All I see there is a reference to a 30mm rapid fire canon, but there are two of those already in the base T26 design (DSM 30 mk2). I'm not sure we can infer a Phalanx or Millennium-like CIWS based on that comment. It would be great if they bolted a couple on, but none of the CSC models on display recently (2019) at either CANSEC or DEFSEC have shown this, so I'm a bit skeptical.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Underway
Member
Yah the 30mm they are looking at really isn't an anti-air weapon per say. It could do some close in work on UAV/RPA's that are moving relatively slowly but its really much better in the surface warfare mode. I don't think the targeting systems would work against an incoming missile.
What I'm also interested to see is if there is a CIWS mounted anywhere. It will say a lot about the combat suite if there is no CIWS mounted.
The self defence layers are currently SM2 or equivalent, ESSM Mk2, CAMM. That's quite a few missile layers with longer ranges to engage than our current ones, including the 57mm. Maybe the modeling indicates that the gun layer isn't needed or is to ineffective.
Currently CIWS is the final redundancy for self defence with the sensor and weapon in the same package. I don't expect a RAM launcher though. CAMM really covers that off better but who knows.
Thanks for the correction. It sent me on a rather interesting journey through the history of naval camouflage.
I believe the requirements were for a minimum of 32 mk41 VLS, were they not? The following video shows the model displayed at the BAE stand in May at CANSEC:
I was lucky enough to have attended CANSEC 2019, and took pictures of the models displayed at the LM, Irving, and BAE booths. There are differences between them all, subtle and not so subtle, which were explained away by the various representatives as being the result of best guesses as to what the RCN wanted (as they were still in the Requirements Definition stage of the project). You can see the various models at posts 1851, 1852, and 1853 of this thread. All seemed to be consistent in that they showed 6 ExLS launchers aft of the funnel.
Last edited:
I agree. It would seem to be redundant now that we have confirmation the design includes CAMM, but Sea RAM has been seen on a CSC model as late as SNA 2019: Canada's Combat Ship Team awarded CSC design contract - Naval News
Underway
Member
Yah I don't trust models anymore either. There are generalities that are going to happen (general lines, flight deck, flex deck, bridge position etc...) but as far as missile number and placement those change quite a bit once the individual line items are being discussed. I've seen CSC models with various modifications. The model maker has no special insight.
Honestly what I expect is the following with my reasons:
1) 24 Strike Length Mk 41 VLS on in the VLS closest to the bridge - same as the UK and Australian version, no changes to design
2) 8 tactical or self defence length Mk41 VLS on the ones placed furthest forward - the internal design of the ship in the UK version has CAMM there. A self defence length will require limited changes in the design for space. This will also allow for 32 quad packed ESSM for self defence.
3) 6 ExLS for CAMM amidships - same logic as above, CAMM are going to be placed here so your 24 Quad packed CAMM missiles will go here as well. Of note the ExLS allow for the launch of Nulka, Helfire Longbow missiles as well, changing the flexibility equation for the CSC to include EW decoys or close range anti-surface.
4) 127mm gun - same as the other versions
5) 2 30mm guns - same as other versions, however there is some argument to be made for another 2 guns to be mounted amidships in place of the CIWS amidships. Two reasons for this. Increase arcs of coverage and the EO/IR sensors on the guns will provide improved SA to the Ops Team down in their dungeon even if the gun isn't firing.
6) No CIWS amidships - terrible arcs of fire, requires you to show your largest radar cross section to an incoming threat to use the CIWS, radhaz on a through deck walkway... so many issues
7) Ship Launched Torps from the stbd side only - as in the original version
8) Lockheeds Solid State Array radar system (S-band) - similar to the one that Japan has bought for their ballistic missile detection, can be scaled down significantly due to its modular nature and has a very high availability rate, something many phased array radars do not have, this info is based on a number of interviews from defence magazines on youtube with Lockheed vendors who talk about this radar being on CSC
9) A second back up radar to the SS Array - What kind no idea, but I expect that it will be an X-band to provide for targeting illumination and close in accuracy for the 126mm gun.
