Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Calculus]

Do you think those could be twin ExLS launchers?

Lockheed ExLS

Not saying it is CAMM but the cells look similar.

Looking further, maybe they are Single Cell Launchers

Jack, you were the first to postulate CAMM as an option on CSC, many moons ago in post 1392 (kudos!), and I explored it a bit in post 1404 as well. MBDA has certainly been advertising very heavily in Canada the last few years. Maybe that has paid off. I think you might be correct these are ExLS cells, in which case the lack of SeaRAM launchers in the model shown in the video might make sense, if they have decided to fit CAMM into those 6 launchers instead of RAM, for CIADS. That would give them 24 CAMM for CIADS, and presumably ESSM would be available from an undefined number of the forward MK 41 cells. Pretty potent mix. I have my CANSEC pass, so hopefully I will be able to see this model in person and ask some questions.

ExLS brochure:

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

, if they have decided to fit CAMM into those 6 launchers instead of RAM, for CIADS. That would give them 24 CAMM for CIADS, and presumably ESSM would be available from an undefined number of the forward MK 41 cells. Pretty potent mix. I have my CANSEC pass, so hopefully I will be able to see this model in person and ask some questions.

I was thinking the same thing; but after a second look, the cells appear to be rectangular not square, so I started leaning towards SCL. My thoughts were that RAM and ESSM are about the same price (about US$1M each). Considering that, I would rather have ESSM than RAM given the better range and the ability to fire in any direction with a VLS (as opposed to only firing one side of the ship for each SEARAM launcher). As with CAMM, 6 SCL cells would hold 24 ESSM. So for a similar cost you get 24 ESSM instead of 22 RAM.

If this is what they have decided, I would like to see the Phalanx CIWS replace the SEARAM launcher to keep the lasts ditch defense.

What I can't find is a cost estimate for CAMM so it is difficult to do a trade-off on cost of CAMM vs cost of ESSM and RAM; but I could easily see the same logic. I don't think it is CAMM though, as the British type 26 already has a solution for 24 CAMM cells in this area, so why change the design?

I am thinking that they want to provide a base missile defense with 24 x ESSM for all the frigates, and then change the loadout in the 32 Cells up front depending on duty. Put 32 SM-2 for the AAW ship (I believe that's what was on the Iroquois), or a combination of ASROC, ESSM, Tomohawk? for the ASW version. The options are nearly unlimited.

It will be a very flexible and capable ship if the model is accurate.

One other comment, I think the ASW launchers are not harpoon, I think it is either NSM or LRASM (lockheed might be pushing this).

I look forward to reading what you find out at CANSEC. Please take some pics if you can.

 

[Calculus]

Hmmm. Very interesting. SCL would indeed seem a possibility. Here's the brochure:

 

[Calculus]

This was the model on display at CANSEC last year. Those 6 VLS cells shown in the video in post 1719 (aft of the funnel) are not shown here, but SeaRAM clearly is. Something has clearly changed in the intervening 12 months. CANSEC 2019 is going to be very interesting.

 

[Systems Adict]

Do you think those could be twin ExLS launchers?

Lockheed ExLS

Not saying it is CAMM but the cells look similar.

Looking further, maybe they are Single Cell Launchers

Based on the comments & the look at the Single Cell VLS Brochure, those x6 cells CANNOT be VLS.

VLS generally occupy about x3 decks of space vertically. THAT would put them at the forward end of & in the middle of the Mission Bay. Would sorta cramp your style filling the space out with X amount of TEU's & Y quantity of boats

The sad thing is that model makers will be given access to the live data on the ship design, but will be guided by the shipbuilder, so there may be a little 'subterfuge' (to keep people like us guessing), or they've used just what they have available / can order.

I'm not denying that it's an ideal position for missiles (IIRC, T26 has her aft silo in a similar area), but VLS is just too tall

 

[spoz]

I think I must be going blind- all I can see immediately abaft the funnel, besides the SSMs, are the decoy launchers. Where abouts in relation to them?

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

I think I must be going blind- all I can see immediately abaft the funnel, besides the SSMs, are the decoy launchers. Where abouts in relation to them?

You need to look at the Video that Calculus posted in #1719, it shows 6 cells of something between the sat domes.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Based on the comments & the look at the Single Cell VLS Brochure, those x6 cells CANNOT be VLS.

VLS generally occupy about x3 decks of space vertically. THAT would put them at the forward end of & in the middle of the Mission Bay. Would sorta cramp your style filling the space out with X amount of TEU's & Y quantity of boats

The sad thing is that model makers will be given access to the live data on the ship design, but will be guided by the shipbuilder, so there may be a little 'subterfuge' (to keep people like us guessing), or they've used just what they have available / can order.

I'm not denying that it's an ideal position for missiles (IIRC, T26 has her aft silo in a similar area), but VLS is just too tall

I must defer to your expertise, and yes, I agree the VLS cells are to long (at ~300 inches). This points back to ExLS which are about half that height. But I have a hard time thinking it could be CAMM.

Is it possible the cells are something else entirely? I am not an expert in any sense, so just asking the community what they think they are.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Some questions from those in the know?

What do we think the small caliber cannons are either side of the hangar? Type and caliber?

With Scheers commitment to ABM defence is it likely that SM6 would be incorporated on some of the T26?

As much as I would love to see Tomahawks with a maple leaf affixed to their warheads I cant see this happening.

NSM I think would be an improvement over Harpoon and with its NATO acceptance on both sides of the Atlantic it will likely become the standard.

We used to have ASROCs on the DDEs and I think there is a gap that this weapon system can fill in RCN CONOPS of the 2030s and beyond.

