- Reaction score
- 16,779
- Points
- 1,160
A cautionary tale of going to cheap

On the SD Mk41 i found that interesting with respect to the RCDs. Thinking that was an option to put an 8 cell where the 2 seaceptor VLS are on the UK versionSelf Defence length Mark 41 was never actually produced for a customer, and seems to have been entirely discontinued by 2026. Mark 56 VLS is also a legacy Cold War system that specializes in placement aboard very small vessels/ships without space, it is a sub-optimal system and likely will not be fitted aboard a larger and bespoke design like CDC. I think tactical length Mark 41 is a likely choice however, fitting a limited bank of strike length missiles could be done on a sufficiently large design, which CDC seems to be moving to. You could also circumvent this concern by carrying Mark 70 containerized launchers in addition to the already present VLS on either the flight deck or the mission deck, which many CDC concept designs seem to incorporate.
The Australian Adelaide-class frigates in their last refit were outfitted with tactical length Mark 41 VLS cells which jutted out of the deck a fair bit, although this is relatively uncommon and sub-optimal for many reasons.
![]()
It doesn't seem like recent renderings of concepts require that tradeoff, and fit basically everything. We're seemingly out of an MCDV sized vessel and looking at a real combatant.
ASROC takes up valuable VLS slots for a system which is dated and has questionable range, foreign models of similar systems are superior but its still not ideal compared to a helicopter. We don't really know what ASW capabilities will look like in the future with unmanned systems, so it's a bit hard to say at this point. You could perhaps fit torpedoes to unmanned aviation assets and fit them aboard.
A cautionary tale of going to cheap
I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.I think it would shock Canadians to know how often our deployed ships have major combat and engineering systems U/S.
I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.
All navies have similar issues, the ocean is not nice to fancy high tech systems.I would be shocked as well, except being on here has inoculated me to being shocked anymore about the state of the RCN.
Highlights are:
Overall, the ship was barely in fighting condition 14 days before the war and with its defensive systems in worse conditions.
- Fort has issues with keeping illumination to the target and keeping the missiles painted to the target in one of the electronic (non-firing) exercises
- The FCRs for the Osa-MA has issues with being not active or has issues when active.
- MR-123s for the AK-630s have issues with their opto-electronic systems and no indicators of system being on active scan.
Another thing that was notable was interference between the MR-800 Flag primary air search radar and the SATCOM systems.
Turning the radar to active scan mode (Ch. 3) would make the SATCOM system unstable and unusable.
All navies have similar issues, the ocean is not nice to fancy high tech systems.
We dont make it better by not investing as much as we should in maintenance, but we are also not alone in that. We just don't spend time other navy's forums to read about their issues.
You'd think they would jave learned from the Brits in 1982...Turning the radar to active scan mode (Ch. 3) would make the SATCOM system unstable and unusable.
This is why we all should be careful about getting caught up in the mentality that everything we do is bad, and everything other parties do is much better. The Nordic countries get an exceptional amount of good press for many of their warships and naval procurements, but the reality is there is a throughline of government cost obfuscation, widescale reusing of old equipment, lack of costs assigned to proper upkeep/development, overly optimistic warship stats and the fact few of the issues present in these navies make it out to English sourced reporting.A cautionary tale of going to cheap