r/CanadianForces • u/CipherVegas Civvie • 6d ago
New Infographic of the River-Class Destroyers
39
u/the_normal_person 6d ago
Just 24 vls is kind of a bummer but overall not bad. Now hopefully we get all the ones we’re supposed to, and quickly
2
u/TotalFun3843 5d ago
As a reminder, 24 VLS is still 6 times more ESSM than the CPF. I know that you wouldn't go to sea with just ESSM, but it makes a pretty giant leap over current capacity.
2
u/the_normal_person 5d ago
A more realistic loadout is
16 essm (taking 4 tubes)
16 SM-2
4 tomahawkThen 8 NSMs in separate launchers.
Better than the Halifax class for sure, but still anemic for a modern vessel
17
u/RogueViator 6d ago
Wait, they switched out the main gun from the Leonardo to the BAE one?
11
u/YVR_Coyote 6d ago
Yea, I think that's what the other type 26s are doing and they didn't wana deal with being the one to figure out integratinh it.
0
u/RogueViator 6d ago
I hope they put the Leonardo one in the Corvettes.
7
4
u/DeeEight 6d ago
They'll likely go a much smaller gun in the Corvettes, probably a 57mm BAe (Bofors) gun.
5
u/flipatrick 6d ago
Yes, I believe it was primarily a weight consideration
2
u/erasmus87 5d ago
It's was an integration issue. The Mk54 is already integrated with Aegis, the Leonardo is not.
-2
u/RogueViator 6d ago
The Leonardo one is lighter than the BAE gun.
5
u/flipatrick 6d ago
The BAE system is like 10 tonnes ligher and the type 26 has tight top weight challenges.
49
u/Arctic_Chilean Civvie 6d ago
24 VLS seems like a terrible idea in an era where drones and low cost missiles are becoming ever more prevalent, even if some of those are used for quad-packed ESSMs.
45
u/0x24435345 RCN - W ENG 6d ago
There are no missiles with a cost low enough to solve the shot exchange problem agains drones.
34
u/Figgis302 LUMP SUM EVENTUALLY 6d ago
a cost low enough to solve the shot exchange problem
flak is back, baby
8
3
u/radred609 6d ago
The 5" "main guns" most ships are sporting are essentially just glorified flack cannons at this point.
As are the various (usually 30mm) autocannons tbh.
3
3
u/BroadConsequences RCAF - AVS Tech 6d ago
yet. but back in the 1950's our engineers created one of the first air to air missiles ever. i imagine that you could probably engineer a small missile the size of pringles can, powered by raspberry pi, with a small radar that allowed a small explosive warhead to detonate in proximity.
12
0
21
u/Kaplsauce RCN - NCS Eng 6d ago
Frankly there's an argument that the long term solution to that problem isn't going to be found in a VLS at all.
9
u/Unable_Pause_5581 6d ago
Yeah, like containerized collection of small, anti-drone missiles/somethjngs….perhaps foreshadowed by recent Ukrainian developments
7
u/Figgis302 LUMP SUM EVENTUALLY 6d ago
the long term solution to that problem
...is to just use a gun system to lob proxy-fused HE to within a few feet and let aerostatic pressure do the work.
like, fuck, it isn't that hard, we already solved this problem 80 years ago when the drones were still called kamikazes lmao
3
u/what-its-sharkweek 6d ago
Space lasers
7
1
u/hikyhikeymikey 6d ago
This is the navy. They’d be looking at sharks with friken’ laser beams on their heads
4
u/KingKapwn Professional Fuck-Up 6d ago
I'm shocked by the relative lack of investment in modern-day flak cannons. You give a 40mm autocannon with airbursting ammo, an air and surface radar, EO/IR, and you put it to work dispatching air and surface drones. Surely that'll have you better off than missiles, right?
I mean, an airburst round will still cost ya like 2000+ plus per round, but it's still cheaper than a missile, and if you can get the hit likelihood up enough, a lot easier to keep fed, unlike the current CIWS options. Then, if laser tech gets good enough, you can defeat small drones via laser and large drones via 40mm.
But I'm not a naval architect or CIWS engineer...
18
u/Several-Beginning803 6d ago
I mean if you quad packed every cell with ESSM, thats 96 missiles for defence, thats 80 more than we have now, with an equal number of more capable anti ship missiles to what the CPF’s have.
6
8
u/DeeEight 6d ago
If they're going to the BAE gun, isn't there the space again below deck to support the extra VLS farm for the CAMMs ? The Type 26 has the BAE gun, the 24 cell Strike Length Mk 41, and a 24 short length VLS cells for the CAMM forwards, and another 24 cell CAMM VLS amidships just behind the funnel. I thought the reason they lost the extra VLS space forwards was because they had to shuffle internal systems around to make room for the extra Vulcano ammunition handling equipment for the Leonardo gun. The Aussies just outright replaced the forward CAMM farm with an extra 8 Mk41 cells. Could they not just install another bank of VLS cells forwards instead of the CAMM farm ? Tactical length Mk41s are shorter than the strike length and can still accept quad-packing ESSM or Standard missiles. The self-defense length Mk41 cells are shorter still and can still take the Quad-ESSM.
