• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Would be a nonsense to remove those 6 ExLS cells if the weight balances allow to keep them. Possible uses:
24 x ESSM
6 x SM-2
6 x VLA (antisubmarines)
 
Oooops, sorry, my error. I thought that each ExLS cell was equivalent to a mk.41 cell. After reviewing Lockheed Martin brochure, seems clear it is not ready for the loads I mentioned. Thanks for pointing me that.

Then my question is... could it be possible to replace those 6 cells with a Tactical, 8-cells mk.41 VLS ?
 
JMCanada said:
Oooops, sorry, my error. I thought that each ExLS cell was equivalent to a mk.41 cell. After reviewing Lockheed Martin brochure, seems clear it is not ready for the loads I mentioned. Thanks for pointing me that.

Then my question is... could it be possible to replace those 6 cells with a Tactical, 8-cells mk.41 VLS ?
Click to expand...
As someone with no experience or authority to make such a conclusion: yes.
 
Navy_Pete said:
The impact of weight is really dependent on distance from the center of gravity, so adding a few tonnes of ballast as low as physically possible has more impact than 10 tonnes closer to the CoG. Density also comes into play, as the big chunks of lead in the bilge are pretty compact, and is in what is basically an unusable area anyway. Equipment takes up more room for the same amount of weight, and you also need access to a lot of it for maintenance.

Additionally, chunks of lead don't care if they get flooded and under a few feet of water; electric pumps, diesels, valves etc do.

All the machinery and hull weight, including the double hull, are taken into account before adding ballast, but it's kind of a necessary evil. Aside from the weight of the radar or weapon systems iteself, the structure, cabling, and any piping is all taken into account as well, so the model is actually really detailed, and goes down into assuming weights for things like people's stuff in their lockers, liquid in piping, etc.

Paper doesn't sound like it weights much but when you forget to include that for a library or office building full of cabinets you end up with structural issues, so all that is also considered. You end up with a lot of weights built into the stability model spread across the entire ship to account for that, and then usually some kind of 'correction weight' gets added in after build and updated periodically when you do stability experiments so that it matches with the actual displacement, trim (bow, stern or netural) and list (port/starboard). The last ship I was on had a random 10 tonne offset somewhere around 2 deck on the port side as a correction factor, but we updated it periodically to match what we were seeing.

Previously on the 280s we had to do stability corrections for when staff officers came onboard, as they quite literally made the ship more top heavy.
Click to expand...
You want to talk about top heavy?!

en.m.wikipedia.org

USS Long Beach (CGN-9) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
 
Lumber said:
As someone with no experience or authority to make such a conclusion: yes.
Click to expand...
JMCanada said:
Then my question is... could it be possible to replace those 6 cells with a Tactical, 8-cells mk.41 VLS ?
Click to expand...
For sure you can. Question is, what are you losing, what needs to change, how much is it going to cost. The mission bay is very important for the ship being able to do a lot of its operations and its a future proofing capability.

Tactical module length is 6.7m + deluge system size and the armour to go around the magazine. The ExLS was about 5m all in. And that doesn't include the increased width from two more cells etc... This all eats into the mission bay space and the weight saved for mission bay payloads.

Each ESSM controller only works on 16 missiles so you'll need two of them, so you'll have to find someplace to locate those as well. Then you might have to redesign the mission bay crane system, as that has been built to fit into the space as it currently exits and so on.
 
Edit to last. The EIC works for 4 missiles. So you'll need space and static frequency converters for those (not a lot of space but some).
 
Lumber said:
You want to talk about top heavy?!

en.m.wikipedia.org

USS Long Beach (CGN-9) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
I think the one trip we had to add something like 3 or 4 tonne correction to the stability model to correct for the list. Still was stable, but had a non-negligle negative impact to our stability as a lot of the weight was above 1 deck, and there was about half a tonne of random crap stored up in around 02 deck.

There were a few random stability checks that got done; the funny one that sticks out was was ATH still stable with 100+ VanDoos for a HADR to Haiti. The answer was yes, as long as they were on 3 deck. There was a lot of really sea sick infanteers who stopped making fun of the sailors when they sailed through some minor storm and it started doing the weird flop and roll motion they had with the water comp tanks.
 
