Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Calculus said:

Hi Jack, I think it would be the forward position. Reason I say this is at CANSEC 2017, I pointed at the model on display, which had 32 cells, and asked the BAE rep if more cells could be accommodated up front. His response: "The Type 26 was designed for future growth." He left it pretty much at that, despite my repeated attempts to wheedle more information out of him, but the clear inference was there was room for more than 32 cells.

This is an interesting description of the UK Type 26 capabilities: Type 26 Global Combat Ship (GCS) - Capabilities - Think Defence

Click to expand...

Thanks, I have been surfing the web, but did not see this particular site yet.

I think the Type 26 could accommodate up to 48 cells in the bow (depending on what is below decks and the weight) and up to 24 cells in the back, but shorter ones. But the primary purpose of the ship is ASW so none of the players (RN, RAN or RCN) have focused on that many cells.

Black Jack Shellac said:

Thanks, I have been surfing the web, but did not see this particular site yet.

I think the Type 26 could accommodate up to 48 cells in the bow (depending on what is below decks and the weight) and up to 24 cells in the back, but shorter ones. But the primary purpose of the ship is ASW so none of the players (RN, RAN or RCN) have focused on that many cells.

Click to expand...

I agree, probably designed to expand to 48, though they may not all be strike length. The UK T26 has the CAMM cells at the front portion of the "forward" missile superstructure, so there may not be as much space below decks for a strike length mk41 if you replace the CAMM launchers with mk41s. Still, even if you can only accomodate 24 strike length, with the rest being tactical (or even self-defence) length, it would be a formidable expansion of capability, as you could still quad pack ESSM in those launchers forward of the strike length cells. Still, 32 is an improvement over the Iroquois class, so no real complaints. If not 48, 40 seems well within the realm of possible...

While Canada slowly works it's way to building it's 15 frigates by the 23rd century (sarcasm intended), China is plowing ahead and claiming yet another region of the planet. This time it's the arctic offshore Canada. This article is 11 months old but I only saw it today.

Canada needs to move a wee bit faster.

Declaring itself a ‘near-Arctic state,’ China to build a ‘Polar Silk Road’ off Canada’s north

Calculus said:

I agree, probably designed to expand to 48, though they may not all be strike length. The UK T26 has the CAMM cells at the front portion of the "forward" missile superstructure, so there may not be as much space below decks for a strike length mk41 if you replace the CAMM launchers with mk41s. Still, even if you can only accomodate 24 strike length, with the rest being tactical (or even self-defence) length, it would be a formidable expansion of capability, as you could still quad pack ESSM in those launchers forward of the strike length cells. Still, 32 is an improvement over the Iroquois class, so no real complaints. If not 48, 40 seems well within the realm of possible...

Click to expand...

If you really wanted to up the number, the vls could put put in the middle of the multi mission bay. The sides might still have space for a crane and RHBs. 40 front, 16 rear, giving 56 cells.

76mmGuns said:

While Canada slowly works it's way to building it's 15 frigates by the 23rd century (sarcasm intended), China is plowing ahead and claiming yet another region of the planet. This time it's the arctic offshore Canada. This article is 11 months old but I only saw it today.

Canada needs to move a wee bit faster.

Declaring itself a ‘near-Arctic state,’ China to build a ‘Polar Silk Road’ off Canada’s north

Click to expand...

Well it's about 1050 nm between the closest points of China and the Arctic Ocean and about 400 nm between the closest points of China and the Arctic Circle, so if one wanted to argue semantics pick a side for that argument.

Calculus said:

I agree, probably designed to expand to 48, though they may not all be strike length. The UK T26 has the CAMM cells at the front portion of the "forward" missile superstructure, so there may not be as much space below decks for a strike length mk41 if you replace the CAMM launchers with mk41s. Still, even if you can only accomodate 24 strike length, with the rest being tactical (or even self-defence) length, it would be a formidable expansion of capability, as you could still quad pack ESSM in those launchers forward of the strike length cells. Still, 32 is an improvement over the Iroquois class, so no real complaints. If not 48, 40 seems well within the realm of possible...

Click to expand...

Yep but what specific Sea Ceptor (CAMM) launchers are they using? Sylver? ExLS? or Mk-41 Tactical Length? Makes a big difference and we know that the RN are using the Mk-41 VLS. Why would they have 3 different types of VLS there when they need only one with 2 different cell lengths; tactical and strike? If they decide to go with a second type then the ExLS can actually be fitted anywhere within reason on the ship and doesn't need deck penetration either, it's Sea Ceptor is qualified for it, and it's also made by Lockheed Martin. The Mk-41 self defence cells are no longer offered nor is the Mk-56 VLS.

