why cant people just admit that the RCD are under armed. They always bring in lingo like "we won't be without assets or allies" or "we're not expected to do that role". come smh. if you real want to project power and have interests far from home, have some proper firepower. If not stay at home. jeez....
I can understand that feeling. If it were my call they would be more armed. I have said before I would like to see the number higher, and that they're unfer armed. Onlya matter of how far that goes. Im notably on tbe lower of what im fine with. If 32 was it? Than whatever. I could live. Others would want much higher.
I don't think anyone is saying they would love to see more VLS on the RCD. And it sounds like the later flights might get a few more, maybe 32, but the RCD is fundamentally a compromise. "Better to be a jack of all trades and master of none than to be master of only one" is a little tongue in cheek, but I think it does a lot to explain the rationale behind them. The RCD are REALLY good anti sub platforms, with enough ability in anti surface and anti air to cover those bases in a pinch, as long as it isn't sustained. And that is because the navy main contribution to national defense is anti sub. If the Northwest passage fully opened up much sooner than we expected, maybe anti surface would become more important, but that is why we are buying HiMARs. The plan is to use land based rocket artillery to deny the north to surface ships, if we need to. And we use NORAD and the air force for anti air in our sovereign airspace. If RCDs are deployed to an active conflict, say in the Pacific, it's almost certainly as a part of an allied task group, where we will be the anti sub experts, and someone else will be providing anti-air for the task group, and someone else, maybe with a carrier or cruiser, will be providing the sustained anti-surface punch. We will be meaningfully contributing to projecting power, just not in a particularly flashy way. I mean, unless we sink a nuclear sub, which would be damn impressive...
The reality is, Canada has very little interest in "projecting power" beyond our borders without our allies. We don't have any overseas territories that we need to scare adversaries off of on our own, so I think thats reasonable. Since we will be using land based radars to detect, and land or air based arms to deter in the high north, anti sub is legitimately the Navy's number one priority. Personally, I think we could use a version of the RCD where the multi mission space is sacrificed for more VLS, creating a 64 cell version that is much better at AA, maybe as a part of the last flight, because of things get hot, it would be better to be able to provide some top cover for our combatants while they are sailing to join an allied task group, but that is a decade or 2 in the future, and there will be plenty of time to debate and discuss that before then. If we manage to maintain the political will behind funding defense long term, who knows, we might get all sorts of specialized platforms, but right now, CAF brass likely has a hard time believing that the money will still be on the table in 10 or 20 years, so they are laser focused on procurement that they know they can use. They are still used to procurement that takes decades, and they will wait until they see proof of real change before they fundamentally change their expectations. And I think the focus on making the first 3 RCDs a simple as possible to ensure as few scandal causing delays around integrating anything unconventional is actually a really good plan. It's iterative, and it's prepared for the fickle public deciding to chase the next shiney thing. If the RCDs are launched and in service with no major boondogles, that will be such a big win for the RCN, I don't think it can be overstated. If they get that win under their belt, and public interest is still there, I think we might see some more ambitious weapons mixes on later flights. We will have to wait and see.
On VLS — the general sentiment is pretty much the opposite of what you're saying. 24 cells is probably the most common criticism of the RCD, not something people are brushing off. That's a widely shared concern, not a fringe take.
On layered defence — I half agree. The domestic picture makes sense, NORAD, HiMARs, and the air force covering their respective domains is solid logic. But that umbrella disappears the moment those ships leave Canadian waters. If Canadian interests are at stake beyond our shores, you can't bank on allied AAW being available, willing, or timely. We need ships that can protect themselves and the task group without being dependent on a phone call to Washington.
The niche argument also cuts both ways. Yes, Canada is excellent at ASW, arguably the best. But there's a real difference between being an ASW specialist and being an ASW ship with an AAW afterthought, especially if trying to be a jack of all trades. A destroyer should be capable of both. You can have a niche without having a glaring hole. Being known as the guys who are great underwater but need babysitting up top is not a strong strategic position, and it puts our allies in the position of protecting us while we protect them, which isn't a partnership of equals.
The procurement realism argument though, hard to disagree with that. A clean delivery on the first flights changes everything politically, and that credibility is the prerequisite for pushing for more capability on later ones.
