Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Here's another link on the River class changes.
Canadian Navy reveals latest modifications to River-Class Destroyer - Navy Lookout

StingrayOZ said:

Was the change in:

• main gun mk45
• single RAM
• Lionfish RWS

Communicated before?

I'm not that surprised at the main gun the automation takes up significant space. Single RAM launcher and its location is interesting. The mysterbox I would guess at Nulka or similar, but apparently not.

Australia significantly upsized its design to allow its radar, multiple CIWS, 16 naval launchers, 32 VLS, etc. The Canadian mast looks bigger than what the UK is fitting so that may have eaten into the top weight margin for such systems.

Click to expand...

The main gun change was not "communicated" but known by defence watchers and such as they noticed the Leonardo contract was canceled. Both the Germans and Dutch are having issues with the Leonardo 127mm integration. Much less integration risk.

Also some media sources are stating that there is some space for an extra 8 VLS. I am guessing here but perhaps the change in main gun allows more room (the Leonardo 127mm has a revolver/drum loading system that takes up more space below decks than the Mk45). As the ship is ASW focused they are still discussing whether to add the 8 now or wait until the first three are built and re-evaluate (True North Strategic Review - Substack)

Main RAM position is to increase arcs and likely keep all the exhaust effluent away from intakes and other important equipment. The expected/predicted position by many of us armchair ship designers was for the RAM was to be where the UK is placing their CIWS, midships on the breezeway beside the main stack. That's directly beside the air intakes for the main GT. Probably not ideal to pull missile exhaust chemicals into the GT if you can avoid it! So moving the RAM atop the hangar with better arcs port and stbd is a good solution. Putting it port side avoids any challenges (maint, safety, heat, exhaust particle damage etc...) with it being directly beside Diesel exhaust stacks (on the stbd side of the hangar).

The NSM on the stbd side I suspect/suppose is to counteract some of the RAM weight/stability effects and keep the two missile type operations from damaging each other.

Since you posted this, it has been confirmed that the "mystery boxes of doom" are LEED launchers on the port/stbd side amidships. I count 18 (another angle of the ship model shows them mirrored on each side).

LEED - Long Endurance Electronic Decoy - essentially a larger longer endurance Nulka with more EW options (possibly including IR).

My favourite part of the new model is the mast design. They've taken the cone head and converted it to what looks like a bit like a dorsal fin (shark fin mast!) as its longer than wide. As cool as that looks the important part is that they seem to have managed to make it an integrated mast, without having to use a dedicated comms masts (like the T26 and Hunter class). The ae that don't fit on that mast are distributed.
The removal of the ExLS has allowed them to mount HF whip antenna where it used to be as well as VHF, UHF etc.. antennae on the hangar top below the RAM arcs.

Underway said:

Also some media sources are stating that there is some space for an extra 8 VLS. I am guessing here but perhaps the change in main gun allows more room (the Leonardo 127mm has a revolver/drum loading system that takes up more space below decks than the Mk45). As the ship is ASW focused they are still discussing whether to add the 8 now or wait until the first three are built and re-evaluate (True North Strategic Review - Substack)

Click to expand...

Have a look at the images contained in the links below:

RIVER CLASS Destroyer

Type 26 Frigate

If you look at the upper deck area around the VLS, you can see T26 has x2 missile silo's, x1 in front of the other, While the RCD only has the AFT set up, so while there's space that used to be a magazine / silo, you can bet your bottom dollar that the RCN / ship designers are already utilising that space for something else. KNOWING what AGEIS is like, it will likely mean that there;s a computer room, or a power distribution room, as the system is power hungry.

From memory the UK orientates its VLS launchers 'differently; from the preferred US layout & it may be possible to do this & 'incorporate' an extra x8 cells. But most missile system require a hefty base / seat to accept the modules & I think that IF you were designing the ship from scratch you could do this. I think it's a bit to late for RCD. Remember the launchers are circa x3 ship decks high( Mk41 VLS Naval Launcher).

Finally, the launcher modules take up 2/3rds of the width of the ship in the area where the ship is still dealing with the 'bow-flare', as it transitions to the maximum beam of the ship, so by putting in x4 modules, how much actual space would there be for passageways / cable & electrical routing / HVAC / Pipework, noting that Magazine design rules pretty much stop you from running ANYTHING thru the compartment, unless it services the missile silo ?

Batch #2 would need a radical redesign & then questions of following the Arleigh-Burke design (x1 launcher FWd, x1 Aft, with x2 modules in each), which in turn would logically point to losing the Mission bay capability from the design, effectively mean a 'brand new' ship design, ALL at great additional costs...

SMALL incremental changes between batches makes sense, radical redesign kills your overall capital budget / reduces the number of ships you can actually buy...

If the Hunter does indeed have 32 Mk 41cells, from the various depictions it looks like they are in four blocks abreast across the ship. See the overhead in this Navy Lookout article: Adding firepower to the Type 26 Frigate - Navy Lookout

Presumably the RCD as currently planned has 3. Given the size and weight of the Mk 41 blocks (they would need to be symmetrical about the centreline), the only use of the additional space would seem to be for wider passageways, so it might certainly be possible. However, it seems an unlikely sort of mod to be retrofitted.

Systems Adict said:

SMALL incremental changes between batches makes sense, radical redesign kills your overall capital budget / reduces the number of ships you can actually buy...

Click to expand...

If I was Canada I would be trying to minimise large changes on the first batch of ships. It would be more important to get the construction of the ships started and in the water. Canada intends to build a reasonable number, and 24 VLS isn't terrible and more than serviceable, if they want to evolve the design, different weapons, different configurations, then future batches it may be better to bundle together as the evolution to do that. If they want to do that, there is already an Type 26 partner that is going down that road, so might be best to learn from Australia's experience, and if Canada then wants to shift to the hull to Australian baseline, it would have been de-risked, proven design by then.

While that is true, the increase of beam in the an Australian ships has more to do with stability and the mast structure than the VLS; the standard design handle 32.

spoz said:

While that is true, the increase of beam in the an Australian ships has more to do with stability and the mast structure than the VLS; the standard design handle 32.

Click to expand...

I would presume if Canada wanted more VLS and a more air defence capability, they may look at enhanced radar. Having the Hunter hull there, de-risked would be awfully attractive. There would be an existing user, upgrade path, intergration, all done. AU-UK-CA would happily share radar capability, the Canadians are already buying JORN.

A few more missiles doesn't really change the game. 8 more VLS isn't going to blow China/Russia out of the water.

Australia already has proposals for a lot more than 32 VLS, a potentially much more capable radar. But still of the same basic platform, training pipelines etc. If they had 6 of the 15 in a configuration like that it would give them lots of options.

I imagine the issue with small number of VLS is a bigger issue when large VLS cells become popular. G-VLS is 34" compared to 25" mk41 VLS.