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.
Maybe. It also looks like it is a little bit larger which they could do. Just raise the mk.41 higher.
The graphic states "6-cell Mk 41 VLS". That's 24 ESSM II in place of the previous 24 CAMM.
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
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
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.
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!!!
www.navylookout.com
www.twz.com
The Royal Canadian Navy came to the decision some time ago that since the current Halifax class frigates are in such a dire need of replacement, the River class design would be de-risked and finalized as soon possible to facilitate production. The loss of the additional 8 cell Mark 41 VLS module is indeed felt however, getting ships into the water is a priority at this point over pure cell count. They are looking at a way to add cells back into the design on future batch productions, but there are concerns around the vessels weight margins given the already extensive modifications made to the Type 26 design and the consequences we've seen with the Hunter class regarding weight addition spirals.
The Canadian Govt confirmed today that those launchers amidships and Nulka has subsequently been deleted from the design, SEWIP Block 2 AN/SLQ 32V6 has also been confirmed as well for the EW suite specifically.
Oh god, NAVSEA have turned it into another Constellation!
Isn't Nulka basically an active decoy using a drone?
That single RAM launcher is badly wooded to the starboard bow/beam. Arcs were much less of an issue with CAMM being vertically launched.
Its an active RF decoy that moves and hovers using a rocket motor, consequently its time on station is limited. LEED will use electrical motors and props so will have greater loiter time, plus will be able to move away from the targeted vessel and manoeuvre far more effectively.
That's an interesting capability, much akin to VLS. Of course it then raises the question of why they don't just use it in a VLS and eliminate the cost and maintenance load of the trainable launcher.
But that means, no CAMM-ER(trading some outer edge for dead zone and break in commonality? No funding available, and honestly probably rightly so) and even more certainly no ESSM(aren't procured and aren't integrated into FCS anyway). Certainly no CAMM-MR (there is no realistic point doing that on type 997) - to date it isn't a planned UK system either.
Well, yes, but tbh I don't see much reason to. CAMM-ER to me personally seems to be a strange missile, neither there nor there. It makes more sense for IT navy as they have significant CIWS capability in form of strales, but otherwise i'd very much take no dead zone over additional range; otherwise, give me true CAMM-MR.
Missed that, thanks.
It can detect to 200+, no problem. But detect what, IAF 655?
I assumed ~$650k CAMM, $2mln ESSM/CAMM-MR.