That was well reasoned. And honestly, I hope we get 32 VLS on the 2nd flight, even if I don't think it's guaranteed. But I don't think they can fit more than 32 in the bow, and the RCN is pretty wedded to the mission bay. Which is why if they make a variant with more VLS in the place of the mission bay, it will be near the end of the run for the RCD. It might even technically be another class. A lot will depend on what Canada pulls out of the hat (or from elsewhere) on recruitment numbers. There some real aspirational numbers floating around right now, and right now, even optimists are being a little cautious about believing they are realistic. There is still a lot of concern that we won't even be able to man the ship we will have, let alone more. But if the world gets a lot scarier suddenly, which looks really possible, I wouldn't bet against it, either. I think the Navy is trying hedge their bets against a return to the previous status quo, which is understandable, but that means that they are not preparing for the very worst in the way the pessimists would like us to.
Something to bear in mind, the mission bay may end up being a much bigger deal than we are really considering it. One of the things the mission bay could be used for is large drones, both arial and underwater. If unmanned vessel end up filling as many roles as their proponents think, a couple of containerized drone control hubs could mother ship a couple corvette sized dedicated AAW platforms. Looked at objectively, the NSS is still growing, and the mid sized yards are just starting to pick up steam. We might be able to churn out something really capable before the 2nd flight of RCDs are in the water.
Fundamentally, I don't disagree with anything you said. I think we are just optimistic/pessimistic in slightly different areas, so we are cutting them slack/cutting them to the quick in different areas. At the end of the day, the RCN will end up making the best of what they got, and we just need to hope that the people pulling the trigger on big procurement projects like this are reading the right crystal ball.
The old status quo sums what the current Navy feels. They don't wanna return to the old systems but can't push for everything. A real pick and choose. I've also been reading on the multi mission bay , and i can see why the navy wants to keep it, especially in todays modern age of drones and autonomous systems. I would still push for at least 32-48 vls. Fundamentally the navy is heading in the right place but with compromises. How do you feel about corvette/light frigate size AAW platforms especially with CDC and NSS still arounf?
I can't see the CDC having much emphasis on AAW, as it's primary focus is going to be Canadian waters, where AAW is going to naturally fall to RCAF and maybe some of the new Ground Based Air Defense Noah has talked about recently. But as CDC keep getting bigger (the current "2500 to 4500 ton" range sounds more and more like a modernized Halifax than the 1000 ton Kingston replacement originaly pitched), who knows what they will stuff aboard! But I am dreaming of a future where we realize that best capabilities of drone surface vessels, and we can use our jack of all trades destroyers to be a mother ship for the drone task group that is tailored to the current mission's needs. There is a lot of work to be done before we know if something like that is even possible, let alone decide to do it, but if we pick the right horse to back in the drone zone, and the middle weight ship yards level up their game, there exists a world where that dream is realized in the next 10 years... Although 15 or 20 years is way more likely, and less satisfying or inspiring. Honestly, if we manage to ride the wave here, rather than trail distantly behind it, I'll be happy.
Fair point on AAW — with the RCAF and any emerging GBAD layer covering the high-end air threat, there's no real pressure to bolt a VLS-heavy air defence suite onto the CDC. That said, VLS still brings a lot to the table beyond AAW, and I'd hate to see it left off entirely.
And yeah, the tonnage creep is real.
The moment you start hearing "4500 tons" seriously floated, you're not talking about a Kingston replacement anymore — you're basically describing a frigate with a different name and a smaller budget line. At that point the question becomes whether the RCN leans into that reality and specs the ship accordingly, or keeps pretending it's a modest coastal patrol vessel and ends up with something awkward trying to be both.
The drone mothership concept is genuinely exciting though, and I think you're right that the destroyer is a better fit for that role than a purpose-built vessel — at least at this stage. The whole value proposition of an uncrewed surface task group is flexibility, and a capable multi-role ship acting as the command and logistics node lets you reconfigure the drone mix for ASW one day, ISR the next, or whatever the mission demands.
That's a fundamentally different force structure than today's, and it scales in interesting ways. Your timeline read feels honest. Ten years is the dream, fifteen to twenty is where the physics of procurement, doctrine development, and industrial capacity actually land. But you're right that "riding the wave" rather than buying yesterday's solution at tomorrow's prices is the real goal. Canada has surprised people before when it picks the right bet early — the trick is making that call before the window closes, not after everyone else already has.
