Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[calculus]

One interesting thing I saw in the video was with the top down and stern down views it looked like the ExLS launcher has twinned from previous versions. If I'm correct (its very hard to see and I may be applying hopium to this), the would double the CIADS capability

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.

 

[Rainbow1910]

That's just lame. Yet another opportunity lost to give our warships names that actually sound like we mean it lost, and will likely have soft and generic ships badges and mottos to go along with it.

I can't believe the only warship like names and badges are now on... Artic patrol ships that are non-combatants.

Oh well, will match well with the reality of 'fitted for but not with' ammunition and ROEs.

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.

The other thing is that you can launch Nulka from ExLS as well. I suppose RAM makes more sense as the CIADS then CAMM did. But I'm done defending the missile loadout this ship has at this point. RAM is not equal to CAMM .

Its a powerful ASW platform that can defend itself well. It's kinetic air defense is on the low end for DD's.

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.

 

[Underway]

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.

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.

 

[Cloud Cover]

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.

 

[Underway]

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[Underway]

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.

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.

 

[NavyShooter]

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....

 

[SeaKingTacco]

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.

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.

 

[ytz]

DDG not DDH. Thats an interesting decision in the classification. Indicates that the primary weapon for the ship is the missiles not the helicopter.

Weird to call it a destroyer when our allies call them frigates.

 

[calculus]

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.

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.

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...

 

[calculus]

No sign of an FMS sale to Canada of RAM: Defense Security Cooperation Agency | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

 

[Underway]

Weird to call it a destroyer when our allies call them frigates.

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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.

 

[Underway]

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

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]

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...

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.

No sign of an FMS sale to Canada of RAM: Defense Security Cooperation Agency | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

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.

 

[Underway]

Article here from Innisfil Today which speaks to some of the critical design differences of the River Class.

Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee said Friday in Halifax that the Canadian ships, which are based on the BAE Type 26 design used in the United Kingdom and Australia, are heavier than their counterparts because of design changes.

The navy commander said the River class destroyers have a radar — considered the heart of the modern warship — located higher up in the vessel than in its Australian and British counterparts. That has required associated power, cooling and other supporting machinery, which add 900 tonnes in weight.

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]

No sign of an FMS sale to Canada of RAM: Defense Security Cooperation Agency | Defense Security Cooperation Agency

FBNW...see I fixed that problem easy!

 

[suffolkowner]

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

 

[Underway]

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

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.