I would counter than a Land Attack Missile is very much in line with current Canadian Defence aims and Tomahawk has been mentioned a few times, specifically in Leadmark 2050, and in the PBO report on the CSC program as an indicator on the price for Land Attack missiles. However if land attack could be accomplished by something like LRASM I would see that as a more likely option. The SM-2 one is a good question, were they retained when the Iroquois class was retired, even if they were the new ships are at least another 7-10 years out at a minimum. I foresee ESSM, SM-2, LRASM, and from there it’s a crapshoot.
- Sm-3 is extremely expensive. I would rule that out for Canada. No announcement on fitting Aegis capable of BMD system in concert with the existing combat system.
- Tomhawk is also fairly expensive and IMO doesn't fit with Canadian defence aims. Its also quite old.
- ASROC is also I think unlikely.
- Canada already has SM-2 so I would expect them to carry over (upgraded?)
- ESSM is carry over (upgrade?)
- Some new SM-6 would appear to be likely and useful (possibly)
Nope you can't but a Mod can.I am having some serious issues on mobile here, I think it’s likely due to my incompetence but geez.
Is there a specific way to delete a post that was made in error? I have been searching and no luck so far.
I think the Burke is lucky in that it can mount a large rear VLS section and still have space for its smaller air detachment on either side of the VLS, if I am not mistaken the CH-148 requires a significantly larger hangar and this would not allow a centre line VLS (except maybe in the amidships location like the RN Type 26). The other issue is that realistically the RCN can not afford to fill those additional VLS cells with missiles costing in excess of 2 Million Dollars a piece.The proposed CSC has a high end radar and antisubmarine warfare system if aegis is involved in the CMS then it has a great CMS but putting anything less than a 48 cell strike length vls on it is beyond incompetent a Burke is about 2000 tons larger and has a 96 cell vls
I get where your going with this but 48 VLS Cells on a AAW destroyer is the average amount you see on most NATO Destroyers (Type 45, Horizon, Hobart, F-105) and from what we have seen so far is perfectly plausible on the RCN Type 26 and maybe planned as it stands. 32 VLS Cells on the GP/ASW Variant if equipped is pretty impressive as well, it gives you a potential loadout of 128 ESSM Missles which is nothing to scoff at.The cost of the CSC project is estimated between 60 to 64 billion cdn for 15 ships the only models of the proposed CSC I have seen has a 32 cell vls the only pics of the hunter class I have seen has 32 vls ,doing a 6 to 7 yard hull stretch to add 24 to 32 vls plus the cost of the extra missiles would cost probably 200 to 400 million cdn per ship at 400 mil per ship over the 15 ships you would add 6 bill to the total cost so you would go from 66 to 70 bill for the cost of the project roughly 10 percent more the difference would be 15 lightly armed frigates to 15 heavily armed frigates or light destroyers depending on how you would class them or 15 ships with the bare minimum in weapons load to 15 ships that can handle any mission you give them ,the idea that Canada cannot afford a properly funded military is a myth our politicians spend a ton of money on special interest groups to try to get re elected and expect America to defend us cause we're neighbors
That’s fine, but if the Burke Sacrifices 1/3 of its VLS Cells towards Land Attack Missiles that do not help it in the AAW role, it effectively has the same amount of VLS Cells allotted towards Air Defence.Everyone classes ships differently some people do it by size some do it by vls cells over the last 20 years or so ships have gotten larger and more multipurpose the new French fti frigate is 4200 tons and can come with 32 vls the CSC is 7000 tons and has a 32 vls the Halifax class we are replacing are 4700 tons and has no vls ,while I think the type 26 hull is the best design I think it doesn't have enough vls cells,the WW2 standards on ship classes is out of date with the modern technology on warships I consider the USN Burke's a destroyer with 96 vls cells not the type 45 or f 100 with 48 vls cells I consider them frigates
I think it depends on what you want.Everyone classes ships differently some people do it by size some do it by vls cells over the last 20 years or so ships have gotten larger and more multipurpose the new French fti frigate is 4200 tons and can come with 32 vls the CSC is 7000 tons and has a 32 vls the Halifax class we are replacing are 4700 tons and has no vls ,while I think the type 26 hull is the best design I think it doesn't have enough vls cells,the WW2 standards on ship classes is out of date with the modern technology on warships I consider the USN Burke's a destroyer with 96 vls cells not the type 45 or f 100 with 48 vls cells I consider them frigates
I believe the missile loadout of a Burke varies someone depending on what Flight the destroyer is (as that determines actual number of VLS) as well as the area of operations, as that would dictate mission tasking for the vessel. Having said that though, I believe some of the loadouts have had up to half the VLS cells configured for strike roles using LACM. That would leave around 48 cells for AAW for some flights.That’s fine, but if the Burke Sacrifices 1/3 of its VLS Cells towards Land Attack Missiles that do not help it in the AAW role, it effectively has the same amount of VLS Cells allotted towards Air Defence.
@StingrayOZ do have a source / reference for this illustration? Two reasons, one being IP / citing requirements and second, personally I'm interested in the article that you have got it from. Thanks, NM.
Sorry, I should have included it.@StingrayOZ do have a source / reference for this illustration? Two reasons, one being IP / citing requirements and second, personally I'm interested in the article that you have got it from. Thanks, NM.
Ignore the SM-2 block IVA, think SM-3. But not just that, the range of SM-6 makes CEC type data sharing very useful in long range, hard to track or high altitude stuff.Radar measurement data from CEC air units also greatly increase coverage over land, where the altitude of the airborne radar mitigates terrain masking and radar horizon limitations affecting shipboard radars. CEC provides airborne radars the same improvements in track accuracy, track continuity and ID consistency afforded shipboard radars, resulting in improved detection and tracking as well as greater situational awareness.
Additionally, CEC contributes to theater ballistic missile defense by providing a continuous fire-control quality track on the missile from acquisition through splash. Although each ship is only able to maintain track for part of the missile flight, the CEC composite track, based on all the data, is continuous. Cues based on the composite track allow the downrange ships to detect the target earlier and to maintain track longer. The CEC cues and relay of composite track data will also allow defending ships maximum battle space in which to engage theater ballistic missiles when the SM-2 Block IVA missile becomes available.