I disagree with you Noah on Q3, i can see the government strongly pushing Chunmoo on to army even if they get the HIMARS, strangely enough i can see both operational in numbers. Maybe they serve different purposes.
Thats what im saying. If there was movement on Chunmoo it would come from the Federal side, which could be more incentivized by Hanwha taking the step to set up production, however I dont see it as high in anyones list of priority, so I don't see the feds pushing hard on it even if they might support.
That is more a case of other, competing prioirities taking precedent for discussion. If someone wants to make a high-low use case? Than sure, they can try. RCA won't jump on it, which is the big hurdle. They have set their way yo what they want and theyre very stubborn on it.
So it is in the feds court as to whether we see that. I should say that the concept does exist for more launchers. 26 was actually one of the lower options presented lol, but the RCA would argue for more HIMARS.
You may actually be agreeing with Noah. "Maybe the Feds push it for the sake of it." That would be the government strongly pushing Chunmoo. Noah's point is that he doesn't think that the CAF wants it's, so it would have to be be a purely political decision to make it likely. You have to remember, the CAF probably expects the current eagerness to spend money on them to dry up eventually, and they are going to do their damndest to make sure the money gets directed at their priorities while the money is flowing, and they are going to actively resist political pressure that would dilute the results they want. You only need to look at how much push back there is from within the RCAF over buying Gripens for an example of this. I'm sure that the army would prefer more HIMARS over any Chunmoo, even if they could be made to work. But if the government decides they want Chunmoo, maybe we get Chunmoo.
HIMARS and K239 Chunmoo are for two different purposes and fit two different roles , yes there is overlap in some areas but the K239 Chunmoo is much more flexible not to mention afforadble .
*HIMARS has one pod , Chunmoo has Two Pods loaded ready for action at a time *
Precision Guided rockets
HIMARS : Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $420,000 to $500,000+ per rocket , with a range of 70Km
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $200,000 , Rang 80 KM
Unguided rockets
HIMARS:.........the U.S. has switched to guided only......
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $5,600 per Rocket , Range 55 KM
Long Range Ballistic Missile
HIMARS: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost$ 1.9 Million per rocket , Range 300 KM
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $ 600,000 , Range 295 KM
You can make the argument that ATACMS the HIMARS fire's is a good investment , so having a hundred or so is the smart play . HOWEVER ... HIMARS is not an Artilery system in the traditional sense , its a Long Range Precisions Strike tool . Say you want to hit a Command and Control Center , a Power distribution center , Trumps new ballroom , Airfield , Supply and Support Node etc etc far behind the Enemy's lines , Ok you can prosecute that task with this tool . IT MUST BE NOTED that the K239 Chunmoo can do the same thing for cheaper and much much more , The K239 Chunmoo fits the traditional Rocket Artillery system ( Russian Grads , Russia Katyusha , German Nebelwerfer ) , line up 4/8/12 systems at a time and POUND the enemy and support your Infantry so they can capture and hold ground . Seems like folks forgot High Intensity Wars are won with mass , for an example ...How did all the really nice and fancy German Wonder Weapons work ? Hit or miss , but even when they where working great , how did that turn out? They got pimped slapped by WAVES of Shermans , Churchills and T34's . Everything on a battlefield is expendable , you need to find the happy ground between capabilities , price and mass production . The RCHA should not be given the HIMARS in any situation , that should go to a specialized unit , as an example like how the Anti Air unit we used to have (that we killed off for no good reason what so ever) was a completely different unit , they just wore Arty Cap Badges. The RCHA is a front line combat unit , they need 120's , 155's and if we are getting a ROCKET artillery system the K239 Chunmoo. Give the HIMARS to rear units , there to expensive to put with a standard Artillery unit .