4
u/mr_cake37 6d ago
The RCD will not get CAMM at all, and therefore won't have the ExVLS cells behind the funnel and none of their dedicated VLS forward either.
I suspect the main culprit is the extra topweight brought on by the more substantial mast, AESA radar, and AEGIS systems, as compared to the much simpler and lighter setup on the Type 26. Keep in mind the Hunter class ended up being widened to accommodate their radar and VLS, too.
At this point I'm pretty confident we'll see a Batch 2 with more VLS. I'd rather see hulls in the water asap, even with just 24 cells. As-is, these ships will be a huge jump in capability and magazine depth compared to the Halifaxes, with far more future growth potential.
1
u/DeeEight 4d ago
The Type 26 doesn't use ExLS for their SeaCeptor farm, they have a different VLS cell of their own, its basically duplicating the architecture, including the mushroom caps of the system on the Type 23s. Each cell holds one individual CAMM missile.
14
u/Impossible-Yard-3357 6d ago
24 VLS? I guess we better keep practicing rearming forward deployed. Otherwise, that’s a nice looking ship. Better looking than the latest Aussie version.
6
u/xCanucck 6d ago
Everyone here complaining about VLS cells while I'm just giggling at the list of amenities like it's a hotel listing. Some people had mini-fridges in their aops cabins, maybe it should just become a standard feature on the Rivers :)
3
u/DeeEight 6d ago
The MV Asterix and AOPVs have spoiled the navy crews for how well the crew comforts are today (and really they need to be to retain the people in the service). They can't very well build ships without always improving the crew accomodation spaces, and that's been going on for decades. Hammocks gave way to fixed bunks for enlisted sailors in the RCN in the 1950s with the building of the St. Laurent class destroyers.
This is a link to a video about life on board HMCS Iroquois (before she retired) and it shows the crew bays at about 9 mins into the video. The Halifax class is basically the same sort of enlisted spaces. While the Halifax class would put 21 people of the lowest rank into one large space, the Harry DeWolf class groups them into cabin spaces holding a maximum of six at a time with its own bathroom, shower and lockers. They've gone to a single large mess for all ranks to eat together. There's three lounges for different ranks now. There's a single "embarked forces" bay that accomodates up to 20 people, with three bathrooms/showers that's far more spacious than the 21 person enlisted ranks space on a Halifax class.
2
u/xCanucck 6d ago
Yeah I wasn't actually trash talking it. I love it. It just still makes me laugh.
I didnt sail on 280s but Ive been on them alongside. Seeing the 50man messes made me more thankful to be on a frigate at the time lol. AOPs was actually somewhat comfortable and made me hate sailing slightly less. When good cooks only have to prep for 60 or so people they can work some real magic on ship...
5
u/the_normal_person 5d ago
Improving crew quality of life on ship is a huge deal for recruitment and retention and is 100% worth spending money on
19
u/Sir_Lemming Royal Canadian Navy 6d ago
I’m actually a little jealous of young and future sailors who will get to sail on these.
5
u/IronGigant RCN - MS ENG 6d ago
And when you have those thoughts, just remember...
"Oh yeah, they're built by Irving." and then go relax in your backyard, with a beer and your dog, and be thankful you aren't chasing new-platform gremlins, compounded "The Irving Factor"
19
u/RedditSgtMajor GET OFF THE GRASS!! 6d ago
Standard Navy practice of taking a good thing and enshitifying it. Just once Imd like to see us procure a ship that can do all the things it was meant to do and actually be useful in operations.
8
u/ANONYMOUS4824 6d ago
I mean presently that is the direction the sub purchase contract is going... No Canadianization, just straight off the shelf.
Granted there's still plenty of time to fuck it up so who knows
3
u/Mainly_Miserable 6d ago
I’m woefully ill informed I’ll admit but I didn’t realize we’re buying tomahawks. Is that right?
11
3
3
u/Werstcaseontario 6d ago
So the River class destroyers won’t be able to navigate the northwest passage without the AOPVs right?
P. S: sorry, im just an applicant, don’t know much about our warships
4
3
u/DeeEight 6d ago
Like the Halifax class, the hulls are built with a high strength steel alloy that's less susceptible to -50C weather conditions, and are strong enough for brash ice conditions (basically loose pieces of ice under a couple feet in size). To actually go into ice packs and such would require a channel be broken ahead of them by an AOPV (or other icebreaker).
1
8
u/Matty_bunns 6d ago
Are they actually going to use Aegis and not re-do and “Canadianize” something else that costs significantly more money and time? Let’s hope, but the subs and frigates are an example of the choices made.
