Off topic but interesting enough, the switch from the Leonardo 127 mm to the BAE 5 inch gun on the River class saves 26000 lbs which is almost exactly the weight of an 8 pack self defense mk-41 (26800 lbs) which is still capable of quad packing essm's. Could the Rivers possibly be getting 8 more cells to hold 32 essms leaving 24 strike length open for longer range high end missles? Probably not. But here is to hoping.
I wouldn't read into it too much. The launchers look more like ExLS in this image (no exhaust and an arrangement that isn't possible with MK41). I don't think it's supposed tk be detailed enough to identify thag clearly - though the 57mm missing is really puzzling.
I think its just generic placement. It happens. This is Ontario, not Vard so there is room for some generics. I initially thought it was ExLS at first glance, but there are a few things that would be strange about that.
For one I have never seen Vigilance 100 offered with ExLS, always been MK.41. Never even heard it disvussed for the 100. The other thing is that the RCN seemingly has no real desire for ExLS anymore. There is no attitude to add CAMM to the inventory anymore, despite me trying to keep the dream alive.
Would be extremely weird, knowing that mentality and consistantly advertising the MK.41 to suddenly switch up to ExLS to add a few more, limited cells.
Better 16 MK.41 than 24 ExLS in this case. Would be a very strange switchup.
Oh, CDC threw out that idea a long time ago. Currently there's no tonnage limit that I know of. Estimates now are that CDC will lilely be in the 2500-4000 range.
im pretty sure Seaspan, Irving and Davie arent going to be happy adding Heddle to the group especially when Seaspan is complaining about laying of design engineers. At over 1000 tonnes and a combatant does it not fall under Irvings purview?
CDC is seperate from the NSS is it not? Those contracts involved included the CSC (River class), JSS, AOPS and multiples of CCG vessels with a future 2 billion worth of under 1000 ton vessels to be bidded later. The Submarines and the Kingston class replacements (CDC) were not included in that package. Though I'm sure Irving will try to argue otherwise, even though their capacity will be full trying to build out the Rivers on schedule.
i dont think it is. I think its just not in the first batch of contracts. If we spread the work out too thin we undermine the sustainability of the NSS IMO. Plus in what way is OS qualified? Have they done the yard improvements the others have done?
Seaspan and Davie both have their own designs/designs teams that will also be putting bids in for the CDC, Heddle has nothing close to a monopoly on this program.
I understand your concerns about the "Franken Fu@#*>;Frigate. What hits me hard is (from now on) the absolute need of government, DND and CAF to continuously and transparently advocate for permanent expenditures. Stay forefront in news coverage, etcetera. The current global mess with Ukraine's assault by Russia and myriad other trigger points will only worsen.
One of the things I will commend Vice-Admiral Topshee heavily for is his willingness to be outgoing and engaging on these topics. Educating on the differences in capabilities and roles helps to prevent these kinds of ideas from spreading. You gotta nip it while its young and not ingrained in people that there is a minimum threshold to cross where cuts become reasonable.
Advocacy goes a long way. So does, yes, improving of the deficiencies that Flight I of the River-class has. That includes more cells. The more you get away, the harder it is to justify. Both go hand in hand to prevent this kind of idea from becoming popular.
Likewise, I have a high regard for Vice Admiral Topshee. Brave speakers' heads are always potential targets for snipers from any quarter; Political especially.
The original conception of the vigilance had the ship carrying containerized missiles in addition to built in weapon systems. Has that idea been dropped from the V100?
While Vigilance 1000 maintains similar space I have never seen containerized weapons systems shown on them. Nothing is really stopping them, mind you, but the focus has been on stuff like MCM
Something doesn’t add up here. That cell arrangement doesn’t match multiple standard Mk 41 VLS 2×4 modules. It looks more like a 3×4 layout, which suggests it’s either for display purposes only or a completely different VLS configuration altogether.
My assumption is that it is the 'graphics' special. IE the graphics department slapped them on without care for accuracy. That happens quite a lot more than you think with these kinds of graphics. All media I have ever seen for the Vigilance 100 has it using MK.41. The Vigilance 75 did use ExLS cells, which I considered.
