Its so obvious, yet they don't see it...

[Ex-Dragoon]

  Ok, confusing title I know....while I am eagerly looking forward to the FELEX program, I always wondered why they won't swap the MK48 VLS for the MK41 VLS. The MK48 is our current VLS for the Sea Sparrow and its replacement, the Evolved Sea Sparrow. We already have experience with the MK41 as it's fitted to the Iroquois class Destroyers, so our maintainers already have the skill set.
  With the 280s rapidly approaching the end of their lifespan and the SCSC a few years in the future, fitting the MK41 is just common sense. Even if we don't fit the SM2 on the Halifax class, if we got the MK25 quad pack cannister, we could substantial increase the fire power on the CPF. Think of it, instead of 1 ESSM, there would be 4 ESSMs. Instead of 16 SAMs, we would have 64. Thats quite an addition to add to any TG!
  Yeah I  know its all about money, but we are adding the ESSM anyways, why not make our ships even more capable? *Sigh*
 

 

[hugh19]

Weight and space young grasshopper

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was thinking that but I remember a direct quote from the EO on a CPF I spent some time on and I quote "We could fit a hell of a lot more on the missile deck". I see what your saying sledge, but maybe a modified MK41?

 

[hugh19]

Mk 41  is thru deck  several decks if I am correct. MK 48  is a sits by its lonesome self like a bosn on life bouy kinda system. Ok its a on deck system. The japanese have mk48 and mk 41 on one class.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

IIRC there are several variants of the MK41 of different lengths to accomodate whataever missile its fitted for.

 

[MP 811]

Ok, fill in an ol' army guy......whats SCSC??

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Single Class Surface Combatant...the supposed replacement for both the Halifax and Iroquois classes.

 

[MP 811]

gotcha, thanks.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

IIRC there are several variants of the MK41 of different lengths to accomodate whataever missile its fitted for.

Out of my lane as usual but I believe the Mk41 is fixed height.  It is the missile cannisters that fit within it that are of varying heights.


Matthew. 

P.S.  Speed Googled for ya buddy:  http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf

 

[Jammer]

Going out on limb here...call me crazy, but perhaps instead of building from scratch and messing with diff VLS. The ship that I think would best fit the Navy's needs would be Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers built in Canada...

 

[hugh19]

OK your crazy. The A B is too big and needs to big a crew.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I don't know Matthew the statement found below tells me its the launcher not the cannister:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm

The modular MK 41 is adaptable to short-length configurations to enhance ship and weapon applicability potential worldwide. Responding to continued development interest from US Navy allies, the USN is pursuing a VLS MK 41 tactical-length launcher initiative to provide for shipboard loadout and rapid firing of existing Antiaircraft Warfare (AAW) and Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) tactical weapon types, and allow significant expansion in alternate ship mounting arrangements (such as in superstructure areas) and for reduced draft hulls. The engineering development for the tactical-length launcher has been completed. The tactical-length launcher uses the vast majority of the strike-length VLS MK 41 components and remains an eight-cell module with full VLS MK 41 system capability.

So Jammer since you put yourself out on the limb,why an Arleigh Burke? Why not a Daring, Saschen, Alvaro de Bazan or De Zeven Provincien classes? As sledge points out, the Burkes are too big and expensive, just curious on your reasonong....

 

[NCS_Eng]

I always like these kind of threads because they couldn't be any more in my lane if they tried. Your idea is not new Ex-Dragoon, back in the early 80s, when the CPF was just on paper the original plan was for three batches. The first two would end up as the CPF's we know now, and the third would be an extended version, with a VLS (Mk41) Cell in the middle, and we be known as the "Provincial Class".

Maritime Air got in the way, and the Navy ended up buying Aurora's for the Air Force with the money that was to spent on the third batch of ships.

All that to say that the engineering work required to place the Mk41 on a CPF would be substantial, and would require extensive and costly structural changes to the ship. The MK41 is a massive piece of kit, extending 4 decks down and taking up a lot of space. Furthermore their are costs associated with integrating the Mk41's unique control systems with the rest of the ship. Even the "above-deck" variant (of which I am not familiar with) would require most of these changes as well.

Then you have to ask yourself what the advantage is to all these changes? More missiles? I can tell you that the Mk48 is not the bottleneck when it comes to having missiles in flight on a CPF. The primary advantage to the Mk41 is its modularity, and we wouldn't even be able to take advantage of that seeing as how Canada doesn't deploy BGM-109s and the rest of the FCS would have to undergo massive upgrades to handle the SM-2.

Finally, on simply replacing the destroyer with another known ship type, there was a project in the late 90's known as CADRE (Destroyer Replacement), and it looked at the viability of an "off-the-shelf" purchase or lease of another ship class and we don't have the money to buy (Keep in mind there are always substantial "canadianization" costs) and leasing always required maintenance to be done in the home country. The Americans were more than willing to lease us a few new ABs for next to nothing. It was the fact that they required most maintenance to be done in the US that killed that idea.

We have to accept that procurement of new ships is as much a political decision as a military one. The fallout from going to another country for our ships would be HUGE. The subs were unique, in that we don't have the experience to make our own. Canadian Industry and the opposition government would have a field day if we ever outsourced our ship building.

In the end, any discussion on this point is purely academic. The project was cancelled due to lack of funds. There will not be a destroyer replacement before SCSC.

 

[Jammer]

Nice to see that opinions and ideas are well received by the Navy types here.
I'm sure we'll be looking forward to more of your insightful and objective posts (outside of your lane, of course).

 

[Jammer]

BTW NCS_Eng,
The "Aurora's" you refer to were in fact CP-140A Arcturus...X 3...thanks for staying in YOUR lane!

 

[NCS_Eng]

Thanks for the correction. An important point to bring up is that the decision to use Navy money to purchase the aircraft was not forced upon the Navy; rather the brass recognised the importance of being able to form an accurate maritime picture and the importance of the Arcturus in that role. Thus the trade-off was made.

 

[Jammer]

The Arcturus was purchased primarily as an offshore domestic patrol platform. Thus it does not have even half the capabilty the Aurora has.
Can anyone in the MP community amplify on the current disposition of the CP 140As?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

There was no sarcasm there Jammer I was genuinely curious your reasonings...I place all ship classes in italics.

 

[NCS_Eng]

The Arcturus was purchased primarily as an offshore domestic patrol platform. Thus it does not have even half the capabilty the Aurora has.
Can anyone in the MP community amplify on the current disposition of the CP 140As?

I really don't have any clue as to the aircraft or what it does. If you'd asked me yesterday what the difference was I couldn't have told you. It was never my intention to come off as a expert on airforce equipment, or even an expert on naval procurement or design. I was only repeating a sidebar comment as to why the "CPF with Mk48" that Ex-Dragoon brought up never happened, and that it has been discussed in procurement circles before.

I work day-to-day with issues of naval design and procurement, particularly with respect to Combat Systems (Hence the "in my lane" bit); thus I really enjoy threads like these and others about new equipment and platform ideas. My comments were only to underscore that these "obvious" ideas have been looked at one time or another, and give some reasons why this particular idea, while technically possible, was not included in the FELEX upgrades.

 

[Jammer]

None taken mate,
The AEGIS C3I radar and it's capability to mimic what I believe the Navy wanted the emulate in the 280s as the all singing, all dancing destroyer makes it ideal. It is still in production thus lowering price per hull and the current trend for purchasing off the shelf makes it very attractive. Manning be damned, lotsa folks out there looking for adventure.