Yah I don't trust models anymore either. There are generalities that are going to happen (general lines, flight deck, flex deck, bridge position etc...) but as far as missile number and placement those change quite a bit once the individual line items are being discussed. I've seen CSC models with various modifications. The model maker has no special insight.
Honestly what I expect is the following with my reasons:
1) 24 Strike Length Mk 41 VLS on in the VLS closest to the bridge - same as the UK and Australian version, no changes to design
2) 8 tactical or self defence length Mk41 VLS on the ones placed furthest forward - the internal design of the ship in the UK version has CAMM there. A self defence length will require limited changes in the design for space. This will also allow for 32 quad packed ESSM for self defence.
3) 6 ExLS for CAMM amidships - same logic as above, CAMM are going to be placed here so your 24 Quad packed CAMM missiles will go here as well. Of note the ExLS allow for the launch of Nulka, Helfire Longbow missiles as well, changing the flexibility equation for the CSC to include EW decoys or close range anti-surface.
@ Underway - Apologies for shortening down your post, but I want to focus very specifically on the comments about missiles.
I appreciate that this may be long & data heavy, but it should clarify things :
Strike length VLS:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...aunchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf
Based on the data it's
25 feet long...
Tactical Length VLS:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
Based on the data it's
22 feet long...
CAAM / Sea Ceptor:
CAMM (missile family) - Wikipedia
Based on the data it's 3.2m Long (Approx.
10.5 (10 & 1/2 feet)
ESSM:
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) - Naval Technology
Based on the data it is approx.
12 feet long
So we have the missile length data...
But what EXACTLY are these missiles being used for ?
WHAT are the mission profiles for CSC ?
HOW does having the specific order/types of missile detail, actually enhance the capability of the ship & its mission / role profile ?
These questions are the ones that the RCN will be asking & providing answers for, as these will drive the missile types / quantities that they want to have on board.
Next - Missile positioning /.configuration:
WHY has each of the x3 nations that have bought these ship designs done what they have / arranged the missiles in the way they have ?
IMHO - It has been done due to the practicalities of the design mixed with the response to the x3 'questions' above.
For instance Mk 41 variants - Does it make sense to have x2 silos, side-by-side (
technically x1 in front of the other), for different missiles, when I'm sure LM offer a 'standard' launcher that can take either / or within a 24 cell launcher assembly ?? If the missile is 25 feet long, the launcher assembly MUST be bigger, to contain structural element to cope with the stresses of missile launching, possibly with a plenum / containment tank below to catch all the detritus & debris from a launch ? This would take the launcher assembly to maybe 40 feet high...? Having x2 of these at the front of the ship, where the ship only really starts to open out in width will eat into a big hunk of space, meaning that things like aux machinery spaces / accommodation / offices for officers / management & the like, all have to be moved / shuffled.
Air conditioning plant rooms / Electrical distribution rooms / weapon systems equipment rooms / stores, etc., as well as all the obvious pipework / fluid / HVAC / cabling services all need space too, so at this 'choke point', something has to give in the design, to allow the ship to work properly, so it makes perfect sense that VLS is at the rear & a shorter missile is directly in front of it.
Similarly, the mission bay takes up a whole swathe of the mid-ships / upper hull area & I'm sure similar compromises are being made as they attempt to fit in air intakes for the engines, the exhausts & a myriad of other essential equipment & services that have to be squished into the lower decks within the hull, so the Mission Bay will fit / work.
Getting back to the types / quantities - Canada is NOT the USA & while having MORE missiles can be handy, Canada's naval vessels are intended to be more general purpose (all things to all men), & have a slightly different role in comparison to an Arleigh Burke or an FFG(X), so the necessity to carry more missile isn't (
IMHO) a priority.