As far as the River Class , its extremely under armed , there are Corvettes more heavily armed , the dam thing wont even be able to leave the Harbor because it cant protect itself in defensive action let alone engage and prosecute an enemy combatant in any offensive way . Some one had the bright idea to turn a top of the class ASW Frigate and take weapons off of it and put a "Multi Mission Bay" for what i can only imagine would be launching small craft for drug interdiction checks on civilian craft / humanitarian mission / SAR Search and Rescue and THEN stick top of class Anti Air Tech into it so it can do Area and Theater Air Defence ....WITH OUT ADDING ANYMORE weapons systems ....Listen like i stated above , everything on a battlefield is expendable . First , Get rid of the Multi Mission bay , Its a Ship of War in His Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy , not a coast guard vessel . If they want the Bay's stick them on the Coast Guard ships, a Ship of War is for the protection of Canadas supply routes , protect Canadas maritime lines of Communications with out Allies ( U.K. , Europe , Australia , N.Z , Jap , S.K. ) and most importantly it has to prosecute targets ( KILL people and SINK ships ) . Either: 1- scrap the whole dam thing ( which is a bad idea ) 2- Extend it like our Brothers Down Under and Arm it up 3- get Rid of the Multi Mission bays . Minimum for a destroyer doing Air defence should be 64 cells , if its doing ASW at the same time ( instead of having a dedicated frigate ) you need 100+ . Right Now Canadians are paying out the a$$ for a ship that wont be able to fight , its basically the world most high end coast guard ship that cant go into the Arctic , Its not a ship of War for a Navy and it cant leave the Harbor in a time of War. Canadians dont mind paying out the a$$ for a ship of War , but not this . If your not building ships of War that Can fight Chinese , Russia or American ships then your wasting money , endangering Canadians and working for our adversaries against Canada and His Majesty's National Interest . You Keep talking about the U.S. as if they are allies , there not . At best they will be Neutral JUST LIKE every other major WAR we have ever been in and it looks like they may even be in the other side , stop worrying about being able to work with them , FFS.
i see a lot of comments on the RCD and the lack of VLS. It is well known that there is interest in adding more cells past the first 3. A possible loadout of
12 SM2
48 ESSM
more than capable of self defence if not an elite AAD
Well, 48 sea sparrows was a lot at one time, but in the era of cheap drones, it's a lot less impressive, which I think is the root of peoples worries. Like, "are we building a ship that was good enough before the drone revolution, but is simply inadequate based on what we know now?"
And that it valid. But something that is missed is that more and more we are realizing that conventional anti air missiles are actually a poor fit for counter drone defense. The price mismatch makes for an unequal equation. Which is why counter drone drones are rapidly evolving as the preferred response, rather than more missiles. And if we manage to create an effective containerized counter UAV system, the VLS seasparrows can go back to their intended AAW purpose, and maybe take some of the pressure off of them again.
Of course, the downside of this solution is it's counting on a system that doesn't exists yet, and might not be ready when we first need it. But I am optimistic that by the time the RCD is actually deployed, we will have something that will render the risk of drone swarms and shahed equivalents atritting our air defense less of a concern. While I don't agree with the people who dismiss drone warfare as a passing fad, I do think that counter drone tech is developing nearly in lockstep with the development of the the drone threat itself. The biggest risk is the time period between when our adversaries deploy it, and when we deploy the counter. Right now, that gap is waaaaay to large.
they are going to have to get comfortable engaging some targets at closer distances instead of eliminating as far away as possible. A ship is always going to be in extreme danger in the litoral zone
Yeah, it's going to be alarming to be on a ship and see drones being picked off within visual range, and having to rely on the technology. But I think something like loitering drones carrying anti drone munitions and hunter seeker drones might be a far more realistic approach that stuffing our limited VLS with all the ESSM we might need.
well the gun has a 20nm range so its not that close and the answer to that problem is suppression of the launch sites. The UK version has another 48 CAMM so its always possible we take advantage of that space to upgrade later versions
I didn't think the mk48 gun system was usable for anti air? Or did you mean the mk 38 30mm canon, they are only usable out to 4 or 5 km, and likely only effective in the anti air role at less than 2km.
I know CAMM is off the table for the first batch, and I thought the RCN had moved away from them to simplify munitions logistics, and because the RIM 116 filled that role adequately. I'm not saying it's impossible, but from everything I've read from Noah, I didn't think they were likely to be revisited.
ive been told that not only can the mk 45 engage drones that it has
might be some value in upgrading the secondary guns, initially i think their intent was to engage surface targets not aerial
CAMM was referenced more in the sense that there was space and weight dedicated for that use that is maybe not being used and thus available for expansion
why cant people just admit that the RCD are under armed. They always bring in lingo like "we won't be without assets or allies" or "we're not expected to do that role". come smh. if you real want to project power and have interests far from home, have some proper firepower. If not stay at home. jeez....
