I would think we will be getting a ton of information at CANSEC this year, I am sure there are a lot of vendors that would love to tout their involvement in the project. I am still curious if there will be a difference in the amount of VLS Cells for the AAW Variant (There does look to be space for an additional 16 Cells forward) or if the idea is to standardize on 32 Mark 41 Cells forward and 6 ExLS Cells Amidships. The idea that the only difference between the AAW Ships and the ASW/GP ships is the missile load out should be very attractive for fleet redundancy. With potential CEC on the ships this would give a RCN Naval Task Group very impressive capabilities both in terms of detection and prosecution of potential threats.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Yes, CANSEC should be fun. Hopefully the CSC model will be representative of the final configuration. It was reported in the Citizen that there may be a Cyclone on static display, which will also be interesting.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I assume the AAW variant will be first so we should know shortly if there if there will be an addtional 16 cells forward. Hopefully CEC is part of the game plan as well.
It's still a bit mysterious. These two missiles are really not in the same category. RAM is a point defence system, whereas CAMM is more in the area air defence category (though capable of point defence as well, but perhaps not as optimised for that role as RAM). So, RAM is last ditch, and a replacement for gun-based point defence systems, whereas CAMM covers the next layer, which is also covered by ESSM. (Of note the NZ frigates are retaining Phalanx after their upgrades, so the RNZN clearly identified a need for point defence even with CAMM.)
The rendering in post 1748 shows what appears to be a Phalanx on the wing beside the funnel, and that rendering comes straight off the RCN website, so presumably represents the latest version of the CSC. If that is the case, than CSC will have Phalanx for point defence, CAMM for area defence, and SM-x for medium/long range. Presumably some of the Mk 41 cells would carry ESSM. Also possible is we are only seeing the AAW variant, and the ASW/GP variant may have a different configuration. Maybe the ASW/GP version deletes the ExLS cells and substitutes SeaRAM for CIWS, with a mostly ESSM loadout in the forward Mk 41s, whereas the AAW variant would load up those forward cells with SM-x and rely on CAMM and Phalanx for ship defence. That would explain all the different models we have seen over the past year or so. Seems a bit overly complicated, however....
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Still would like to have seen the millennium gun for point defence but it doesn't seem to be in the cards. Agree, all the possible area defence missile/CIWS combinations (if this is in fact the case) does seem complicated.
You Canucks are presuming that because ExLS is acquired that Sea Ceptor is being acquired. Do you have anything to support your argument for that proposition? "ExLS was designed to rapidly integrate qualified missiles or weapons developed and certified in an All Up Round (AUR) configuration, such as Nulka, RAM Block 2, Sea Ceptor Common Anti Air Modular Missile (CAMM), Longbow and Joint Air to Ground Missile (JAGM)." - Source: HOST EXTENSIBLE LAUNCHING SYSTEM Product Card
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, the only known fact is ExLS will be sourced but what it will be loaded with is unknown for now. CANSEC might be where the missile type is announced.
Further to the above, the model displayed in the video at 03:10 onwards (SNA 2019 in January) clearly has SeaRAM (no CIWS Phalanx), and just as clearly does NOT have ExLS.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Your post #1754 has the Jane's link claiming ExLS has been selected for the CSC so what is more believable, post #1754's link dated May 2019 or a model presented Jan 2019? I would assume the former but maybe they are both incorrect.
Nothing concrete, though I support my argument with the fact that the missile chosen needs to fulfill the CIADS requirement, which eliminates Nulka and Longbow, and the fact that MBDA has been advocating CAMM for the CIADS role for several years (https://www.janes.com/article/80433/sea-ceptor-pitched-for-csc-ciads-cansec18d), and is still placing adds in Canadian defence journals (see attached from the latest edition of Canadian Defence Review). Also curious is we really only started seeing that VLS feature on the models after this: CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher - MBDA. It's the preponderance of circumstantial evidence, though it is hard to ignore the fact that as recently as SNA 2019 in January the CSC models at the LM booth had SeaRAM launchers, with no VLS cells behind the funnel. It suggests there could be two different CIADS fit ups depending on the variant (AAW or ASW/GP), but who knows. I think CANSEC in two weeks should clear this all up, but it is quite fun speculating, and that is what this forum is about.
Attachments
TBH using the placement of adverts by a company in defence related publications to support an argument is very spurious at the least. If someone tried that with me when I was in uniform, they'd be white washing rocks whilst contemplating the error of their ways. Their error was that they weren't more creative with their argument and how are you going to bamboozle officers if you aren't creative in your approach. Training juniors can be challenging sometimes. I feel sorry for the NCO's who had the misfortune to train me.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
With respect to the RNZN fitout, the Mk 15 Phalanx IIRC has been upgraded to the Block 1b, which added in an anti-surface/smallcraft capability. Given that the RNZN frigates were not fitted with a small calibre gun mounting like a Typhoon, then it would be sensible that some means of dealing with smallcraft and/or a swarm attack would want to be retained. Yes, Sea Ceptor (and ESSM for that matter) have demonstrated an anti-surface capability, but given the limited onboard missile inventory, I would prefer to use another means of engaging hostile smallcraft, first.