However I have never seen the 100 advertised with anything but the MK.41, nor any indication that they would make a switch. It would be very weird to make a switch to anything else.
Hi there, the reference to the FFF comment I made was in jest referring to Noahs comment in the article about the Franken Corvette near the top of his article. The middle F of the acronym stands for F@“+);g.
I'm with you, Noah. I don't like this scope creep at all. We have the Rivers for their complexity and high-end capabilities. I don't want to see the CDC turn into another Constellation debacle. The focus by the government should be on something as cheap and as quick to build as possible that could be built in as many different Canadian shipyards as possible, given the capabilities required by the specifications (whenever they get released). Then again, the Vigilance 100 design is roughly the size of a Fletcher-class destroyer in WWII, and they were able to crank each of those out in about a year from keel-laying to commissioning.
Upon closer inspection, it looks like the 16 Mk-42 VLS cells have been replaced with two 12-cell Mk-56 launchers, losing the equivalent of 8 ESSMs. Granted, the Mk-56 launchers should be cheaper overall than the Mk-41 launchers, but I also thought that they would want to simplify the logistics by needing parts for only one vertical launch system. This makes me think that maybe the reason they went to Mk-56s is because they're in talks to build the capacity to build these launchers and ESSMs in Canada? It would make sense to have the industrial capacity and infrastructure to build all the required weapon systems and ammunition for this vessel domestically, especially if we end up getting the embargo treatment from our neighbours down south.
And I also wonder about moving the containers midships - can you still use the Sonar and MCM containers from those positions? I thought they had to be used from off the rear deck.
The *original* image said it was a Mk-41, but that is not labelled in the latest image. Then again, comparing the two images, the footprint of the VLS cells is the same, but with an additional row of VLS cells occupying the space the exhaust ports are supposed to be. Perhaps there are no additional cells and this is just a graphical typo by Ontario Shipyards.
We still need a Kingston replacement IMO and something to fill the gap of the Halifax class self divesting before they are replaced by the Rivers. Just look at the UK's experience and they are much further ahead then we are. Or are we just going to be spending a billion on refitting the Halifaxs every 5 years?
River-class will still be functionally different from the 100 etc. Providing deep-water ASW dominance, task-group command, MCM C2/mothership, BMD/hypersonic-relevant radar & cueing + interceptors. While the 100 provides much needed depth to the RCN: ISR/sovereignty patrol, ASuW escort (with NSM/LRASM), distributed lethality node/magazine depth under River-class cueing.
The concern raised by Op is valid regarding numbers - given the cost curve, how many SPY-7 quarterbacks does the RCN actually need? I could see scaling back Rivers to say 12 in order to build more CDCs and also large and mid-sized USVs.
Just to add that the CMMC is part of a system of systems. With continental hypersonic and ballistic missile defence in place, Canada’s CMMCs can operate as networked inner-layer defenders and escorts cued by national sensors, while River-class ships provide mobile, high-end IAMD for expeditionary and coalition task-force operations.
Nice update on the Vigilance 100. Ontario Shipyards' recent refit proves they're ready for bigger NSS work. Team Vigilance's design from Vard Marine replaces the MCDVs with modular capabilities like ISR and mine countermeasures.
I share your conern about potentially cutting the the number of Rivers in favour of these "good enough" mini frigates. But the mistake was calling the Rivers destroyers. If they were still frigates, well, of course, we need 15 of those!
Since when did the Vard design have an ice capable designation and the weight of 24 cells in that design is probably an option if they remove the gun and nsm launchers hence why they aren't there lol. Also is having a rotating radar not an extra hinderance in the Arctic? Crew would constantly be de-icing the mechanisms and motor that rotates the radar.
Off topic but interesting enough, the switch from the Leonardo 127 mm to the BAE 5 inch gun on the River class saves 26000 lbs which is almost exactly the weight of an 8 pack self defense mk-41 (26800 lbs) which is still capable of quad packing essm's. Could the Rivers possibly be getting 8 more cells to hold 32 essms leaving 24 strike length open for longer range high end missles? Probably not. But here is to hoping.