I can understand that feeling. If it were my call they would be more armed. I have said before I would like to see the number higher, and that they're unfer armed. Onlya matter of how far that goes. Im notably on tbe lower of what im fine with. If 32 was it? Than whatever. I could live. Others would want much higher.
I don't think anyone is saying they would love to see more VLS on the RCD. And it sounds like the later flights might get a few more, maybe 32, but the RCD is fundamentally a compromise. "Better to be a jack of all trades and master of none than to be master of only one" is a little tongue in cheek, but I think it does a lot to explain the rationale behind them. The RCD are REALLY good anti sub platforms, with enough ability in anti surface and anti air to cover those bases in a pinch, as long as it isn't sustained. And that is because the navy main contribution to national defense is anti sub. If the Northwest passage fully opened up much sooner than we expected, maybe anti surface would become more important, but that is why we are buying HiMARs. The plan is to use land based rocket artillery to deny the north to surface ships, if we need to. And we use NORAD and the air force for anti air in our sovereign airspace. If RCDs are deployed to an active conflict, say in the Pacific, it's almost certainly as a part of an allied task group, where we will be the anti sub experts, and someone else will be providing anti-air for the task group, and someone else, maybe with a carrier or cruiser, will be providing the sustained anti-surface punch. We will be meaningfully contributing to projecting power, just not in a particularly flashy way. I mean, unless we sink a nuclear sub, which would be damn impressive...
The reality is, Canada has very little interest in "projecting power" beyond our borders without our allies. We don't have any overseas territories that we need to scare adversaries off of on our own, so I think thats reasonable. Since we will be using land based radars to detect, and land or air based arms to deter in the high north, anti sub is legitimately the Navy's number one priority. Personally, I think we could use a version of the RCD where the multi mission space is sacrificed for more VLS, creating a 64 cell version that is much better at AA, maybe as a part of the last flight, because of things get hot, it would be better to be able to provide some top cover for our combatants while they are sailing to join an allied task group, but that is a decade or 2 in the future, and there will be plenty of time to debate and discuss that before then. If we manage to maintain the political will behind funding defense long term, who knows, we might get all sorts of specialized platforms, but right now, CAF brass likely has a hard time believing that the money will still be on the table in 10 or 20 years, so they are laser focused on procurement that they know they can use. They are still used to procurement that takes decades, and they will wait until they see proof of real change before they fundamentally change their expectations. And I think the focus on making the first 3 RCDs a simple as possible to ensure as few scandal causing delays around integrating anything unconventional is actually a really good plan. It's iterative, and it's prepared for the fickle public deciding to chase the next shiney thing. If the RCDs are launched and in service with no major boondogles, that will be such a big win for the RCN, I don't think it can be overstated. If they get that win under their belt, and public interest is still there, I think we might see some more ambitious weapons mixes on later flights. We will have to wait and see.
On VLS — the general sentiment is pretty much the opposite of what you're saying. 24 cells is probably the most common criticism of the RCD, not something people are brushing off. That's a widely shared concern, not a fringe take.
On layered defence — I half agree. The domestic picture makes sense, NORAD, HiMARs, and the air force covering their respective domains is solid logic. But that umbrella disappears the moment those ships leave Canadian waters. If Canadian interests are at stake beyond our shores, you can't bank on allied AAW being available, willing, or timely. We need ships that can protect themselves and the task group without being dependent on a phone call to Washington.
The niche argument also cuts both ways. Yes, Canada is excellent at ASW, arguably the best. But there's a real difference between being an ASW specialist and being an ASW ship with an AAW afterthought, especially if trying to be a jack of all trades. A destroyer should be capable of both. You can have a niche without having a glaring hole. Being known as the guys who are great underwater but need babysitting up top is not a strong strategic position, and it puts our allies in the position of protecting us while we protect them, which isn't a partnership of equals.
The procurement realism argument though, hard to disagree with that. A clean delivery on the first flights changes everything politically, and that credibility is the prerequisite for pushing for more capability on later ones.
