Regarding 96 cell aaw for River, i wouldn't completely push out the idea that future batches might not go that route. I still would rather have that money spent into more cdc, support ships etc.. I also think if we decide go down the route of more cells for future batches, maybe not 48 but more.
Fundamentally, putting that many cells onto a ship design that isn't a thoroughbred AAW combatant is not worth the effort. While the combination of SPY-7 and AEGIS is a very potent capability for the RCN, the size of the radar array panels fundamentally limits what you can realistically get out of that design. It is also drastic overkill for the requirements of the RCN now and seemingly in the future.
Let's Talk was worth the wait. As always thank you!
Related to Q6, I see that Breaking Defense just published an article stating that up to 100 F-35s might be delivered initially without radars. The radars would be fitted at some later time. Do you know if Canada will be impacted by this? I gotta say Gripens are looking better and better every day :-)
That was great! Thanks for answering my question about CMS330 vs AEGIS, that makes everything make more sense. I heard that Germany was buying CMS330 from us, so I figured it must still be relevant, so I was a bit confused and disappointed when it sounded like we weren't going to be using a interesting home grown CMS option on the RCD, but it all makes a lot more sense now. It actually makes more sense of an article I read about the Australian Hunter class ships as well.
Regarding 96 cell aaw for River, i wouldn't completely push out the idea that future batches might not go that route. I still would rather have that money spent into more cdc, support ships etc.. I also think if we decide go down the route of more cells for future batches, maybe not 48 but more.
Fundamentally, putting that many cells onto a ship design that isn't a thoroughbred AAW combatant is not worth the effort. While the combination of SPY-7 and AEGIS is a very potent capability for the RCN, the size of the radar array panels fundamentally limits what you can realistically get out of that design. It is also drastic overkill for the requirements of the RCN now and seemingly in the future.
I agree that's why i said i would rather have that money spent in other ships/platforms.
Let's Talk was worth the wait. As always thank you!
Related to Q6, I see that Breaking Defense just published an article stating that up to 100 F-35s might be delivered initially without radars. The radars would be fitted at some later time. Do you know if Canada will be impacted by this? I gotta say Gripens are looking better and better every day :-)
According to what I've been told, it will not affect Canada's aircrafts because they are fitted with the APG-81 radar and not the APG-85.
So they will be able to keep deliveries on track by giving us the less capable radar.
From what I've been told is that the APG-85 is US only.
Yes. We wanted the 85 but its not available to foreign operators at this time. There was never an option for us to get the 85.
48mk41 where can they put them?
another 8 up front where AUS has them and the UK the sea ceptor?
another 8 amidships where the UK has the other sea ceptors?
gives 40 not 48 seems tight to fit another 8 on top of that in either spot
That was great! Thanks for answering my question about CMS330 vs AEGIS, that makes everything make more sense. I heard that Germany was buying CMS330 from us, so I figured it must still be relevant, so I was a bit confused and disappointed when it sounded like we weren't going to be using a interesting home grown CMS option on the RCD, but it all makes a lot more sense now. It actually makes more sense of an article I read about the Australian Hunter class ships as well.