Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
I suspect because there are now a bunch of options for self defence capability, that no one really sought that capability anymore in new builds.
While making a shorter VLS may seem like a great way to have capability in tight spaces, in practicality, it it often requires the same power, desk space, deluge etc. It isn't appreciably lighter. And the mass is also located higher, when loaded. Often top weight margins are critical on military ships so while it may seem doable before sitting down and trying to fit it, on actually engineering the solution it is not.
There are better ways to address the issues.
Which is why I imagine searam is quite likely to appear. Its a MOTS system, basically requiring no redesign or re-engineering, space weight, power, blast, cooling, water would all be included.
The ship can carry multiple launchers, and it is possible, at least theoretically, to reload at sea. Combined with quad pack VLS of ESSM, some SM-2, this is probably more firepower than Canada is looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if the searam launchers are built for but not with!
If however things do go bananas, and Canada does want to build something more capable, those pesky Australians are already there with a modified design with 32 vls up the front and carrying 96 VLS if you want to build a full on destroyer/cruiser specialized air defence vessel. There is no reason to delay building and redesign the ship just to fit weapons it wasn't really designed for and integrate systems, not already integrated.
While I know the plan for Canada is for 15 ships of exactly the same spec. It is entirely possible they could all be Type 26 base design, but vary in spec. This would be much cheaper and less risky than trying to create a jack of all ship.
While making a shorter VLS may seem like a great way to have capability in tight spaces, in practicality, it it often requires the same power, desk space, deluge etc. It isn't appreciably lighter. And the mass is also located higher, when loaded. Often top weight margins are critical on military ships so while it may seem doable before sitting down and trying to fit it, on actually engineering the solution it is not.
There are better ways to address the issues.
Which is why I imagine searam is quite likely to appear. Its a MOTS system, basically requiring no redesign or re-engineering, space weight, power, blast, cooling, water would all be included.
The ship can carry multiple launchers, and it is possible, at least theoretically, to reload at sea. Combined with quad pack VLS of ESSM, some SM-2, this is probably more firepower than Canada is looking for. I wouldn't be surprised if the searam launchers are built for but not with!
If however things do go bananas, and Canada does want to build something more capable, those pesky Australians are already there with a modified design with 32 vls up the front and carrying 96 VLS if you want to build a full on destroyer/cruiser specialized air defence vessel. There is no reason to delay building and redesign the ship just to fit weapons it wasn't really designed for and integrate systems, not already integrated.
While I know the plan for Canada is for 15 ships of exactly the same spec. It is entirely possible they could all be Type 26 base design, but vary in spec. This would be much cheaper and less risky than trying to create a jack of all ship.
It is generally accepted that this class will be built in 3 batches (or, if substantially modified, flights), the first 3 comprising Batch 1, and the following 6 being a modified version of the "baseline" Batch 1 ships. Those will comprise the 9 by 2040 that the press release from last week references. The remaining 6 are assumed to be substantially different, and I've even seen some supposition on other forums these may not even be GCS/T26 based. I do believe the Navy still wants more VLS however, and I believe they want this for the Batch 2 ships. How this all shakes out will be interesting.
With regards to SeaRAM, I don't think that is likely. Everything I've read (including the updated Wikipedia entry - I know!), indicates it will be the 21-cell Mk49 GMLS.
It's dated 2013. Bottom right corner, second page. I don't recall seeing any mentions in the last 10 years.
It's curious though - those are both live documents on the LM website. If LM wasn't still able to produce the SDL module, you would think someone would have amended or removed this document.
Underway
Member
Ships will be build in 4 flights. 3, 4, 4, 4 ships for each flight respectively. Each flight will be different from the next one guaranteed as lessons are learned and naval warfare evolves. I'm confident ship 1, 2 and 3 will be different from each other in some ways.
Those future batches would be good opportunities to look at packing more in and enlarging the design and finding design optimizations to maximize space etc. The ships may have more specific specialised roles as the build goes on, and that the first ships may be the least specialised, and the most generalist. That will mean the earliest ships will be very useful for training and design/specing for future ships
I think I have been using SeaRAM a bit generically to describe anything with a RIM116/RAM. I don't think Canada is looking for the redundancy and automaticness of seaRAM I think you are right they are probably mk49 RAM launchers cued by the ships systems. 2x21 would be a reasonable capability, and on top of decent load (32-64 quad pack) of ESSM bk II capability, really good layered defence.
I don't think CAMM would have offered anything significantly better. This is still a very capable outcome, perhaps more so. While CAMM has really good short range performance, RAM is built for that.
I was told by an insider that the self-defence length VLS was incompatible with ESSM (not sure which version) and would require design modifications to make it so. LM didn't see that effort as economically viable and just decided to stop offering it.
Thanks @Underway. I was using the quote from Admiral Topshee in CDR, though he did qualify his statement with a '"likely", so it seems that the plan has once again evolved. It seemed to jibe well with the press release last week that the RCN was going to have 9 ships (3+6) by 2040, with 6 more to produce by 2050. However, 3,4,4,4 is frankly better anyway, if staying ahead of threats and obsolescence is the goal (which it should be!).
Here is a pretty good write-up in Naval Lookout: A guide to the future Canadian Surface Combatant – the River-class destroyers | Navy Lookout
Last edited:
Underway
Member
I thought that article was pretty good, only a few errors that were relatively minor. I like their infographic they created as well, pointing out a few things I hadn't noticed. I have it on relatively good authority that the current aft silo is empty right now, as the RAM change was fairly recent (hence no change to the infographic picture). Leave it empty, space for future growth, or even a storage location for hangar top maintence tools is not a bad choice at this point.
Here is an interesting size comparison between the ships:
River Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 20.75m, Displacement 8080 tonnes
Hunter Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 21.4m, Displacement 8,167 -8800 tonnes (light vs full load)
City Class: Length 149.9m Beam 20.8m, Displacement 7700 - 8000 tonnes (light vs full load)
Here is an interesting size comparison between the ships:
River Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 20.75m, Displacement 8080 tonnes
Hunter Class: Length 151.4m, Beam 21.4m, Displacement 8,167 -8800 tonnes (light vs full load)
City Class: Length 149.9m Beam 20.8m, Displacement 7700 - 8000 tonnes (light vs full load)