one Mk.49 RAM launcher per side.
We'll see how things play out long term though as we get newer renders.
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
Seen. I hadn't noticed them until you mentioned it. So what goes in the ExLS position? Perhaps more Mk41VLS, more NSM or nothing at this point.
- Reaction score
- 1,939
- Points
- 1,160
8 more NSM!!
Tanning station?
Seriously though I can’t see them giving up that missile space for nothing. 2 RAM mounts seems like overkill though in todays world I suppose one can never have enough PD weapons.
It kind of takes the shine off the AAD escort role.
Tanning station?
Seriously though I can’t see them giving up that missile space for nothing. 2 RAM mounts seems like overkill though in todays world I suppose one can never have enough PD weapons.
It kind of takes the shine off the AAD escort role.
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
2 RAM one port amidships and one stb amidships. That's where the CIWS are going for Hunter and Glasgow.
That space may be liberating weight up high or just be room for growth of other capabilites (antenna farm for UAS or something).
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 928
- Points
- 810
24 CAMM in VLS vs 42 RAM in two launchers? You definitely lose the range but we do have ESSM, RAM has a lot more mass aboard in missile count plus the ability to be reloaded at sea. It is a tradeoff for sure but I don't think an unreasonable one.
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
My concern with that was CAMM can replace one for one ESSM, opening up space in the main VLS. But hey, I'll trust the warfare centre to do their research and come up with optimal loadout solutions for various scenarios. Also number of RAM vs CAMM is only relevant if the PKill is the same. The reload is good though and RAM is much cheaper, and likely better vs small cheaper UAS. RAM can also target surface targets.
- Reaction score
- 4,132
- Points
- 1,120
I suspect RAM is an update based on the UAS threat - and with CIWS having 1580 rds in the drum, which equals less than 21 bursts of fire, with each burst probably having a lower Pk as compared to the RAM - having 42 RAM give a lot more potential kills...particularly in a threat environment with a lot of UAS/UAV.
But what do I know....
But what do I know....
- Reaction score
- 16,908
- Points
- 1,010
I can see the logic with SM2/3/6-ESSM-RAM missile load out. It is not a perfect solution, but it is “good enough” for Tranche 1.
Weird to call it a destroyer when our allies call them frigates.
Looked closer. I think I'm wrong - I think @JMCanada is correct - 6 VLS cells. Still, if we are shifting to RAM and a dedicated RAM launcher, I wonder what that space currently occupied by ExLS will be used for. Curiouser and curiouser...
No sign of an FMS sale to Canada of RAM: Defense Security Cooperation Agency | Defense Security Cooperation Agency
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
Not really. The role it plays in the fleet is the label. With that radar and command control setup DD isn't wrong. FF wouldn't be wrong either. In the Ozzie and UK context though they already have DD's specialized for AAW, and the Type 26 is primarily an ASW GP platform. In Canada the River Class will do both jobs.
- Reaction score
- 27,171
- Points
- 1,090
Given the increased beam of the CSC, its primary employment in a role below the operational level, and that it's replacing the Halifax class, we should probably designate it as a Wide Tactical Frigate, or, for short, WTF.
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
I don't think a perfect solution exists, and I agree. In comparison with the other T26's the guns are better (Lionfish and OTO/LW 127mm are better than the BAE offerings). RAM is better than Phalanx.
The EW suite seems more robust overall (including laser defence/detection) based on the open source stuff. Underwater suite is similar if not identical.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 928
- Points
- 810
I presume that the renderings do not reflect the changes yet, they are likely older models prior to this seemingly recent change. If ExLS and CAMM are gone, that space won't be used for anything and the weight will be used elsewhere.
As I said above, these changes seem fairly recent and from what I've heard, not entirely official yet. Fact sheet let the cat out of the bag a bit.
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
Article here from Innisfil Today which speaks to some of the critical design differences of the River Class.
Roughly, weight up high means compensatory weigh down low usually with a multiple. In JSS every kg of weight on top of the mast equaled 16kg of weight at the keel to compensate. Ballast is wasted tonnage. Ideally you have no ballast and every bit of weight is functional for something else instead of just being "dead". River Class isn't as tall as JSS so the compensatory multiple isn't as high but I'm willing to bet there is more ballast here then in the other versions of the T26.
That type of radar up high also means a better radar horizon, and better air search. UK radar is pretty high but its very light and not nearly as powerful.
Roughly, weight up high means compensatory weigh down low usually with a multiple. In JSS every kg of weight on top of the mast equaled 16kg of weight at the keel to compensate. Ballast is wasted tonnage. Ideally you have no ballast and every bit of weight is functional for something else instead of just being "dead". River Class isn't as tall as JSS so the compensatory multiple isn't as high but I'm willing to bet there is more ballast here then in the other versions of the T26.
That type of radar up high also means a better radar horizon, and better air search. UK radar is pretty high but its very light and not nearly as powerful.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
FBNW...see I fixed that problem easy!
- Reaction score
- 1,602
- Points
- 1,060
So no ExLS at all?
2 RAM launchers instead?
The GMLS with 21 missiles or SeaRam with 11?
EDIT
Im claiming a win in the unofficial naming poll as well
2 RAM launchers instead?
The GMLS with 21 missiles or SeaRam with 11?
EDIT
Im claiming a win in the unofficial naming poll as well
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 5,857
- Points
- 1,090
It remains to be seen whether its SeaRAM or RAM. Based on what @Rainbow1910 is saying ExLS out and GMLS in. Pro's and Cons for both of those options.