10) Naval Strike Missile - at least 8 available, not sure if you can vertically launch these yet or not, but if they are vertically launched then they will go where the ExLS are going to be. They need to be protected from fire so will probably end up in an armoured box of some sort instead of strapped on the outside of the ship.
Couple of minor observations. I wouldnt be surprised if there is not space for strike length mk41 in all the forward locations, even if RN is not using all that capacity in its layout.
RN and RAN seem to be adopting their 'standard' cannons - 30mm MSI mount for RN and 25mm Typhoon for RAN, based on latest and far more detailed Hunter class model
CAMM and ESSM are normally described as rival not complimentary systems. Significant overlap in capability. Is it clear that both will be employed?
RN and RAN seem to be adopting their 'standard' cannons - 30mm MSI mount for RN and 25mm Typhoon for RAN, based on latest and far more detailed Hunter class model
CAMM and ESSM are normally described as rival not complimentary systems. Significant overlap in capability. Is it clear that both will be employed?
Underway
Member
I expect this is the case without redesign as the fwd launchers on the UK version are for the shorter CAMM system. So I expect that the RCN will take advantage to make them ESSM only.
My only concern is that the AOPS weapons is a 25mm and the current info I have for the CSC is a 30mm. It makes some sense to make the weapon the same for both. However this may only be a case of changing the load, feed and barrel assemblies but leave it on the same base. Or we'll just have two types in the short term.
Yes it's quite clear. ESSM is as close to Canada's own missile one can get. Approx 80% of all ESSM shoots and the resultant telemetric data are supplied by Canada. ESSM Mk2 will have some overlap with CAMM but their ranges and capabilities are different. ESSM Mk2 has a longer max (+50km) and min range for engagement than CAMM. It provides local air defence, including for consorts.
CAMM's shorter min and max engagement ranges (<1km-25km) which is due to its cold launch and pitch over maneuver, allowing it to target incoming missiles very close to the ship. CAMM can best be described as a point defence missile for self defence only. The UK also have a CAMM-ER which is a larger missile and is closer to the ESSM Mk2 in role, though it still has shorter ranges.
Honestly IMHO the two complement each other quite well. It gives the ship more options for defence.
The loadout as described in my post above could provide for long range air defence (24*SM2/6), local air defence (32*ESSM Mk2) and point self defence (24*CAMM). That's a very robust defensive suite for a frigate. I would argue that based on other world frigate types it might be the most robust currently sailing. We really should be calling it a heavy frigate/light destroyer. Or a destrigate (copywrite Underway 2019...lol).
@ Underway - Apologies for shortening down your post, but I want to focus very specifically on the comments about missiles.
I appreciate that this may be long & data heavy, but it should clarify things :
Strike length VLS:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...aunchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf
Based on the data it's 25 feet long...
Tactical Length VLS:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_Vertical_Launching_System_Product Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf
Based on the data it's 22 feet long...
CAAM / Sea Ceptor:
CAMM (missile family) - Wikipedia
Based on the data it's 3.2m Long (Approx. 10.5 (10 & 1/2 feet)
ESSM:
Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) - Naval Technology
Based on the data it is approx. 12 feet long
So we have the missile length data...
But what EXACTLY are these missiles being used for ?
WHAT are the mission profiles for CSC ?
HOW does having the specific order/types of missile detail, actually enhance the capability of the ship & its mission / role profile ?
These questions are the ones that the RCN will be asking & providing answers for, as these will drive the missile types / quantities that they want to have on board.
Next - Missile positioning /.configuration:
WHY has each of the x3 nations that have bought these ship designs done what they have / arranged the missiles in the way they have ?
IMHO - It has been done due to the practicalities of the design mixed with the response to the x3 'questions' above.
