• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Recent content by Thumper81

  1. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I can see them reusing the Steamer's names (St. Laurent, Mackenzie, Restigouche, Fraser, etc.). Basically Canadian rivers.
  2. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    The British are using the Type 26 to replace the Type 23, which is designed specifically for ASW.
  3. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    Sacrificing ASW? The Type 26 was designed as an ASW Frigate by the British as it's primary function. Yes we are putting more above-water warfare systems on it but the CSC will still have an HMS and a TAS plus the Cyclone and possibly AUVs/ROVs. This makes them as good or even more capable...
  4. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.
  5. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    Well damn.  You could have 28 SM-2's and 16 ESSM's :o
  6. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    Hey Underway, I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 16 ESSM, and 16 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a...
  7. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I foresee the return of the Standard Missiles(SM-2 or SM-6. Probably not SM-3).  The no Phalanx option feels like a bad idea (reaction time, minimum engagement range, etc).  Perhaps get SeaRAM(Phalanx with RAM missiles) instead of Phalanx for CIWS.  Are they planning on having some smaller...
  8. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    Fair point.  Nothing OPSEC in what I said.  What it does is in the acronym.
  9. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I know that it is active homing, but can do semi-active as well.  The reason it can do both is because of ECM systems.  A lot harder to jam a CWI.  It's an RF hose.  You would need REALLY powerful ECM to jam it. 
  10. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    Hopefully they upgrade the CWI to Mod 5 to fully support Block 2 for the current frigates.
  11. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER.  There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.
  12. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I suppose.  Both missiles have similar specs (all be it different max/min range) it seems odd to me to have both.  I know Sea Ceptor will work with Mk 41 VLS.  I sure hope we will deploying SM-2's again.  That was a big loss when the 280's were decommissioned.
  13. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.
  14. T

    Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

    FMF has nothing to do with Corner Brook.  That one is all Babcock.
  15. T

    Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

    I think ours is going to be more in line with Australian version with 32 cells of Mk 41 VLS.  This would allow the ship to have 32 ESSM for point and 24 Standard missiles for area air defence(I think that 32 cell strike Mk 41 and an 8 cell self-defence Mk 41 cells would be better allowing for 32...
Top