I wouldn't read into it too much. The launchers look more like ExLS in this image (no exhaust and an arrangement that isn't possible with MK41). I don't think it's supposed tk be detailed enough to identify thag clearly - though the 57mm missing is really puzzling.
I think its just generic placement. It happens. This is Ontario, not Vard so there is room for some generics. I initially thought it was ExLS at first glance, but there are a few things that would be strange about that.
For one I have never seen Vigilance 100 offered with ExLS, always been MK.41. Never even heard it disvussed for the 100. The other thing is that the RCN seemingly has no real desire for ExLS anymore. There is no attitude to add CAMM to the inventory anymore, despite me trying to keep the dream alive.
Would be extremely weird, knowing that mentality and consistantly advertising the MK.41 to suddenly switch up to ExLS to add a few more, limited cells.
Better 16 MK.41 than 24 ExLS in this case. Would be a very strange switchup.
Yeah I think you're right that it's just a generic/placeholder image
how are they going to keep it under 1000 tonnes lol
Oh, CDC threw out that idea a long time ago. Currently there's no tonnage limit that I know of. Estimates now are that CDC will lilely be in the 2500-4000 range.
im pretty sure Seaspan, Irving and Davie arent going to be happy adding Heddle to the group especially when Seaspan is complaining about laying of design engineers. At over 1000 tonnes and a combatant does it not fall under Irvings purview?
CDC is seperate from the NSS is it not? Those contracts involved included the CSC (River class), JSS, AOPS and multiples of CCG vessels with a future 2 billion worth of under 1000 ton vessels to be bidded later. The Submarines and the Kingston class replacements (CDC) were not included in that package. Though I'm sure Irving will try to argue otherwise, even though their capacity will be full trying to build out the Rivers on schedule.
i dont think it is. I think its just not in the first batch of contracts. If we spread the work out too thin we undermine the sustainability of the NSS IMO. Plus in what way is OS qualified? Have they done the yard improvements the others have done?
Seaspan and Davie both have their own designs/designs teams that will also be putting bids in for the CDC, Heddle has nothing close to a monopoly on this program.
I understand your concerns about the "Franken Fu@#*>;Frigate. What hits me hard is (from now on) the absolute need of government, DND and CAF to continuously and transparently advocate for permanent expenditures. Stay forefront in news coverage, etcetera. The current global mess with Ukraine's assault by Russia and myriad other trigger points will only worsen.
One of the things I will commend Vice-Admiral Topshee heavily for is his willingness to be outgoing and engaging on these topics. Educating on the differences in capabilities and roles helps to prevent these kinds of ideas from spreading. You gotta nip it while its young and not ingrained in people that there is a minimum threshold to cross where cuts become reasonable.
Advocacy goes a long way. So does, yes, improving of the deficiencies that Flight I of the River-class has. That includes more cells. The more you get away, the harder it is to justify. Both go hand in hand to prevent this kind of idea from becoming popular.
Likewise, I have a high regard for Vice Admiral Topshee. Brave speakers' heads are always potential targets for snipers from any quarter; Political especially.
Do 24 tactical VLS is actually smart. CDC doesn't need strike length. The NSMs are enough to reach out and touch someone.
The original conception of the vigilance had the ship carrying containerized missiles in addition to built in weapon systems. Has that idea been dropped from the V100?
While Vigilance 1000 maintains similar space I have never seen containerized weapons systems shown on them. Nothing is really stopping them, mind you, but the focus has been on stuff like MCM
Something doesn’t add up here. That cell arrangement doesn’t match multiple standard Mk 41 VLS 2×4 modules. It looks more like a 3×4 layout, which suggests it’s either for display purposes only or a completely different VLS configuration altogether.
My assumption is that it is the 'graphics' special. IE the graphics department slapped them on without care for accuracy. That happens quite a lot more than you think with these kinds of graphics. All media I have ever seen for the Vigilance 100 has it using MK.41. The Vigilance 75 did use ExLS cells, which I considered.