For instance Mk 41 variants - Does it make sense to have x2 silos, side-by-side (technically x1 in front of the other), for different missiles, when I'm sure LM offer a 'standard' launcher that can take either / or within a 24 cell launcher assembly ?? If the missile is 25 feet long, the launcher assembly MUST be bigger, to contain structural element to cope with the stresses of missile launching, possibly with a plenum / containment tank below to catch all the detritus & debris from a launch ? This would take the launcher assembly to maybe 40 feet high...? Having x2 of these at the front of the ship, where the ship only really starts to open out in width will eat into a big hunk of space, meaning that things like aux machinery spaces / accommodation / offices for officers / management & the like, all have to be moved / shuffled.
Air conditioning plant rooms / Electrical distribution rooms / weapon systems equipment rooms / stores, etc., as well as all the obvious pipework / fluid / HVAC / cabling services all need space too, so at this 'choke point', something has to give in the design, to allow the ship to work properly, so it makes perfect sense that VLS is at the rear & a shorter missile is directly in front of it.
Similarly, the mission bay takes up a whole swathe of the mid-ships / upper hull area & I'm sure similar compromises are being made as they attempt to fit in air intakes for the engines, the exhausts & a myriad of other essential equipment & services that have to be squished into the lower decks within the hull, so the Mission Bay will fit / work.
Getting back to the types / quantities - Canada is NOT the USA & while having MORE missiles can be handy, Canada's naval vessels are intended to be more general purpose (all things to all men), & have a slightly different role in comparison to an Arleigh Burke or an FFG(X), so the necessity to carry more missile isn't (IMHO) a priority.
No, Canada isn't the US. Fortunately for Canada, the World's most powerful military surrounds it.
Likewise, the UK is surrounded by reasonably powerful allies (in theory).
Australia, on the other hand, has no one nearby.
So I can see Canada and the UK having only 24 Mk 41 VLS, but I really hope the Hunter will have at least 48 x Mk 41 cells. One reason I think this is possible, is that Australia has avoided stating how many missile cells the Hunter will have. I've never seen a ship not have details of it's missile loadout before. It's possible this is to avoid angering, or surprising Indonesia or the Elephant in the room, China. The first Hunter won't come off the production line for another 6-7 years, so why spoil the surprise? :-D
In fact, if the models are to scale at all, it might even be possible to fit 64 missile cells there. Without an actual cut through plan, it's hard to say.
This is all imho, of course
Sorry, can you advise where you got the 25mm Typhoon for the Hunter Class. Even the RAN page for the Hunter class indicates a 30mm cannon and it should not be assumed to be the same unit as fitted to the T26.
On the VLS front the models show 32 Mk41 VLS .... not 24. Whether this is set is stone is open to conjecture but I think we can assume 32 is the minimum.
Admittedly another model, but a new and much more detailed one, unveiled last month. But of course we will just have to wait and see !
@FOAC You were asked by a Def Pro to provide a source for your claims. Please provide a reputable verifiable source as requested, instead of trying to sidestep the request.
Ngatimozart.
26/10/2019.
@FOAC You were asked by a Def Pro to provide a source for your claims. Please provide a reputable verifiable source as requested, instead of trying to sidestep the request.
Ngatimozart.
26/10/2019.
Last edited by a moderator:
Underway
Member
I wrote that in my post.
CAMM - self point defence against air warfare threats
ESSM - local air defence
SM2/6 - area air defence
Naval Strike Missile - its in the name, striking naval targets (surface warfare, limited land attack).
Strike length VLS allows for land attack missiles (Tomahawk for example), ASROC etc...
Read Leadmark 2050. All the major RCN doctrine and missions are in there. The weapons and sensors for the ship are based on that.
Most of the weapons loadout for CSC is based on self and task group defence. All the AAW missiles are for defence against air threats. The biggest difference really with the CSC from the frigates/destroyer construct is offensive capability. The CSC will have 3 offensive weapons (127mm and 2 missile types) where as currently we only have one offensive option.