Is there something which shows the Canadian Close In Air Defence requirements for a surface-to-air weapon, which eliminates the Nulka active decoy without replacing it with another decoy?
Me being me, an air defence weapon and an active decoy are complimentary capabilities which cannot be swapped back and forth and end up with the same capability outputs. A single air defence missile can effectively engage/destroy only a single target, while a decoy (especially an active decoy) could lure multiple inbound missiles away from the defending vessel, but would be unable to destroy the inbound AShM. I would therefore be quite interested to read about any proposals that the RCN eliminate shipboard decoys and relying entirely upon the ship's missiles and/or guns to defend against AShM.
Long range
Member
The RCN currently uses rheinmetall mass for decoys on the Halifax class not sure what their planning for the CSC,with all the models of CSC showing 32 cell vls it doesn't give alot of options for air defense 8 cells quadpacked with essm for a total of 32 and 24 sm2 would be my guess most air defense frigates have 48 cells I'm not convinced there will be 2 variants with only 3 aaw frigates and 2 coasts to deploy from you can't cover both simultaneously the mission Bay roof is large enough to add extra ASM or asrocs so a 32 cell vls aaw loadout on each ship makes the most sense ,LM said on their twitter account that CSC details will be out soon.I never noticed any mention of torpedoes on the CSC yet but I saw on the web today we are approved to buy 400 mk 54 torpedo upgrade kits to be used on the Halifax class ,MPa and cyclones
Looks like the Coast Guard is looking to VARD for its fleet ReCap: Vard explores concepts for Canadian Coast Guard future fleet - Marine Log
This is good in that it keeps the design expertise in Canada.
This is good in that it keeps the design expertise in Canada.
It may not be there yet but my guess Todj is that they will likely go with Rheinmetall’s MASS as it is now integrated into CMS330 along with the IrvinGQ1 Floating Decoy System FDS3 (a floating passive off-board corner reflector). Decoy's have saved over 50% of all ships against ASM's over the last 50 or so years.
http://www.dta.mil.nz/wp-content/uploads/Report429.pdf
Right you are Long range - MASS is the preferred RCN solution (for now at least): https://www.rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/publicrelations_1/news_1/2018_06_20_mass_order.php
Torpedo upgrade: US approves sale of torpedoes, SM-2 missiles to Canada, Republic of Korea
Nice post! That report is really informative.
Last edited:
Hmmm. Let's hope not! Only 24 VLS cells up front.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Can't sleep cause I am jet lagged, so am pondering on this.
I think it is apparent that LM/BAE submitted at least four different variants of the Type 26 for RCN to consider. This was probably to cover different options for the AAW vs GP/ASW platforms. I have seen all four of these at various times.
1) 24 VLS cells + 6 ExLS cells midship
2) 32 VLS cells + 6 ExLS cells midship
3) 24 VLS cells + 2 x SeaRAM midship
4) 24 VLS cells + 2 x Phalanx midship
There are probably others. What they were doing was probably demonstrating the flexibility and expandability of the ship.
What we will probably see is two variants, one with 24 VLS cells (GP/ASW) and one with 32 VLS cells (AAW). This because Procurement Canada will find any way to cheap out, even if it is only the cost of 8 empty cells. I don't have an issue with this, as the CSC will still be superior to the Halifax, but I think the costs savings is minuscule compared to the program cost and ultimately takes away far too much capability to be justifiable. It would be best if all the ships came equipped the same - with 32 VLS cells + whatever CIADS they decide. This would give the fleet far more flexibility.
If it was my choice, I would put 48 VLS cells + 2 Millennium guns for CIADS (just to keep John Fedup happy), eliminate the ExLS cells/SeaRAM/Phalanx and NSM canisters. The additional cost (guessing $30M per ship), though not insignificant, is minimal when considering the cost of the entire ship. 48 cells could accommodate whatever missile combination they want including putting the NSM in VLS cells instead of on deck, ESSM, SM2, CAMM (if they want), RAM (if they want). It would also be much more flexible as MK41 cells would not be limited to CAMM or RAM as the ExLS cells are. Future expandability would be putting the ExLS cells midships.
Just my two cents.
One final note, a bit off topic; why do they only get 4 RAM in an ExLS canister. The RAM missile is only 160mm in diameter and the Canister should be ~ 560 mm square, there should be room for 8 with a central exhaust port, but the brochure shows only 4. I think LM/Raytheon should sharpen their pencils.