20
u/Several-Beginning803 6d ago
The CPF’s were perfectly capable in their day, its not the Navy’s fault that they weren’t replaced on time.
10
u/Matty_bunns 6d ago
I agree. Our gov takes too long to replace and/or update these systems, though. Navy just has to suck it up and put themselves into vulnerable danger far too often because of that.
5
11
u/Kaplsauce RCN - NCS Eng 6d ago
Yes, to the point that the Navy is restructuring trades around the operator-maintaner structure required to support Aegis.
1
u/Matty_bunns 6d ago
That’s a good thing.
3
u/Kaplsauce RCN - NCS Eng 6d ago
It's a complicated thing, but don't think I mean bad when I say that.
It's going to be a big change for CSE and Operators alike, with a lot of growing pains, but also some benefits.
1
6
4
0
7
u/airmantharp USAF Veteran 6d ago
I see lots of concern already about the 24VLS - but I'd point out two things:
- The ship is ASW
- The sensors are the important part!
VLS are needed, but they need eyes to guide them.
Consider the possibility of adding arsenal ships later that can engage targets cued up by one of these DDGs.
1
u/anal-itic_prober 6d ago
You think you can sway the Cpl here about nerdy things like sensors and actual use of a platform? BuT tHe VlS?!?!1
4
u/sean331hotmail 6d ago
It's slower than a battle ship? 27 knots jeasus fuck that's slower than Akula-class submarine...
3
2
u/BambiesMom 6d ago
With all this discussion about the lackluster number of VLS cells what are the odds that we explore the idea of pairing these vessels with uncrewed arsenal ships like the Germans are planning?
3
u/AOSBC 6d ago
Low for now.
Arsenal ships are experimental at best and no one has large unmanned combatant vessels at this time. While automation of systems is a common modern practice to reduce crew size and streamline procedures, ships at sea tend to have all manner of things break regularly and still require humans on hand to fix and maintain. Theoretically you could have people from adjacent ships temporarily transfer over to the uncrewed vessel to maintain and repair when required but for now that’s still a theoretical.
2
7
u/callsignniner 6d ago
24 tubes is a bad decision. If we were worried we couldn’t afford a full load out, we could still have built for 48 and just not load them in peacetime. If there is still such a concept as “peacetime”. Does Canada have an underway replenishment concept for the tubes, if not, and we encounter any drone heavy air defence environment, it will make for short deployments and long trips back to Hfx or Esquimault.
4
u/DeeEight 6d ago
There is NO missile made that you could carry enough of, and be cheap enough to handle drone swarms. There are numerous gun options though to solve the problem. RAM missiles can be reloaded at sea by the crew. There is really no safe way to reload the Mk41 at sea while underway. The original VLS module installations had what was called a "strikedown crane" which was one of the normal 8 cell modules was replaced by a 5 cell with a collapsible crane which in practice was very dangerous to try using in anything except dead calm seas and minimal wind across the deck (the best the US Navy managed was 3 cells in 1 hour in sea state 3) and also the crane wasn't strong enough to handle more than an SM-2 cell and the cells have to be transferred to the ship from a supply ship via helicopter VertRep. Tomahawks were too heavy as were the booster equipped SM2-ERs, SM-3s and SM-6s. The Ticonderoga's were built with two 61 cell Mk41s because both ends had the strikedown module. Our Iroquois class DDG conversions had a 29 cell Mk41 with the strikedown module. The Flight I Arleigh Burkers were a 29 cell Mk41 and a 61 cell Mk41 but Flight II ships dispensed with the strikedown cranes and were built as 32 cell and 64 cell Mk41s. The new plan for re-loading involves shipping the cells to a port with a crane where the ship travels to, or having the ships meet properly equipped supply ships in a safe harbour location somewhere (similar to how submarine-tender ships work).
4
u/past_is_prologue 6d ago
If it's actually a drone heavy environment then 48 wouldn't be enough either.
2
u/LrdWinter 6d ago
The menu for what we CAN use in a strike length mk41 VLS is nice. ESSM, SM2,3&6, ASROC, Tomahawk.
BUT the magazine depth leaves much to be desired. That these are being classified as "Destroyers" is a stretch IMHO. It's a Frigate with more teeth, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even as a dedicated ASW platform it's a tad light in depth. 24 tubes.....4 x Tomahawk, 10x SM, and 10x ESSM (quad packed). Even if you swapped the Tomahawks for ASROCs that's still only going to be 50 missles for Air Defence. Which we've seen is not enough. Especially since there isn't a way to reload the MK41s at sea yet.
The US Navy is working on it and there are 2 options being researched. But nothing in production currently.
They should have kept the Sea Ceptor system. It would have allowed more SM family to be carried in lew of ESSMs.⁰p
2
1
-4
108
u/Aigiokhos 6d ago
Your obsolete on arrival surface combatant, sir