However I have never seen the 100 advertised with anything but the MK.41, nor any indication that they would make a switch. It would be very weird to make a switch to anything else.
Regarding the above comment I'll make a new acronym; the Triple F or FFF! Just recommending...
According to STANAG 1166, it should be classified as a FFLG. ;)
Hi there, the reference to the FFF comment I made was in jest referring to Noahs comment in the article about the Franken Corvette near the top of his article. The middle F of the acronym stands for F@“+);g.
I'm with you, Noah. I don't like this scope creep at all. We have the Rivers for their complexity and high-end capabilities. I don't want to see the CDC turn into another Constellation debacle. The focus by the government should be on something as cheap and as quick to build as possible that could be built in as many different Canadian shipyards as possible, given the capabilities required by the specifications (whenever they get released). Then again, the Vigilance 100 design is roughly the size of a Fletcher-class destroyer in WWII, and they were able to crank each of those out in about a year from keel-laying to commissioning.
Upon closer inspection, it looks like the 16 Mk-42 VLS cells have been replaced with two 12-cell Mk-56 launchers, losing the equivalent of 8 ESSMs. Granted, the Mk-56 launchers should be cheaper overall than the Mk-41 launchers, but I also thought that they would want to simplify the logistics by needing parts for only one vertical launch system. This makes me think that maybe the reason they went to Mk-56s is because they're in talks to build the capacity to build these launchers and ESSMs in Canada? It would make sense to have the industrial capacity and infrastructure to build all the required weapon systems and ammunition for this vessel domestically, especially if we end up getting the embargo treatment from our neighbours down south.
And I also wonder about moving the containers midships - can you still use the Sonar and MCM containers from those positions? I thought they had to be used from off the rear deck.
The image is labeled Mk 41 VLS.
The *original* image said it was a Mk-41, but that is not labelled in the latest image. Then again, comparing the two images, the footprint of the VLS cells is the same, but with an additional row of VLS cells occupying the space the exhaust ports are supposed to be. Perhaps there are no additional cells and this is just a graphical typo by Ontario Shipyards.
We still need a Kingston replacement IMO and something to fill the gap of the Halifax class self divesting before they are replaced by the Rivers. Just look at the UK's experience and they are much further ahead then we are. Or are we just going to be spending a billion on refitting the Halifaxs every 5 years?
River-class will still be functionally different from the 100 etc. Providing deep-water ASW dominance, task-group command, MCM C2/mothership, BMD/hypersonic-relevant radar & cueing + interceptors. While the 100 provides much needed depth to the RCN: ISR/sovereignty patrol, ASuW escort (with NSM/LRASM), distributed lethality node/magazine depth under River-class cueing.
The concern raised by Op is valid regarding numbers - given the cost curve, how many SPY-7 quarterbacks does the RCN actually need? I could see scaling back Rivers to say 12 in order to build more CDCs and also large and mid-sized USVs.
Just to add that the CMMC is part of a system of systems. With continental hypersonic and ballistic missile defence in place, Canada’s CMMCs can operate as networked inner-layer defenders and escorts cued by national sensors, while River-class ships provide mobile, high-end IAMD for expeditionary and coalition task-force operations.
Nice update on the Vigilance 100. Ontario Shipyards' recent refit proves they're ready for bigger NSS work. Team Vigilance's design from Vard Marine replaces the MCDVs with modular capabilities like ISR and mine countermeasures.
I have the same misgivings about the size of this proposed design. I hope the RCN does too! It's also over kill for some missions.
I share your conern about potentially cutting the the number of Rivers in favour of these "good enough" mini frigates. But the mistake was calling the Rivers destroyers. If they were still frigates, well, of course, we need 15 of those!
Those Mk-41 VLS are likely the tactical modules for RIM-162 right?
Since when did the Vard design have an ice capable designation and the weight of 24 cells in that design is probably an option if they remove the gun and nsm launchers hence why they aren't there lol. Also is having a rotating radar not an extra hinderance in the Arctic? Crew would constantly be de-icing the mechanisms and motor that rotates the radar.
Can't they just house the radar under a shroud, like they do for the NS50?