That was well reasoned. And honestly, I hope we get 32 VLS on the 2nd flight, even if I don't think it's guaranteed. But I don't think they can fit more than 32 in the bow, and the RCN is pretty wedded to the mission bay. Which is why if they make a variant with more VLS in the place of the mission bay, it will be near the end of the run for the RCD. It might even technically be another class. A lot will depend on what Canada pulls out of the hat (or from elsewhere) on recruitment numbers. There some real aspirational numbers floating around right now, and right now, even optimists are being a little cautious about believing they are realistic. There is still a lot of concern that we won't even be able to man the ship we will have, let alone more. But if the world gets a lot scarier suddenly, which looks really possible, I wouldn't bet against it, either. I think the Navy is trying hedge their bets against a return to the previous status quo, which is understandable, but that means that they are not preparing for the very worst in the way the pessimists would like us to.
Something to bear in mind, the mission bay may end up being a much bigger deal than we are really considering it. One of the things the mission bay could be used for is large drones, both arial and underwater. If unmanned vessel end up filling as many roles as their proponents think, a couple of containerized drone control hubs could mother ship a couple corvette sized dedicated AAW platforms. Looked at objectively, the NSS is still growing, and the mid sized yards are just starting to pick up steam. We might be able to churn out something really capable before the 2nd flight of RCDs are in the water.
Fundamentally, I don't disagree with anything you said. I think we are just optimistic/pessimistic in slightly different areas, so we are cutting them slack/cutting them to the quick in different areas. At the end of the day, the RCN will end up making the best of what they got, and we just need to hope that the people pulling the trigger on big procurement projects like this are reading the right crystal ball.
The old status quo sums what the current Navy feels. They don't wanna return to the old systems but can't push for everything. A real pick and choose. I've also been reading on the multi mission bay , and i can see why the navy wants to keep it, especially in todays modern age of drones and autonomous systems. I would still push for at least 32-48 vls. Fundamentally the navy is heading in the right place but with compromises. How do you feel about corvette/light frigate size AAW platforms especially with CDC and NSS still arounf?
I can't see the CDC having much emphasis on AAW, as it's primary focus is going to be Canadian waters, where AAW is going to naturally fall to RCAF and maybe some of the new Ground Based Air Defense Noah has talked about recently. But as CDC keep getting bigger (the current "2500 to 4500 ton" range sounds more and more like a modernized Halifax than the 1000 ton Kingston replacement originaly pitched), who knows what they will stuff aboard! But I am dreaming of a future where we realize that best capabilities of drone surface vessels, and we can use our jack of all trades destroyers to be a mother ship for the drone task group that is tailored to the current mission's needs. There is a lot of work to be done before we know if something like that is even possible, let alone decide to do it, but if we pick the right horse to back in the drone zone, and the middle weight ship yards level up their game, there exists a world where that dream is realized in the next 10 years... Although 15 or 20 years is way more likely, and less satisfying or inspiring. Honestly, if we manage to ride the wave here, rather than trail distantly behind it, I'll be happy.
Fair point on AAW — with the RCAF and any emerging GBAD layer covering the high-end air threat, there's no real pressure to bolt a VLS-heavy air defence suite onto the CDC. That said, VLS still brings a lot to the table beyond AAW, and I'd hate to see it left off entirely.
And yeah, the tonnage creep is real.
The moment you start hearing "4500 tons" seriously floated, you're not talking about a Kingston replacement anymore — you're basically describing a frigate with a different name and a smaller budget line. At that point the question becomes whether the RCN leans into that reality and specs the ship accordingly, or keeps pretending it's a modest coastal patrol vessel and ends up with something awkward trying to be both.
The drone mothership concept is genuinely exciting though, and I think you're right that the destroyer is a better fit for that role than a purpose-built vessel — at least at this stage. The whole value proposition of an uncrewed surface task group is flexibility, and a capable multi-role ship acting as the command and logistics node lets you reconfigure the drone mix for ASW one day, ISR the next, or whatever the mission demands.
That's a fundamentally different force structure than today's, and it scales in interesting ways. Your timeline read feels honest. Ten years is the dream, fifteen to twenty is where the physics of procurement, doctrine development, and industrial capacity actually land. But you're right that "riding the wave" rather than buying yesterday's solution at tomorrow's prices is the real goal. Canada has surprised people before when it picks the right bet early — the trick is making that call before the window closes, not after everyone else already has.
I disagree with you Noah on Q3, i can see the government strongly pushing Chunmoo on to army even if they get the HIMARS, strangely enough i can see both operational in numbers. Maybe they serve different purposes.
