Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

Take the model with a grain of salt. I don’t think we are getting back to 30 plus Mk41 cells until after ship #3…

 

[suffolkowner]

Grain of salt .. pretty sure the design for the River class was locked in before this model but who knows. Note 32 cell VLS.

do you see a link to the naval news interview with LM about our program. Trying to find it

 

[Rainbow1910]

That is an ancient CSC model that LM keeps dragging along to various conferences, it and everything about it is years out of date. 24 cells is what we’re sitting at now.

 

[Underway]

Me, I'm just waiting for the announcement that Canada is going to build CSC for them...

They did talk to Canada and Australia to get their input. I filled out info requests from the UK regarding JSS when they were looking at their new AOR design. Norway did the same across NATO. But for obvious reasons they were probably not going to order from us. No capacity for one... higher risk than the UK or Germany building for them.

 

[Underway]

That is an ancient CSC model that LM keeps dragging along to various conferences, it and everything about it is years out of date. 24 cells is what we’re sitting at now.

Well 24 cells and 42 CIAD missiles. I do wonder what's happening to the ExLS position on the ship.

8x Self Defence Length mk 41 might fit in there (as opposed to tactical or strike length) but I'm not sure those even exist anymore and if they do can they even quad pack ESSM?

 

[Rainbow1910]

Well 24 cells and 42 CIAD missiles. I do wonder what's happening to the ExLS position on the ship.

8x Self Defence Length mk 41 might fit in there (as opposed to tactical or strike length) but I'm not sure those even exist anymore and if they do can they even quad pack ESSM?

Self Defence length Mark 41 cells can fit munitions up to 5.2m long missiles, so ESSM could fit with its 3.66m length. From what I can gather, it was never picked up by any export customers and isn't in active production. The longest missile ExLS can fit is the 3.2m long CAMM, so I would wager there might be issues retrofitting self defence or the longer (6.7m long) tactical length Mark 41 where ExLS previously sat. You begin getting dangerously close to going through the roof of the mission bay or having to make the cells jut higher from the deck.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I thought they were using the ExLS space to site a reload locker for the RAM?

 

[Underway]

Self Defence length Mark 41 cells can fit munitions up to 5.2m long missiles, so ESSM could fit with its 3.66m length. From what I can gather, it was never picked up by any export customers and isn't in active production. The longest missile ExLS can fit is the 3.2m long CAMM, so I would wager there might be issues retrofitting self defence or the longer (6.7m long) tactical length Mark 41 where ExLS previously sat. You begin getting dangerously close to going through the roof of the mission bay or having to make the cells jut higher from the deck.

ExLS dimensions are about the same as the self defense length ones in depth. The main difference would be in 8 cells vs 6 cells wide.

I thought they were using the ExLS space to site a reload locker for the RAM?

Yes, the space still belongs to Combat Systems Dept.

There might be a version of this where there is a single RAM placed on top of the flex/hangar space. Another option is that the ExLS space turns into the mount for the RAM to get it higher, and that mount space underneath becomes the magazine or tool locker for the RAM.

Or its just left for future equipment growth, which is not a bad idea either.

We don't actually know where the RAM will go, and are assuming that it will be placed where the CIWS for the Hunter and City class are placing them (amidships port and stbd). Perhaps they have another more optimal location in mind Iike I stated above, and will have a single launcher instead of two.

 

[Rainbow1910]

ExLS dimensions are about the same as the self defense length ones in depth. The main difference would be in 8 cells vs 6 cells wide.


Yes, the space still belongs to Combat Systems Dept.

There might be a version of this where there is a single RAM placed on top of the flex/hangar space. Another option is that the ExLS space turns into the mount for the RAM to get it higher, and that mount space underneath becomes the magazine or tool locker for the RAM.

Or its just left for future equipment growth, which is not a bad idea either.

We don't actually know where the RAM will go, and are assuming that it will be placed where the CIWS for the Hunter and City class are placing them (amidships port and stbd). Perhaps they have another more optimal location in mind Iike I stated above, and will have a single launcher instead of two.

Interesting, I wasn't aware the standalone launchers were the same dimensions vertically. You might be able to fit additional tubes width wise there by moving the NSM launchers around but that doesn't speak for topweight and stability requirements.

I would hope they would retain one 21 shot launcher per side for a total of 42 missiles, as downgrading from 24 CAMM to only 21 RAM is a rather upsetting loss in capability without gaining back additional cells somewhere. ESSM does cover the loss of CAMM somewhat but the 24 cells are already going to be a bit log jammed between SM-2 and ESSM, not even considering Tomahawk or any other future systems into the mix. Having nearly double the original CAMM loadout in RAM was quite nice in an era where drones and saturation is becoming more of a threat, having potentially less capable missiles in lesser numbers does not bode well.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Interesting, I wasn't aware the standalone launchers were the same dimensions vertically. You might be able to fit additional tubes width wise there by moving the NSM launchers around but that doesn't speak for topweight and stability requirements.

I would hope they would retain one 21 shot launcher per side for a total of 42 missiles, as downgrading from 24 CAMM to only 21 RAM is a rather upsetting loss in capability without gaining back additional cells somewhere. ESSM does cover the loss of CAMM somewhat but the 24 cells are already going to be a bit log jammed between SM-2 and ESSM, not even considering Tomahawk or any other future systems into the mix. Having nearly double the original CAMM loadout in RAM was quite nice in an era where drones and saturation is becoming more of a threat, having potentially less capable missiles in lesser numbers does not bode well.

It could be an even greater disparity in missile count were they to select a single SeaRam system as it only carries 11.