Canadian Surface Combatant

[kqcke for you]

I don't believe it is. Would have thought Tactical Length would have presented some integration issues though given its larger size. The CGI doesn't appear to be big enough for Tactical Length looking at other T-26 side views (the height of a Merlin is converniently roughly the height of tactical length Mk.41)

Tought maybe its different for MK.41 single cell launcher? Given that it looks like only 6 cells which means if it is MK.41 its only the SCL or well 6 of them.

To be honest it doesn't make sense. Why not just have 32 Mk.41 Strike Length up front like the Australian Hunter Class? The UK's Type 26 has space for 24 CAMM cells up front, so why not 8 Self Defence or Tactical Length Mk.41 there on CSC...

Maybe. It also looks like it is a little bit larger which they could do. Just raise the mk.41 higher.

 

[timmymagic]

Maybe. It also looks like it is a little bit larger which they could do. Just raise the mk.41 higher.

It is after all just CGI, but from that it would need to be significantly taller relative to the stack.

 

[BlackBat242]

Budget wise that would make sense...so probably wouldn't happen. It would address the complaint many have made around low missile count...8 Self-Defence Mk.41 could add 32 ESSM, along with 2 x 11 RAM in SeaRAM. With the 24 Strike Length Mk.41 and seperate canisterised NSM that would actually give CSC very reasonable missile stocks.

The graphic states "6-cell Mk 41 VLS". That's 24 ESSM II in place of the previous 24 CAMM.

 

[TomS]

The graphic states "6-cell Mk 41 VLS". That's 24 ESSM II in place of the previous 24 CAMM.

I'm not sure what their sourcing is. If they are relying on the latest infographic, it's clearly old and does not reflect the change from CAMM to RAM. That's where the 6 cells comes from, I believe. There is a 6-cell configuration of the Mk41 Single-Cell Launcher, but it looks quite different from the ExLS shown in the old illustrations. It would be noticable on renders.

ESSM was always included in the forward VLS. Not sure why they would be adding cells for ESSM as well as adding RAM launchers.

 

[kqcke for you]

ESSM was always included in the forward VLS. Not sure why they would be adding cells for ESSM as well as adding RAM launchers.

Increased Magazine depth. If they fit Back there 24-32 ESSM then the front can be used for sm-2 and TLAM only. That gives probaly more SM-2's If they go with 8 TLAM's per ship. RAM will just fill the CWIS requierments without the need for an VLS

 

[Grey Havoc]

Canada awards multibillion-dollar deals for new icebreakers, warships

The federal government announced plans construct two new Arctic icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard.

www.defensenews.com

Another contract announced last week was to Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding for a new fleet of warships destined for the Canadian Navy. The cost to build the first three River-class destroyers is of approximately $22.2 billion, excluding taxes, according to the Canadian government.

“By investing in our own industry, Canadian workers are helping to build the fleet of the future, equipping the Navy and our members in uniform modern and versatile ships they need for Canada’s important contributions to peace and security at home and abroad,” National Defense Minister Bill Blair said.

These contracts come at a critical time for Ottawa. Over the last month, it has been battling a trade war with its southern neighbor following the imposition of U.S. tariffs on imports from Canada.

 

[Devin]

Increased Magazine depth. If they fit Back there 24-32 ESSM then the front can be used for sm-2 and TLAM only. That gives probaly more SM-2's If they go with 8 TLAM's per ship. RAM will just fill the CWIS requierments without the need for an VLS

 

[kqcke for you]

View attachment 762734

ExLS is a pipe dream now that its pretty mutch a baseline AEGIS ship apparently. Even then assuming they include RAM then using ESSM instead of CAMM makes sense.

 

[TomS]

ExLS is a pipe dream now that its pretty mutch a baseline AEGIS ship apparently. Even then assuming they include RAM then using ESSM instead of CAMM makes sense.

Exactly. I think people are confused because the OLD plan was for a pair of three-cell ExLS (a relative of Mk 41) to house 24 CAMM. With RAM instead, you probably have Mk 49 launchers midships (or maybe SeaRAM?) and only the 24-cell Mk 41 forward for SM-2, ESSM, and TLAM.

 

[kqcke for you]

Exactly. I think people are confused because the OLD plan was for a pair of three-cell ExLS (a relative of Mk 41) to house 24 CAMM. With RAM instead, you probably have Mk 49 launchers midships (or maybe SeaRAM?) and only the 24-cell Mk 41 forward for SM-2, ESSM, and TLAM.

SeaRAM would give even less missiles for little too no extra capabilitys. Still another 8 MK.41 for ESSM should have been choosen but who am i

 

[Archdude]

SeaRAM would give even less missiles for little too no extra capabilitys. Still another 8 MK.41 for ESSM should have been choosen but who am i

Interesting!!!