Ukraine - Superthread

[Spencer100]

I definitely class the Halifax's as a warship with a focus on ASW.

Considering the majority of causality in Ukraine are coming from artillery the Ford based light armoured vehicles (lets call then VLAV's) do make a difference and in their case supplement the BMP's and M113's. These VLAV's will fill similar roles as did the armoured CMP in WWII, Sigs, ambulances, CP, route security, etc. When you are either the US or your Canada with one barely equipped Brigade, you can then use LAV's for everything. but when you have an army of several hundred thousands of troops on a tight budget and high loss rate, then you need every armoured vehicle you can get your hands onto. The armoured vehicle in your hand now is worth more than a vague promise of something better in the future. the reality is Canada could not expand it's army without using VLAV's to fill the gaps ans we don't have the capacity to ramp up LAV production to expand and support/replace losses of our current fleet.

Canadian industry could with time and money design build anything in the air below a fighter or very large transport. On land anything below a MBT. On the seas anything but a SK/SSN and Aircraft carrier.

But the really kicker here is that its Canada and the whole US and western supply chain and knowledge base is mostly open to us. Yes some really cutting edge stuff is off the table.

So you want a tank......GD will built it in Canada for a price. You want a 6 gen fighter, BAE will let you onboard the Tempest now. ETC.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Canadian industry could with time and money design build anything in the air below a fighter or very large transport. On land anything below a MBT. On the seas anything but a SK/SSN and Aircraft carrier.

But the really kicker here is that its Canada and the whole US and western supply chain and knowledge base is mostly open to us. Yes some really cutting edge stuff is off the table.

So you want a tank......GD will built it in Canada for a price. You want a 6 gen fighter, BAE will let you onboard the Tempest now. ETC.

I'm wondering if we could alter the new LAV's being built and incorporate a newer version of the old ADATS. Build around 50-60 for our usage and try for some external sales.

 

[Spencer100]

I'm wondering if we could alter the new LAV's being built and incorporate a newer version of the old ADATS. Build around 50-60 for our usage and try for some external sales.

LOL You're making a joke right.

MMEV

Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Maxman1]

I definitely class the Halifax's as a warship with a focus on ASW.

Considering the majority of causality in Ukraine are coming from artillery the Ford based light armoured vehicles (lets call then VLAV's) do make a difference and in their case supplement the BMP's and M113's. These VLAV's will fill similar roles as did the armoured CMP in WWII, Sigs, ambulances, CP, route security, etc. When you are either the US or your Canada with one barely equipped Brigade, you can then use LAV's for everything. but when you have an army of several hundred thousands of troops on a tight budget and high loss rate, then you need every armoured vehicle you can get your hands onto. The armoured vehicle in your hand now is worth more than a vague promise of something better in the future. the reality is Canada could not expand it's army without using VLAV's to fill the gaps ans we don't have the capacity to ramp up LAV production to expand and support/replace losses of our current fleet.

And the CMP was used as the basis for several armoured vehicles, like the C15TA Armoured Truck
C15TA Armoured Truck - Wikipedia

The Otter light reconnaissance car, based on the Humber Mk III Reconnaissance car.
Otter Light Reconnaissance Car - Wikipedia

And the Fox Armoured Car, based on the Humber Armoured Car
Fox Armoured Car - Wikipedia

The Roshel Senator is comparable to a C15TA. Perhaps they could make modern equivalents of the Otter and Fox on the same chassis.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

The Halifax Class (CPF) you don't consider a war ship ?

If Canada went to war and there was a serious naval threat.

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

does not seem like much fire power compared to a Chinese frigate

1 × 32-cell VLS
HQ-16 SAM
Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
2 × 4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers
Aircraft carried 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C

Royal Australian Navy Frigates
5-inch/54 Mk 45 DP gun
8-cell Mk 41 VLS
8 × Harpoon Block II
2 × 3-tube Mk 32 torpedo tubes

The Canadian Frigates do seem lightly armed compared to other frigates out there.


The Canadian Government went for light weight ship.

 

[Skysix]

For many military production lines, there is no current incentive to work faster. Lines are kept open at low rates of production to maintain that capacity; once closed, lines can be challenging to reopen.

Don't confuse current production rates with maximums.

Still need the workers to run 3 shifts and increase the line speed

 

[DBNSG]

If Canada went to war and there was a serious naval threat.