Reading elsewhere the Skeldar RPAS has been chosen by the RCN but little has been talked about the acquisition including numbers or when the first units will arrive and deploy.

 

[John Fedup]

I think the SM6 will eventually be part of the RCN missile inventory regardless of Andrew Scheer's plan to join the BMD program. Should he get elected and carry through with joining the BMD program then the SM3 may also be in the RCN inventory. Two hurdles, getting elected then keeping his promise....we are talking about pollies so lots of "ifs".

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I question the need for the small caliber cannon and Phalanx. Why not replace both with the 35 mm Millenium gun? Far more multi purpose and effective than Phalanx

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Double post. Sorry

 

[Systems Adict]

Some questions from those in the know?

What do we think the small caliber cannons are either side of the hangar? Type and caliber?

UK RN uses 30mm DSM Mark 2s on T45 & generally has some form of 30mm cannon on most of the other ships, from OPV's & mine hunters thru to the carriers & RFA vessels (not disputing that some of them use the Bushmaster barrels, but we'll stick with the simplistic approach of 30mm guns)

30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun - Wikipedia

Not being sure of what the Canadian fleet has, they could look at things like this...

MSI-DS SEAHAWK DS A2 - MSI Defence Systems

...or the 30mm Bushmaster...

USA 30 mm (1.2") Bushmaster II Mark 46 Mod 1 and 40 mm (1.57") Bushmaster II - NavWeaps

In the frigate / destroyer field, it does make sense to have BOTH weapons (Phalanx & 30mm), as they each do different tasks.

Phalanx is the CIWS, & is generally for shooting down incoming missiles as a last resort, or it could be used to kill drones or aircraft.

30mm can be used as a surface deterrent, for incoming boats, or against aircraft / land based targets..

SA

 

[Calculus]

UK RN uses 30mm DSM Mark 2s on T45 & generally has some form of 30mm cannon on most of the other ships, from OPV's & mine hunters thru to the carriers & RFA vessels (not disputing that some of them use the Bushmaster barrels, but we'll stick with the simplistic approach of 30mm guns)

30mm DS30M Mark 2 Automated Small Calibre Gun - Wikipedia

Not being sure of what the Canadian fleet has, they could look at things like this...

MSI-DS SEAHAWK DS A2 - MSI Defence Systems

...or the 30mm Bushmaster...

USA 30 mm (1.2") Bushmaster II Mark 46 Mod 1 and 40 mm (1.57") Bushmaster II - NavWeaps

In the frigate / destroyer field, it does make sense to have BOTH weapons (Phalanx & 30mm), as they each do different tasks.

Phalanx is the CIWS, & is generally for shooting down incoming missiles as a last resort, or it could be used to kill drones or aircraft.

30mm can be used as a surface deterrent, for incoming boats, or against aircraft / land based targets..

SA

Or perhaps a variant of the BAE Mk38 (25mm) selected for the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels.

This was shown at CANSEC in 2017, and given the focus on the drone threat, may be a good choice: Naval drone defence [CANSEC17D2] | Jane's 360

 

[Calculus]

I must defer to your expertise, and yes, I agree the VLS cells are to long (at ~300 inches). This points back to ExLS which are about half that height. But I have a hard time thinking it could be CAMM.

Not sure Jack. I think CAMM could very well be in the mix. I visited the MBDA booth last year at CANSEC, and they were very much pushing CAMM for the CSC CIADS requirement. This was even reported locally in Ottawa Business Journal, as well as internationally by Janes's: Sea Ceptor pitched for CSC CIADS [CANSEC18D1] | Jane's 360

Given @Systems Adict's keen observations in post 1725, I think the only logical conclusion is ExLS. Unless, as you yourself mentioned, these are something different entirely. However, given SeaRAM has disappeared, and CIADS remains a requirement for CSC, something had to replace that system. With the sudden appearance of these cells in this latest model, it is logical to assume SeaRAM has been replaced by Sea Ceptor.

Another thing to remember is Sea Ceptor has now been integrated into CMS330 as a result of the Kiwi frigate upgrades.

 

[Calculus]

I think I must be going blind- all I can see immediately abaft the funnel, besides the SSMs, are the decoy launchers. Where abouts in relation to them?

Spoz, you can see them at 07:56, 08:23 and at 08:28 (onwards) in the video in post 1719, just aft of the largest exhaust portal in the funnel superstructure, between the two SAT domes, and forward of the canister missile launchers.

 

[Calculus]

This overhead view of the UK T26 clearly shows Sea Ceptor "mushroom cap" launchers behind the funnel, so there is space here (source: http://www.navalanalyses.com).

Better yet, a side view, with the hangar doors open (same source as above).

 

[FOAC]

Intriguing about CAMM/seaCeptpor. The missile is directed via data link. The antennae are small domes fore and aft. Compare T23 before and after SeaCeptor refit to see these. It's conceivable these are amongst the antennae shown on the latest model.

By the way, for my money the Canadian version is the best looker. And that counts for a lot!!

 

[John Fedup]

I question the need for the small caliber cannon and Phalanx. Why not replace both with the 35 mm Millenium gun? Far more multi purpose and effective than Phalanx

Absolutely a very desirable solution. The Millenium gun should be on the CSC and the DeWolf class.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The existing Phalanx that we have are twenty plus years old. Yes they are well maintained but????? They are still twenty years old.

Twice the range as Phalanx. Ahead ammunition. Self contained. I am sure the space saved will be used for something.

And in North America its sold and serviced by Lockheed Martin so thats a definite plus.