Thats what im saying. If there was movement on Chunmoo it would come from the Federal side, which could be more incentivized by Hanwha taking the step to set up production, however I dont see it as high in anyones list of priority, so I don't see the feds pushing hard on it even if they might support.
That is more a case of other, competing prioirities taking precedent for discussion. If someone wants to make a high-low use case? Than sure, they can try. RCA won't jump on it, which is the big hurdle. They have set their way yo what they want and theyre very stubborn on it.
So it is in the feds court as to whether we see that. I should say that the concept does exist for more launchers. 26 was actually one of the lower options presented lol, but the RCA would argue for more HIMARS.
60 Chunmoo though would go a long way.
You may actually be agreeing with Noah. "Maybe the Feds push it for the sake of it." That would be the government strongly pushing Chunmoo. Noah's point is that he doesn't think that the CAF wants it's, so it would have to be be a purely political decision to make it likely. You have to remember, the CAF probably expects the current eagerness to spend money on them to dry up eventually, and they are going to do their damndest to make sure the money gets directed at their priorities while the money is flowing, and they are going to actively resist political pressure that would dilute the results they want. You only need to look at how much push back there is from within the RCAF over buying Gripens for an example of this. I'm sure that the army would prefer more HIMARS over any Chunmoo, even if they could be made to work. But if the government decides they want Chunmoo, maybe we get Chunmoo.
HIMARS and K239 Chunmoo are for two different purposes and fit two different roles , yes there is overlap in some areas but the K239 Chunmoo is much more flexible not to mention afforadble .
*HIMARS has one pod , Chunmoo has Two Pods loaded ready for action at a time *
Precision Guided rockets
HIMARS : Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $420,000 to $500,000+ per rocket , with a range of 70Km
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $200,000 , Rang 80 KM
Unguided rockets
HIMARS:.........the U.S. has switched to guided only......
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $5,600 per Rocket , Range 55 KM
Long Range Ballistic Missile
HIMARS: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost$ 1.9 Million per rocket , Range 300 KM
K239 Chunmoo: Foreign Military Sale (Export) Cost $ 600,000 , Range 295 KM
You can make the argument that ATACMS the HIMARS fire's is a good investment , so having a hundred or so is the smart play . HOWEVER ... HIMARS is not an Artilery system in the traditional sense , its a Long Range Precisions Strike tool . Say you want to hit a Command and Control Center , a Power distribution center , Trumps new ballroom , Airfield , Supply and Support Node etc etc far behind the Enemy's lines , Ok you can prosecute that task with this tool . IT MUST BE NOTED that the K239 Chunmoo can do the same thing for cheaper and much much more , The K239 Chunmoo fits the traditional Rocket Artillery system ( Russian Grads , Russia Katyusha , German Nebelwerfer ) , line up 4/8/12 systems at a time and POUND the enemy and support your Infantry so they can capture and hold ground . Seems like folks forgot High Intensity Wars are won with mass , for an example ...How did all the really nice and fancy German Wonder Weapons work ? Hit or miss , but even when they where working great , how did that turn out? They got pimped slapped by WAVES of Shermans , Churchills and T34's . Everything on a battlefield is expendable , you need to find the happy ground between capabilities , price and mass production . The RCHA should not be given the HIMARS in any situation , that should go to a specialized unit , as an example like how the Anti Air unit we used to have (that we killed off for no good reason what so ever) was a completely different unit , they just wore Arty Cap Badges. The RCHA is a front line combat unit , they need 120's , 155's and if we are getting a ROCKET artillery system the K239 Chunmoo. Give the HIMARS to rear units , there to expensive to put with a standard Artillery unit .
