Underway
Member
Then how do we explain the brand new fact sheet on the RCN page?
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Underway
Member
Hunter class is named after a person. Vice Admiral John Hunter who was a Governer of New South Wales. So they named it after a politician. Not nearly as aggressive now is it! Lol
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Could have been worse could have named it after another former RN Officer and later a Governor of NSW.
Bligh class just wouldn't cut it.
The 3 Hunters so far named are named not just after people, but people who have also had major regions named after them.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The new fact sheet does not mention CAMM or ExLS, items which have been ordered. Haven’t seen any cancellation notices. Adding RAM may be a consequence of the recent Red Sea events assuming the new graphic fact sheet is accurate.
Underway
Member
Absolute possiblitiy. But CAMM being ordered and CAMM contract being finalized are two different things. 10 years to IOC from right now, at least 8 years before they even load a single missile onboard. The contract awarded may only have been for integration work, and IP information.
4 missile types seems like a lot.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Four types does seem excessive although if “stuff” hits the fan, having options on resupply isn’t a bad thing.
One possibility is that it's an old one dragged out by some junior PR person which has had "River class" stuck on. Things like that have happened. I'd expect it to have been reversed rather quickly, though.
I don't know what's happening. The lack of any reference to the previous three years of images & information is suprising. I want to see something official which says that the weapons fit has been changed, & the CAMM contract has been cancelled. That would confirm that the current image & information is correct.
MBDA's press releases, & conversations with the press, were quite clear. The contract was for Sea Ceptor, not preparatory work in case of an order.
Agreed.
BTW, one thing that's been said here is that the change would be easier, because of integration of CAMM with AEGIS. But CAMM has already been integrated with CMS 330, & is in service on Chilean navy ships to which it - & CMS 330 - were fitted in Canada.
Underway
Member
And RNZN Anzac class as well.
Aegis is the Above water suite and CMS 330 (now called Canadian Tactical Interface IIRC) is the below water system. So AFAIK no integration with Sea Cepter has been done for Aegis before. The US also is very very restrictive on foreign countries changing Aegis. Asking them to integrate a new missile type might just have gotten an answer of "No, you bought Aegis, you deal with the missiles that are already in the library."
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Does anyone know where they added in the 1.5 extra meters in length? The Type 26 is 1.5 meters shorter than the River Class.
Underway
Member
No idea.
@swerve quoted from the other thread but moving it here.
Reached out for some more info. Take with a pinch of salt. RAM isn't going to be VLS, its in 2xMk59 launchers amid ships (port and stbd) where the RAN and RN are placing their CIWS. Sea Ceptor is right out. No plans going forward to add it. That moves the needle to 42 RAM available for the CIADS on the Rivers vice 24 CAMM or RAM on a VLS. And of course there is a reload at sea capability that isn't avaliable for CAMM that RAM can use.
What goes into the aft silo then? No idea. Maybe growth space for the future.
It will be interesting to see this play out, I do think it makes a lot of sense. As for the aft silo area; I would like to see them move the ESSM's here. It's not efficient putting ESSM's in strike length Mk41's - lots of wasted space in those tubes. These MK41 cells should be reserved for large missiles, especially since there are only 24 of them.
BAE Systems to design Next Generation RIM-162 ESSM Launch System for US Navy (armyrecognition.com)
Not a lot of info out there on this, but sounds like BAE is developing a new deck mounted launcher for ESSM based on their previously shown Adaptive Deck Launcher concept. I wounder if something like this could be installed above the mission bay where the ExLS was? - could be way too heavy but I'm hopeful since it's designed specifically to fire ESSM that they will make it as light weight as possible.
Mk 49? - Mk 59 is a decoy launcher; Mk 49 is the Phalanx replacement. But that makes sense; and it’s how you’d expect RAM to be mounted quite frankly. Still an interesting change of direction. Wonder why they’re not shown on the drawing; and from an Australian point of view whether we’ll follow suit.
Last edited:
Underway
Member
Yah oops Mk 49 GMLS. Typo. Mk 15 Mod 32 is the Phalanx replacement.
Australia might follow. They for sure have been sharing info and comparing notes.
Underway
Member
Given the dimentions of the ExLS and the Sea Ceptor launcher the UK is using there might be space to add a Self Defence length Mk41 VLS into the aft silo area. However I can think of a few concerns. Weight of that systems is higher then ExLS, it migh require armour around it as its a hot launch missile not a cold launch missle and the weight of the missiles that would be in there (for an 8 pack that's 32 ESSM) is also much higher. I don't think they make Mk41's in groups smaller than 8 packs.
But if you could make it work that free's up the forward silo to take SM2's and strike missiles only. A combo of 42 RAM, 32 ESSM2 feels like a decent self defence loadout before you even start filling up the 24 strike length VLS.
The SDL Mk 41 seems to have disappeared from LM's literature a while ago. Everything I've seen for some years has mentioned only tactical & strike. I think the current VLS for ESSM only is Mk 56. See Mexican Sigma class. That's quite a lot shorter, & I've seen it said that it saves weight in other ways.
Mk 41 tactical with quadpack ESSM would be much heavier than ExLS with the same number of CAMM (the missiles are almost three times the weight & the launchers are heavier) & topweight could be a problem, but using Mk 56 should mitigate that. Also, shouldn't need the same number of ESSM as CAMM, with 42 ready for use RAM & potentially more stored.
LM now advertises a single cell launcher, also available in packs of 2, 3, 4 & 6 tactical & strike length - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._Cell_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
Mk 41 tactical with quadpack ESSM would be much heavier than ExLS with the same number of CAMM (the missiles are almost three times the weight & the launchers are heavier) & topweight could be a problem, but using Mk 56 should mitigate that. Also, shouldn't need the same number of ESSM as CAMM, with 42 ready for use RAM & potentially more stored.
LM now advertises a single cell launcher, also available in packs of 2, 3, 4 & 6 tactical & strike length - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont..._Cell_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
IIRC the Mk 48 Mod 3 VLS are also ESSM capable lightweight VLS cells, with three pairs of VLS cells able to be arranged in StanFlex modules as used by the Danes. The Mk 56 VLS cells I believe can be twin-packed with ESSM and can also fit three pairs of VLS cells per StanFlex module.
This suggests that there are options available if there is a need or desire to fit VLS cells dedicated to ESSM.
Danish Mk48 were rebuilt into "sort of" Mk56, mostly by switching out the controller and modifying the brackets on top of the Stanflex foundation for the ESSM launch containers. There is no production of this kind of combination system, it was all modification of old units.
Mk56 is effectively an updated Mk48 launch assembly with a controller specifically for ESSM and modified to be able to be sold in variable configurations of between one and four side-by-side exhaust tubes (Danish Stanflex Mk48 modules have three) with between two (one side) and four (both sides) associated launch containers per exhaust. The resulting maximum limit of 16 missiles per Mk56 module is primarily due to that being the hard limit of the ESSM controller.
Fairly sure there hasn't been any Mk48 production in the last 30 years.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Will be interesting to see the next graphic on he River class showing the “new” missile configuration.