Underway said:
From an article I posted earlier.

the River class destroyers have a radar — considered the heart of the modern warship — located higher up in the vessel than in its Australian and British counterparts. That has required associated power, cooling and other supporting machinery, which add 900 tonnes in weight.

I have heard the CEAFAR itself is relatively light but with all those extra panels and new L band addition perhaps it's gotten heavier. Add that to the space needed for 8 more strike length missiles. Then again no idea where the CEAFAR info came from, so it might be incorrect.




AFAIK there is nothing currently planeed for the aft silo as the decision to move to RAM was made recently. Growth space or perhaps they are looking at options.
Click to expand...

dimsum said:
That thing has the radar cross-section of a city.
Click to expand...
I have some cool pictures of it from RIMPAC … 1987.
Also the Constellation and New Jersey

And the of course the mutha of all ships.. RustyGuts!
 
Since we learned that RAM would be part of the CSC program, moving forward, I was wondering if there would be any sense in trying to find room for some version on a HALIFAX? With the emergence of these types of drone threats that we’re seeing in contested waters already, the missile load out on a CPF doesn’t seem to fit the bill. Would there be any discussion of say, landing the PHALANX or maybe the HARPOONS for certain taskings and replacing them with SeaRam or MK49, possibly? I’m probably way out of my lane here, but it’s been on my mind.
 
Swampbuggy said:
Since we learned that RAM would be part of the CSC program, moving forward, I was wondering if there would be any sense in trying to find room for some version on a HALIFAX? With the emergence of these types of drone threats that we’re seeing in contested waters already, the missile load out on a CPF doesn’t seem to fit the bill. Would there be any discussion of say, landing the PHALANX or maybe the HARPOONS for certain taskings and replacing them with SeaRam or MK49, possibly? I’m probably way out of my lane here, but it’s been on my mind.
Click to expand...
looks very possible

"The SeaRAM combines the radar and electro-optical system<a href="RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile - Wikipedia">[3]</a> of the Phalanx CIWS Mk-15 Block 1B (CRDC) with an 11-cell RAM launcher to produce an autonomous system—one which does not need any external information to engage threats. Like the Phalanx, SeaRAM can be fitted to any class of ship. Due to the common mounting, SeaRAM inherits the relatively easy installation characteristics of its gun-based sibling, with Raytheon stating that SeaRAM "fits the exact shipboard installation footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power and requires minimal shipboard modification"."
 
Sea RAM and RAM do different things. SeaRAM automatically engages things that are attacking the ship. RAM shoots things that are near the ship, including ones that are attacking.

I would love for Sea RAM to join the family, but Phalanx version B is doing just fine right now. It's quite good against drones as well.
 
After 9 years and 251 pages, would it be the time to start a new thread called anything like "River-class destroyers construction" ?
 
Underway said:
Sea RAM and RAM do different things. SeaRAM automatically engages things that are attacking the ship. RAM shoots things that are near the ship, including ones that are attacking.

I would love for Sea RAM to join the family, but Phalanx version B is doing just fine right now. It's quite good against drones as well.
Click to expand...
I guess I was just thinking about range as well. The Phalanx is effective at relatively close range, but I was thinking maybe further out. Is there any kind of air burst munitions for the 57 that would be even more effective?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Kirkhill
RAF's New Helmet - Common to RAF Typhoons and Swedish Gripens
Replies
5
Views
7K
Good2Golf
Good2Golf
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
Artillery Logistics Lessons.
6 7 8
Replies
152
Views
86K
KevinB
KevinB
daftandbarmy
    • Like
The Management Myth
Replies
11
Views
17K
Brad Sallows
Brad Sallows
MarkOttawa
Aussie warship exports? Good luck
Replies
0
Views
9K
MarkOttawa
MarkOttawa
Retired AF Guy
    • Like
Origin of Covid — Following the Clues
Replies
15
Views
36K
medicineman
medicineman
Back
Top