As far as the River Class , its extremely under armed , there are Corvettes more heavily armed , the dam thing wont even be able to leave the Harbor because it cant protect itself in defensive action let alone engage and prosecute an enemy combatant in any offensive way . Some one had the bright idea to turn a top of the class ASW Frigate and take weapons off of it and put a "Multi Mission Bay" for what i can only imagine would be launching small craft for drug interdiction checks on civilian craft / humanitarian mission / SAR Search and Rescue and THEN stick top of class Anti Air Tech into it so it can do Area and Theater Air Defence ....WITH OUT ADDING ANYMORE weapons systems ....Listen like i stated above , everything on a battlefield is expendable . First , Get rid of the Multi Mission bay , Its a Ship of War in His Majesty's Royal Canadian Navy , not a coast guard vessel . If they want the Bay's stick them on the Coast Guard ships, a Ship of War is for the protection of Canadas supply routes , protect Canadas maritime lines of Communications with out Allies ( U.K. , Europe , Australia , N.Z , Jap , S.K. ) and most importantly it has to prosecute targets ( KILL people and SINK ships ) . Either: 1- scrap the whole dam thing ( which is a bad idea ) 2- Extend it like our Brothers Down Under and Arm it up 3- get Rid of the Multi Mission bays . Minimum for a destroyer doing Air defence should be 64 cells , if its doing ASW at the same time ( instead of having a dedicated frigate ) you need 100+ . Right Now Canadians are paying out the a$$ for a ship that wont be able to fight , its basically the world most high end coast guard ship that cant go into the Arctic , Its not a ship of War for a Navy and it cant leave the Harbor in a time of War. Canadians dont mind paying out the a$$ for a ship of War , but not this . If your not building ships of War that Can fight Chinese , Russia or American ships then your wasting money , endangering Canadians and working for our adversaries against Canada and His Majesty's National Interest . You Keep talking about the U.S. as if they are allies , there not . At best they will be Neutral JUST LIKE every other major WAR we have ever been in and it looks like they may even be in the other side , stop worrying about being able to work with them , FFS.
"We are committed to Chunmoo, we have landed on the 26 launchers," I'm pretty sure you meant HIMARS there...
Agree.. "no chunmoo for you", it's def HIMARS.
i see a lot of comments on the RCD and the lack of VLS. It is well known that there is interest in adding more cells past the first 3. A possible loadout of
12 SM2
48 ESSM
more than capable of self defence if not an elite AAD
Well, 48 sea sparrows was a lot at one time, but in the era of cheap drones, it's a lot less impressive, which I think is the root of peoples worries. Like, "are we building a ship that was good enough before the drone revolution, but is simply inadequate based on what we know now?"
And that it valid. But something that is missed is that more and more we are realizing that conventional anti air missiles are actually a poor fit for counter drone defense. The price mismatch makes for an unequal equation. Which is why counter drone drones are rapidly evolving as the preferred response, rather than more missiles. And if we manage to create an effective containerized counter UAV system, the VLS seasparrows can go back to their intended AAW purpose, and maybe take some of the pressure off of them again.
Of course, the downside of this solution is it's counting on a system that doesn't exists yet, and might not be ready when we first need it. But I am optimistic that by the time the RCD is actually deployed, we will have something that will render the risk of drone swarms and shahed equivalents atritting our air defense less of a concern. While I don't agree with the people who dismiss drone warfare as a passing fad, I do think that counter drone tech is developing nearly in lockstep with the development of the the drone threat itself. The biggest risk is the time period between when our adversaries deploy it, and when we deploy the counter. Right now, that gap is waaaaay to large.
they are going to have to get comfortable engaging some targets at closer distances instead of eliminating as far away as possible. A ship is always going to be in extreme danger in the litoral zone
Yeah, it's going to be alarming to be on a ship and see drones being picked off within visual range, and having to rely on the technology. But I think something like loitering drones carrying anti drone munitions and hunter seeker drones might be a far more realistic approach that stuffing our limited VLS with all the ESSM we might need.
well the gun has a 20nm range so its not that close and the answer to that problem is suppression of the launch sites. The UK version has another 48 CAMM so its always possible we take advantage of that space to upgrade later versions
I didn't think the mk48 gun system was usable for anti air? Or did you mean the mk 38 30mm canon, they are only usable out to 4 or 5 km, and likely only effective in the anti air role at less than 2km.
I know CAMM is off the table for the first batch, and I thought the RCN had moved away from them to simplify munitions logistics, and because the RIM 116 filled that role adequately. I'm not saying it's impossible, but from everything I've read from Noah, I didn't think they were likely to be revisited.
ive been told that not only can the mk 45 engage drones that it has
might be some value in upgrading the secondary guns, initially i think their intent was to engage surface targets not aerial
CAMM was referenced more in the sense that there was space and weight dedicated for that use that is maybe not being used and thus available for expansion