76mmGuns said:

While Canada slowly works it's way to building it's 15 frigates by the 23rd century (sarcasm intended), China is plowing ahead and claiming yet another region of the planet. This time it's the arctic offshore Canada. This article is 11 months old but I only saw it today.

Canada needs to move a wee bit faster.

Declaring itself a ‘near-Arctic state,’ China to build a ‘Polar Silk Road’ off Canada’s north

Click to expand...

Canada’s pollies are incapable of defending Arctic sovereignty. The new heavy icebreaker won’t see its keel laid until the mid 2020s. The AOPS are armed with a single 25 mm gun. Under-ice capable submarines, the best solution for for enforcing Arctic sovereignty, have been ruled unnecessary by junior. Probably doesn’t matter from a resources POV. Any major development project would never get approved by the idiots in Ottawa.

John Fedup, just had a trip to Canada (one of my sons got married in your fair country, heck he even became a permanent resident). Met a number of your current military - Army, Navy and Air Force. They remain on guard for thee, in spite of the current Canadian lack of focus on Defence and using less than current kit. My view was that when the stuff hits the fan, they will get the kit they need but currently who cares, the USA is there and loaded for bear. You currently continue to have the people, just missing the latest kit. And included a discussion with a dual citizen about to be deployed with the US in Iraq. Thank heavens, most of us have ceased to have a large footprint in the Middle East.

OK with tanks, maybe fighters if you have enough buffer but with ships? The WW2 days of a destroyer built per day are gone, now it takes years and you can count shipyards on a hand.

But it isn't relevant since the T26s both for AUS/CAD/UK will completely miss the timing, the Chinese opportunity window for a conflict is the next decade, and it isn't (mostly) the design chosen but the program timing.

FoxtrotRomeo999 said:

John Fedup, just had a trip to Canada (one of my sons got married in your fair country, heck he even became a permanent resident). Met a number of your current military - Army, Navy and Air Force. They remain on guard for thee, in spite of the current Canadian lack of focus on Defence and using less than current kit. My view was that when the stuff hits the fan, they will get the kit they need but currently who cares, the USA is there and loaded for bear. You currently continue to have the people, just missing the latest kit. And included a discussion with a dual citizen about to be deployed with the US in Iraq. Thank heavens, most of us have ceased to have a large footprint in the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Members in the CAF are on guard for sure but the availability of modern kit doesn’t happen overnight (especially given our dysfunctional procurement operation). Even if sole -sourced acquisition the kit is used, long manufacturing lead times are often the norm. Then there is reaching FOC with new kit. Any serious crisis requiring sustained commitment of our military will be difficult.

ngatimozart said:

Yep but what specific Sea Ceptor (CAMM) launchers are they using? Sylver? ExLS? or Mk-41 Tactical Length? Makes a big difference and we know that the RN are using the Mk-41 VLS. Why would they have 3 different types of VLS there when they need only one with 2 different cell lengths; tactical and strike? If they decide to go with a second type then the ExLS can actually be fitted anywhere within reason on the ship and doesn't need deck penetration either, it's Sea Ceptor is qualified for it, and it's also made by Lockheed Martin. The Mk-41 self defence cells are no longer offered nor is the Mk-56 VLS.

Click to expand...

Good questions Mozart. From the image below of the UK T26, the 24 CAMM launchers at the forward end of the missile superstructure are clearly different from the 24 mk41s at the rear, so they could be either the CAMM-specific launcher (as seen on the post-refit Type 23s), or Sylver (though they don't look like Sylver, which have a square cap, vice the round cap shown on the model). The point I was trying to make, rather tortuously I admit, is the mk41s on the UK T26 are publicly identified as strike length, whereas the CAMM launcher is most probably shorter, so there MAY not be the same below deck space where the CAMM cells are located to accommodate a full strike length mk41 in a one-for-one substitution. In other words, another 24 strike-length mk41s may not fit in the space currently occupied by the CAMM launchers, but perhaps tactical-length would. The fact that both the Hunters and the CSC models show 32 mk41 cells would seem to indicate there is space, but perhaps not for a full additional 24. I simply do not know, but there are persistent rumours that the RCN would like at least 40 cells for the first 3-4 CSC, which are slated to replace the Iroquois class destroyers. That has triggered a great deal of speculation and interest in the potential of the T26 for expansion of missile capacity.



