Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Kind redundant with ESSM? Is not the current RCNs plan for Sea Ceptor (CAMM) is point defence with the ExLS VLS? Saving the Mk 41 for SM-3, ESSM, Tomahawk etc.
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,730
- Points
- 1,360
…and don’t forget Mk.70s secured to the flight deck since we may still not have the CH-148 Cyclone fully up to speed and the SM-6s are more useful for an expanded ABM capability…
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,134
- Points
- 1,260
Stewards ?
- Reaction score
- 16,880
- Points
- 1,010
I am pretty certain that the crew accommodations on an Arleigh Burke are considerably more spartan that a Type 26.
That might be your answer.
- Reaction score
- 21,607
- Points
- 1,260
Nothing's too good for the troops, so they get nothing...
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
What happens when you run out of ESSMs and the only reloads available locally in the Baltic are CAMMs? Or KM-SAMs? The Ukrainians seem to be happy to launch anything that they can find.
Isn't interoperability a thing?
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 810
It would make zero sense for Canada to be interested in either the CAMM-MR or the CAMM-ER considering CSC already is slated to have ESSM Block II and SM-2 Block III-C. These two missiles match or exceed the proposed capabilities of MR and ER CAMM, making them redundant. They also cannot fit in the ExLS cells, eating up more valuable room in the main VLS array.
CSC has a multi-mission bay which is roughly 15m long and 20m wide amidships, this bay can accept up to 10 20ft shipping containers, another helicopter, additional boats or whatever else you can fit aboard. It also has its own gantry crane system for independently onloading and offloading cargo out of large roll-up shutter doors on the ships sides. This bay can take up to 150 tons of equipment inside in total, the weight and space put aside in the design to accommodate this is substantial.
CSC's flight deck is rated for a Chinook and is significantly larger than the flight deck on a Burke.
(CSC flight deck = 30m long and 20m wide)
(Burke flight deck = 14.6m long and 15.6m - 13.16m wide)
CSC has extensive measures put into the design to make the design very quiet for anti-submarine warfare duties. This includes things like specially designed internal pipework, inherently quiet/smoothly operating machinery, shaping the hull form, adding sound proofing, more rafting around equipment, etc to mitigate noise and vibrations across the entire ship. All of these measures are weight and space intensive to a point compared to a less technologically advanced or specialized combatant like a Burke.
CSC's crew accommodations are far more spacious and of higher quality compared to the older and more cramped Burke design.
That's what I could think of off the top of my head.
It is not feasible to mimic Ukraine and their land based systems in peacetime with naval VLS. You need to properly pay for systems integration and testing, which nations generally won't do out of their own pocket for a system they are not operating. Redundant weapons systems are deadweight that should be avoided. It makes far more sense generally for Canada to operate US missile systems considering our proximity to them overland, in comparison to trying to resupply across an ocean especially in a wartime scenario. ESSM also has a larger customer base (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Turkey, USA, Belgium, Chile, Finland, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Thailand and the UAE) compared to CAMM (Chile, UK, NZ, Poland, Pakistan, Brazil, Canada, Italy and Saudi Arabia.) Be interoperable using systems that are worthwhile.
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
JSS carries ESSM so Canada should be brining our own supply. Also ESSM is used by the Germans, Dutch, Danish, Norway, Finland. Its much more likely that CAMM will be out of stock in the Baltics. Also just because you can load it doesn't mean you have the software to interface the sensors to do the fire control solution.
Secondly if you are in a fight such that you run out of missiles AND can get out to reload, by that time you could have flown a bunch from Canada to the Baltics.
Flight 1 has no hangar for one. Second giving a shit about crew is another. Burkes pack the sailors in like is WW2 still. Jr officers for example are in 3-6 person cabins where even CPF's usually don't have that. Third is smaller aircraft when there is a hangar. Fourth is the huge flight deck. Fifth is the mission bay. The single GT is much much larger then the 4x GT, also you forgot the electric motors take up space where the Burke doesn't have those. Much bigger) sonar equipment on the Type 26 hull.
And of course the big radar up high. That can lead to wasted tonnage where the Burke radar is basically resting on 1 deck.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Well you have both on the current designs of the CSC. Sea Ceptor (CAMM) in ExLS tubes and then ESSM in Mk41 VLS. I was talking about CAMM-ER v ESSM that the other poster asked. I don't think you are going load both ESSM and CAMM-ER in the Mk41s.