No Canada is not the US. But that's not what we are doing here. We are not copying the US or even the UK in this. The requirements for the CSC are entirely mission based and modeling based on our own requirements. It's not about more missiles for the sake of missiles, it's about more survivability and mission success within the Canadian Task Group construct. The requirements drive the loadout.
ie: Multiple cheap anti ship missiles are a Chinese tactic. Perhaps future threat analysis says that our frigates need to be able to deal with that. Thus load many more missiles in overlapping ranges and zones to survive a large amount of missiles directed at you.
@Underway There is no need to get cranky with a Def Pro who has asked valid questions. Blue tags mean that the poster is a verified defence professional, hence they do have a modicum of understanding of what they are talking about.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems pretty certain CSC will have have 32 Mk41 cells, not 24. The only question is if the cells will all be strike length, or only the 24 closest to the bridge superstructure. However, as @Systems Adict pointed out in post 1990, the difference between strike and tactical mk41 VLS cells is only 3 feet, so it would be logical to assume there is enough space to allow for the forward eight cells shown in the CSC models to also be strike length.
Two years ago at CANSEC 2018 I asked the BAE rep if the type 26 could accommodate more than the 32 cells shown on the CSC model, to which he replied that the ship was designed to accommodate growth in this area. This makes sense, when you think about it. It's a really big ship, and BAE has stated publicly it was designed for future growth in capabilities, so I have no doubt it was a correct statement. However, when pressed, he would not confirm how many more could be accommodated. I think 48 would be a reasonable assumption, and that they would all be strike length. I tried asking this question again at CANSEC 2019, but the reps on hand at all three booths (LM, Irving, and BAE) were non-technical sales types who really didn't seem to know much about the designs at all, so I didn't really get anywhere with any of them. In any case, this is all a rehash of ideas that have been previously discussed on this thread, so we really don't know anything more about CSC than we did before. We will need to wait until after the Requirements Definition is completed before we get a better idea as to the final weapons fit-up.
The best source of information I have found to indicate CSC capability can be seen on page 7 of this link: https://www.wd-deo.gc.ca/itb/Lockheed Martin Canada Update - Eng - WIF 2019.pdf. I've linked to this in a previous post (1825), but it is worth revisiting again given all the renewed discussion. Interestingly, the Anti-air Warfare Subsystem indicates there will be CIADS, plus a short-range SAM (SR_SAM), and a long-rang SAM (LR_SAM). If we assume the CIADS role is undertaken by CAMM, the SR SAM would be ESSM (blk2), and the LR SAM would be SM-x. This is not new, however, this information having been available and discussed many moons ago.
Last edited:
BAE Australia Twitter account header image
SM-2MR and SM3/6 seem to be between 15 and 22 feet in length (The US Navy -- Fact File: Standard Missile). Tomahawk is also less than 22 feet, with booster (The US Navy -- Fact File: Tomahawk Cruise Missile).
So, I think we can safely conclude that the entire strike length assembly is around 25 feet. This seems to be confirmed by the attached mk41 factsheet.
Last edited:
@FOAC Provide the link then please, which you should have done in the first place. No playing silly buggers thank you.
Underway
Member
Well it's a destrigate or a frigstroyer (frigroyer?). Other options are:The English language is dynamic - A "Destrigate"
-Battlefrigate
-Light Destroyer
-Heavy Frigate (this one actually seems likely)
-Command Frigate
-Pocket Destroyer
Alternative historical terminology...
-Destroyer Escort (later Ocean Escort)
-Hunter Killer Destroyer
-Escort Destroyer
-Destroyer Leader
Though I did asked this question of the CRCN himself at a town hall and his response was "What are the British and Aussies calling them? -me...frigate sir- Well it seems pretty stupid to call it a destroyer when everyone else calls it a frigate. Does the name even really matter that much? That it's a good ship is all I care about!")