You mentioned that mk41 is no longer available in the self-defense length, but this would seem to indicate otherwise: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...aunchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

I was under the impression the self-defense length was the newest member of the mk41 family, aimed at corvette/OPV sized vessels, but I must admit I have not found any indication that this configuration has actually been sold to anyone, so perhaps you are correct. It may be the LM webmaster has not gotten the memo yet...

UK Type 26 uses a dedicated VLS for the CAMM/Sea Ceptor - they're pulled through from the Type 26 so they're neither Sylver or MK41 - they're a single cell per missile system which can be sited very flexibly as of course, CAMM is a soft launch system, expelled by a built in gas generator and then toppled in the direction of the target before the motor lights. That deals with one issue with soft launch systems in that it will generally mean the missile will have successfully cleared the ship even if the rocket motor fails to light.

So, shorter and much lighter than MK41 so make your assumptions fit that arrangement when working out what would practically fit into the RCN design.

StobieWan said:

UK Type 26 uses a dedicated VLS for the CAMM/Sea Ceptor - they're pulled through from the Type 26 so they're neither Sylver or MK41 - they're a single cell per missile system which can be sited very flexibly as of course, CAMM is a soft launch system, expelled by a built in gas generator and then toppled in the direction of the target before the motor lights. That deals with one issue with soft launch systems in that it will generally mean the missile will have successfully cleared the ship even if the rocket motor fails to light.

So, shorter and much lighter than MK41 so make your assumptions fit that arrangement when working out what would practically fit into the RCN design.

Click to expand...

I can't find the source anymore, but I was pretty sure the UK version has 24 single cell CAMM cells up front and another 24 above the mission bay for 48 total, and then 24 VLS strike length cells.

However, I don't think Canada is going this route. Looking at the video on the CSC home page at 1:01 and 1:39 I can see something between the sat domes above the mission bay. It could be the crack I am smoking, but I think there may be some cells there, maybe not. So there would be 32 VLS cells up front and maybe 8 more above the mission bay, quad loaded. maybe that is a stretch. Something like this CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-Cell EXLS launcher.

I am no defence expert, just a Canadian that is giddy that Canada may finally get a decent ship for our navy, been waiting 40+ years to see this.

John Fedup said:

Canada’s pollies are incapable of defending Arctic sovereignty. The new heavy icebreaker won’t see its keel laid until the mid 2020s. The AOPS are armed with a single 25 mm gun. Under-ice capable submarines, the best solution for for enforcing Arctic sovereignty, have been ruled unnecessary by junior. Probably doesn’t matter from a resources POV. Any major development project would never get approved by the idiots in Ottawa.

Click to expand...

John, I agree that under-ice capable submarines are the only real way to patrol the arctic year round. And I am not that upset about the AOPS only having a pop-gun. I was at first, but there are only so many dollars for the Navy to spend, and I think they wanted more for the CSC, so less for the AOPS.

The threats to the arctic are:

1) ASW - but the USN is doing our job for us there with their SSNs - and likely they don't want us snooping there anyway. And I don't know how practicable it would be to equip the AOPS with towed array sonar and operate it in the ice. I am probably wrong, but ASW in ice covered waters really needs another submarine, I don't see a ship doing an effective job there.
2) ASuW - but what serious naval ship can travel that ice even in the summer? And if anyone wanted to invade Canada via the arctic, I think they would find 900 km of bog in the summer - with no roads - and would never be able to get close to land in the winter due to the ice. It would be like Napoleon invading Russia all over again. Supply lines stretched for a thousand miles and lots of starving troops.
3) AAW - probably the only real threat that the AOPS should have been equipped to handle. That probably would have just changed them to being targets, from being ignored, in a real conflict. And air threats are probably best handled by a fast jet - I mean Mach 2+ capable (here's hoping we get some of them some day, but highly unlikely while I still live).

The AOPS only real job is to sail around and wave the Canadian flag during the cruise ship season, saying "this is our territory", and for that, the single pop-gun should due. Perhaps a slightly bigger one would make it look less naked though.

Getting back to the submarines. Canada really needs 10 to 15 SSNs for arctic patrol, if we want a credible deterrence and be able to tell the Americans "We got it now, thanks for the help in the past". But our population is too ignorant to understand the difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. So the best we could ever achieve is an AIP sub. I don't think the technology is quite there yet for that. Maybe at 7000 to 9000 t displacement there would be enough capacity to store enough LOX for the range needed to get under the ice safely, but not sure. Certainly not anything that is "advanced design" right now. If we were smart, I think that is where we should be doing some research.

