- Reaction score
- 21,911
- Points
- 1,260
VLS aren’t just for AAD, they are for Land, Sea (surface and subsurface) attack, and Ballistic Missile Defense as well.
So when you limit the VLS cells you are really limiting the fight in the platform.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
So when you limit the VLS cells you are really limiting the fight in the platform.
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Points
- 1,060
yes but are they not just supposed to be a general purpose frigate? Otherwise you would just build the biggest ships you could with the most cells you could
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
I just hope that once the drawings for Batch 3 of the CSC are approved that they are working on the replacement for Batch 1.
- Reaction score
- 21,911
- Points
- 1,260
I’m not a Nav Eng, or anything else maritime, so I don’t have the answers, I was solely pointing out that 32 VLS isn’t a lot given what gets stuck in VLS cells.
With the Ticonderoga class being retired the loss of those 122 cells will be somewhat noticeable as the AB’s are left as the big missile ships with 96.
The Constellations are 496 feet long, the AB’a are 509, with very similar beams and drafts, so for 13 more feet they get 64 more cells, to me the Constellations seem to be under strength (accepting what I said above that I’m not a Naval Engineer or Architect or anything else Naval).
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
The Constellations are the replacement for the OHP that should have happened instead of the LCS fiasco. So they are the frigates to do the things that the Burkes are not designed for. These ships do not need to be high end AAW and strike platforms but GP with an eye to ASW and for want of a better term, gunboat diplomacy.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 945
- Points
- 810
Constellation is a general purpose frigate and that should be made abundantly clear, 32 VLS is more than sufficient. From those 32 cells, a typical load can be something like 32 ESSM (8 cells) while using the remaining 24 cells for whatever other missiles you want (SM-2, SM-6, Tomahawk, etc). Constellation also has 16 NSM missiles for anti-ship/secondary ground attack alongside 21 missiles in its RAM launcher for additional self defence.
Make no mistake, Constellation is a fairly well equipped and potent frigate. That being said, the USN wants these ships fairly quickly and redesigning them to accept additional Mark 41 VLS runs contrary to that.
Make no mistake, Constellation is a fairly well equipped and potent frigate. That being said, the USN wants these ships fairly quickly and redesigning them to accept additional Mark 41 VLS runs contrary to that.
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Points
- 1,060
yeah I guess it comes down to fleet mix and the tradeoffs required on the whole fleet and within.
They have deleted the hull sonar from the FREEM according to the article so that is one capability removed. Replaced with?
Like our CSC perhaps there will be future blocks with different capabilities?
Its been discussed here that adding more VLS will require removing something like the mission bay. Is the tradeoff worth it?
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Points
- 1,060
- Reaction score
- 2,473
- Points
- 1,190
Yes, abso-fucking-lutely. Scrap the stupid mission bay. Whatever it is you wanted the mission bay for, get an AOPS to go do it.
- Reaction score
- 2,473
- Points
- 1,190
An HMS is just a dinner bell for Russian subs. A towed LFA array is what you want, and I believe the constellation will have one.
- Reaction score
- 1,669
- Points
- 1,060
Interesting. Do you think these views are pervasive and that we might see them acted on?
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 945
- Points
- 810
They deleted the hull sonar because the shipyard building the ships has depth limitations, it wouldn't have been able to leave the area with the extra draft. Removing the mission bay would be a very shortsighted decision in my opinion considering the growing proliferation of unmanned systems. For anti-submarine warfare, having a network of sensors and platforms available from the ship itself is a major advantage. With the launching and retrieving system built in alongside its good size, Canada could procure unmanned systems (aerial, surface or sub-surface) to help undertake/supplement many different roles.
I meant at this point after all of those changes have already been done.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
I also enjoy working on the multi disciplinary teams, but some of the stuff out of WOME for ammo safety is questionable. We store them in heavy duty cases secured in racks then act like they are highly flammable, highly sensitive to shock, and can be detonated by a cell phone, but they wanted to cripple the fire protection setup so it wasn't effective and the first line was sending someone in with an extinguisher. It was interesting.
Got it sorted out but some of the silos are strange.