- Reaction score
- 1,593
- Points
- 1,060
Can the CAMM-ER fit in the ExLS?
CAMM-MR has double the range of the ESSM?
but 1/4 the warhead?
double packed vs quad packed?
just a curiosity about the possibilities
CAMM-MR has double the range of the ESSM?
but 1/4 the warhead?
double packed vs quad packed?
just a curiosity about the possibilities
- Reaction score
- 6,425
- Points
- 1,140
We have CC-177s, CC-130s, and soon will have CC-330s, they can move a lot of ESSMs a long distance.
Even in Afghanistan, with loads of NATO members around, we still used Canadian ammo, rations, etc... We are a rich country, we shouldn't be planning to bum smokes from our less rich friends.
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
CAMM ER cannot fit into ExLS AFAIK. CAMM can. ESSM Block II has the range of CAMM ER And is a comparable missile now that it also has active fire control in the missile itself.
- Reaction score
- 6,237
- Points
- 1,040
One thing that does give you though is a cost/benefit analysis for reducing crew (whether you include it in costing or not). For example, if cutting 1 position requires you to add $5M of automation that costs $500k a year in annual maintenance to do the same thing that person was doing, that $60-80k salary looks pretty good.
It's an interesting exercise though, as all the equipment response safety cases consider things like having a rounds person for part of the initial response, but those were on the consideration list for chopping at one point recently to reduce crew. With how small the technician component is going to be though, not sure we've grasped how much the ashore support should grow to offset that, as the automation is now more critical than ever due to smaller crew size to even just put out a simple fire.
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 810
This Hunter class mockup was recently shown off at the Indo Pacific International Maritime Exposition 2023, where the multi-mission bay is replaced by 64 Mark 41 strike length cells for a total of 96 cells.
- Reaction score
- 5,845
- Points
- 1,090
I think I pointed this exact trade off out a little while ago (or I thought about it and didn't). I think that this missile load out would be a mistake.
At the end of the day do the Aussies want another AAW destroyer or a GP frigate. This ship they are showing is half pregnant. The radar/sensors are not optimized for AAW, and taking out the mission bay means they are no longer optimized for the General Purpose role that they bought the Hunter class for in the first place. I think the CSC would be better suited for a setup like that over the Hunter class given the sensor suite and CMS Canada is getting.
Also I find it interesting just how "thick" the ship looks. They really did change some of the dimensions on her to fit all those extra missiles.
At the end of the day do the Aussies want another AAW destroyer or a GP frigate. This ship they are showing is half pregnant. The radar/sensors are not optimized for AAW, and taking out the mission bay means they are no longer optimized for the General Purpose role that they bought the Hunter class for in the first place. I think the CSC would be better suited for a setup like that over the Hunter class given the sensor suite and CMS Canada is getting.
Also I find it interesting just how "thick" the ship looks. They really did change some of the dimensions on her to fit all those extra missiles.
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,099
- Points
- 1,160
So something like our mid-2000's fleet of the 12 x Halifax-Class Frigates and 3 x Iroquois-Class AAW Destroyers? Twelve of the CSC's in the standard configuration and three trading the mission bay for additional VLS launchers?
Rainbow1910
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 921
- Points
- 810
I think the main concern Australia is currently facing is that their previously made procurement decisions are not gelling with the reality that they currently find themselves in. Australia is going to be standing off against China in the Pacific, a 32 cell GP frigate with a bend towards ASW does not suit this goal. Chinese threats are chiefly going to be largely missile based, not submarines especially with Australia will eventually have their own best in class SSN capability to undertake ASW. The Hobart class is good enough capability wise but for a shooting war with China, there is far too few of them and they still don't have the cells/sensors to be overly useful. I can see this as a way for Australia to get more cells without having to cut down the Hunter class for some alternative DDG built either at home or abroad. The current radar and sensor suite in general is not suited for an overt AAW role, I agree 100% however, Australia might not have much of a choice as they are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to trying to get more cells to sea.
Something like 6 original Hunter spec variants and 3 of these AAW spec Hunter variants might be a reasonable way to keep the fleet balanced.
- Reaction score
- 21,607
- Points
- 1,260
What if you just made the MMB with a retractable/removable roof on some versions.
Then pod mount VLS cells as needed on those ships for missions.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
You called?