Cheers

Black Jack Shellac said:

John, I agree that under-ice capable submarines are the only real way to patrol the arctic year round. And I am not that upset about the AOPS only having a pop-gun. I was at first, but there are only so many dollars for the Navy to spend, and I think they wanted more for the CSC, so less for the AOPS.

The threats to the arctic are....

Click to expand...

Of course right after I post that, cbc puts out his article.

Black Jack Shellac said:

I can't find the source anymore, but I was pretty sure the UK version has 24 single cell CAMM cells up front and another 24 above the mission bay for 48 total, and then 24 VLS strike length cells.

However, I don't think Canada is going this route. Looking at the video on the CSC home page at 1:01 and 1:39 I can see something between the sat domes above the mission bay. It could be the crack I am smoking, but I think there may be some cells there, maybe not. So there would be 32 VLS cells up front and maybe 8 more above the mission bay, quad loaded. maybe that is a stretch. Something like this CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-Cell EXLS launcher.

I am no defence expert, just a Canadian that is giddy that Canada may finally get a decent ship for our navy, been waiting 40+ years to see this.

Click to expand...

Canada is absolutely *not* going for the UK layout - they don't have CAMM in inventory and have no plans to acquire it - I posted the above for people trying to work out what they could get instead of the UK layout - as in, how much weight and space would be returned to the design if CAMM were eliminated.

Black Jack Shellac said:

Getting back to the submarines. Canada really needs 10 to 15 SSNs for arctic patrol, if we want a credible deterrence and be able to tell the Americans "We got it now, thanks for the help in the past". But our population is too ignorant to understand the difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. So the best we could ever achieve is an AIP sub. I don't think the technology is quite there yet for that. Maybe at 7000 to 9000 t displacement there would be enough capacity to store enough LOX for the range needed to get under the ice safely, but not sure. Certainly not anything that is "advanced design" right now. If we were smart, I think that is where we should be doing some research.

Cheers

Click to expand...

Or maybe this. One of these could transit beneath the Arctic ice sheet, at somewhere between 7 and 9 knots.

Black Jack Shellac said:

I can't find the source anymore, but I was pretty sure the UK version has 24 single cell CAMM cells up front and another 24 above the mission bay for 48 total, and then 24 VLS strike length cells.

However, I don't think Canada is going this route. Looking at the video on the CSC home page at 1:01 and 1:39 I can see something between the sat domes above the mission bay. It could be the crack I am smoking, but I think there may be some cells there, maybe not. So there would be 32 VLS cells up front and maybe 8 more above the mission bay, quad loaded. maybe that is a stretch. Something like this CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-Cell EXLS launcher.

I am no defence expert, just a Canadian that is giddy that Canada may finally get a decent ship for our navy, been waiting 40+ years to see this.

Click to expand...

Just looking at this image from NavalAnalyses it might be possible to fit 5 X Eight VLS cells just forward of the bridge. There may be even more space in front of those cells although the Sea Ceptor launchers are a good deal shorter than the MK 41 launchers. The tactical length Mk41 VLS, which may be the minimum useful size, is around 6.7 meters long compared to under 4 meters for the Sea Ceptor cannister.

Anything above the mission bay would either have to be a fixed angle launcher or would require deck housing.

Fixed angle canisters like this take up a lot of real estate though. The Australian version, and from what I have seen the Canadian version, will be using these fixed angle systems and that would see a reduction in the number of missiles that can be carried midship. Mind you comparing Sea Ceptor missiles with much larger anti-ship missiles is really comparing apples and oranges.

Calculus said:

You mentioned that mk41 is no longer available in the self-defense length, but this would seem to indicate otherwise: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/cont...aunchers-and-munitions/MK41_VLS_factsheet.pdf

I was under the impression the self-defense length was the newest member of the mk41 family, aimed at corvette/OPV sized vessels, but I must admit I have not found any indication that this configuration has actually been sold to anyone, so perhaps you are correct. It may be the LM webmaster has not gotten the memo yet...

Click to expand...

The ExLS has replaced the Mk-56 VLS so I presumed that included the self defence option which would be covered by the tactical length option. Sure that I read it somewhere and that it happened around 2015 - 16.

StobieWan said:

Canada is absolutely *not* going for the UK layout - they don't have CAMM in inventory and have no plans to acquire it - I posted the above for people trying to work out what they could get instead of the UK layout - as in, how much weight and space would be returned to the design if CAMM were eliminated.

Click to expand...

Sorry. Must have put too much into this articles from Janes.