Anyway, I guess I wouldn't offer up myself as a SME on weapon systems, despite experience working with CSEs on all of that (and having participated in missile firings and weapon shoots for everything in our arsenal and on the 280s), so bit dissapointed with these folks whoring themselves out without some kind of caveats on what they are giving opinions on. It's a living I guess.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
The mission bay is going to be great, it will give the RCN a space to do all the random stupid shit they will designate for the CSCs to do outside of the ConOps, while actually thinking through safety implications of things like having UAVs with special fuels/batteries on board, extra boats, target boats etc etc. It's probably the best feature on a weird swiss army knife ship that doesn't even come with training bunks and is so packed full of stuff it's surprisingly narrow inside a lot of passageways.
It can also store a folded up helo so gives you the option of carrying a spare, or more likely, clearing a broken one out of the way until you can offload it somewhere.
- Reaction score
- 8,292
- Points
- 1,160
General Purpose - can fit in anywhere.
The VLS system allows all sorts of flying things to be launched at all sorts of targets and for all sorts of duties.
Launching Systems
Lockheed Martin is a leader in providing vertical launching systems and munitions for the Navy, with products such as the MK 41, the Single Cell Launcher, the Extensible Launching System and the Vertical Launch Anti-Submarine Rocket.
Mark 41 (Mk 41)[edit]
The Mk 41 is capable of firing the following missiles:[5][2][6][7]Surface-to-air[edit]
- RIM-66 Standard
- RIM-156 Standard
- RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
- RIM-174 Standard ERAM
- RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
- RIM-162 ESSM
- CAMM (CAMM, CAMM-ER, CAMM-MR)
- RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (Block 2)
Surface-to-surface[edit]
- RGM-109 Tomahawk
- Joint Strike Missile
- RGM-179 JAGM
- LRASM (BTV) with a Mk-114 booster rocket
Anti-submarine[edit]
Electronic warfare[edit]
To me the VLS systems do for the navy what the CG-84 does for the Infantry and what howitzers, HIMARS and NASAMS do for the artillery. They provide a means for putting a wide variety of kill shots in the air that are capable of dealing with a wide variety of targets.
Is there any info on any UAVs that can be launched from a Mk 41 cell?
- Reaction score
- 8,292
- Points
- 1,160
This - more launch cells per hull
Or this - more hulls with launch cells
So
a CSC with an extra 64 cells on board but eliminating the Mission Bay
Or
a CSC with an extra 64 cells on two accompanying autonomous vessels with the Mission Bay intact.
Or this - more hulls with launch cells
So
a CSC with an extra 64 cells on board but eliminating the Mission Bay
Or
a CSC with an extra 64 cells on two accompanying autonomous vessels with the Mission Bay intact.
- Reaction score
- 6,276
- Points
- 1,040
None of those changes are happening as they would involve massive design changes (essentially a redesign) and the project is in the critical design review. I can't see use doing that for later batches either because we are cheap AF so wouldn't ever have enough missiles anyway.
Still a massive step up compared to our current capabilities, but our fleet composition will always be part of a coalition effort, and the whole part of AEGIS is being part of a coordinated effort.
If we wanted something to go it alone could save ourselves a transformational ass pain by not including AEGIS, which will require the CSE and OPs department and trades to fundamentally revamp around it and any future changes the USN makes to that.
15 CSCs will need 3000 sailors with the right mix and qualifications, which is a much bigger thing to figure out now (and probably behind the curve for the OPs/CSE trades).
Still a massive step up compared to our current capabilities, but our fleet composition will always be part of a coalition effort, and the whole part of AEGIS is being part of a coordinated effort.
If we wanted something to go it alone could save ourselves a transformational ass pain by not including AEGIS, which will require the CSE and OPs department and trades to fundamentally revamp around it and any future changes the USN makes to that.
15 CSCs will need 3000 sailors with the right mix and qualifications, which is a much bigger thing to figure out now (and probably behind the curve for the OPs/CSE trades).
- Reaction score
- 2,052
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty sure the OHP carried 32 (or more) SM2 reloads for the one arm bandit. Having 16 NSM instead of 8 Harpoon is a win. The 57mm and having one embarked helo+ UAV systems clearly indicates this frigate is an escort ship by design and purpose. It is not a general purpose frigate like the CSC although with enough down select tweaks
could end up with a very expensive escort frigate as well.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,864
- Points
- 1,210
40 SM1 according to Wikipedia
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,550
- Points
- 1,160
Sounds like these are ideas better suited for the Type 83 destroyer than shoehorning everything on the Type 26.