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

does not seem like much fire power compared to a Chinese frigate

1 × 32-cell VLS
HQ-16 SAM
Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
2 × 4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers
Aircraft carried 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C

Royal Australian Navy Frigates
5-inch/54 Mk 45 DP gun
8-cell Mk 41 VLS
8 × Harpoon Block II
2 × 3-tube Mk 32 torpedo tubes

The Canadian Frigates do seem lightly armed compared to other frigates out there.


The Canadian Government went for light weight ship.

I do not know this but I thought the City's have the capability to load out more ESSM's?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For many military production lines, there is no current incentive to work faster. Lines are kept open at low rates of production to maintain that capacity; once closed, lines can be challenging to reopen.

Don't confuse current production rates with maximums.

Looking back at history, Canada had to get the hull of the Ram cast in the US as there was no casting ability at that size. Armour plate was also in short supply, along with guns. The UK was very critical of our new corvettes as they were missing significant amount of fittings, which the shipyards could not source. You can only ramp up production if there is enough part and material supply. For a fairly complex vehicle like the LAV 6, I suspect there are quite a few parts chokepoints that will hold up the line. Likley every other nation will be wanting those same parts and you might be at the back of the line for critical bits.

 

[Spencer100]

If Canada went to war and there was a serious naval threat.

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

does not seem like much fire power compared to a Chinese frigate

1 × 32-cell VLS
HQ-16 SAM
Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
2 × 4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers
Aircraft carried 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C

Royal Australian Navy Frigates
5-inch/54 Mk 45 DP gun
8-cell Mk 41 VLS
8 × Harpoon Block II
2 × 3-tube Mk 32 torpedo tubes

The Canadian Frigates do seem lightly armed compared to other frigates out there.


The Canadian Government went for light weight ship.

Other than the total of VLS missiles. I think things line up pretty close. The large main gun....but google there is tons of pros and cons between a 57mm v 76mm. You missed TKMS/MASS system on the Halifax and I think there are 3. That is in place of a decoy rockets you listed on PLAN ship. And your mileage can vary on the Type 87 ASW rockets, some people have said could be good against swimmer attacks etc.

Plus you forgot the big helicopter. RCAF/RCN go for the big boy.

 

[Spencer100]

I do not know this but I thought the City's have the capability to load out more ESSM's?

It does say you can put two ESSM in a Mk48. It was 16 for the Sea Sparrow 7.

Mk-48 Vertical Launching System VLS RIM-7 RIM-162 Sea Sparrow

mk. 48 vertical launching system vls rim-7 sea sparrow sam missile rim-162 essm

www.seaforces.org

Some interesting pictures on that page of the Mk48

 

[MilEME09]

LOL You're making a joke right.

MMEV
View attachment 77722

Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The MMEV failed on the LAV3 because it was too top heavy. In testing, firing at a 90 degree angle it flipped the vehicle. The LAV IV is longer, wider and heavier, so it may be more stable for that turret. Especially if you drop the suspension before firing.

 

[Good2Golf]

Not really new. RAF Rivet Joint and the FORTE10 have been flying those for over a year. The one UAV was knocked out by the Russians.

The FORTE *brothers, 10, 11 and 12. They’re RQ-4 Tritons, flying at ~60K’…I forget the name of the MQ-9 crashed into, but not one of the FORTE brothers.

 

[KevinB]

Not really new. RAF Rivet Joint and the FORTE10 have been flying those for over a year. The one UAV was knocked out by the Russians.

We had stopped flying there for a bit after the Reaper was knocked down.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The MMEV failed on the LAV3 because it was too top heavy. In testing, firing at a 90 degree angle it flipped the vehicle. The LAV IV is longer, wider and heavier, so it may be more stable for that turret. Especially if you drop the suspension before firing.

Stormer is old, but gets the job done IIRC

Alvis Stormer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Halifax Tar]

If Canada went to war and there was a serious naval threat.

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

does not seem like much fire power compared to a Chinese frigate

1 × 32-cell VLS
HQ-16 SAM
Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
2 × 4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers
Aircraft carried 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C

Royal Australian Navy Frigates
5-inch/54 Mk 45 DP gun
8-cell Mk 41 VLS
8 × Harpoon Block II
2 × 3-tube Mk 32 torpedo tubes

The Canadian Frigates do seem lightly armed compared to other frigates out there.


The Canadian Government went for light weight ship.

I think one has to remember the CPFs are basically a grown up ASW Corvette on steroids. The CPF was built with surface combat as secondary and probably actually a tertiary role, behind ASW and AWW.

Also war ships do not fight alone, or are not supposed to, they are designed to be smaller pieces of a bigger puzzle.

I think you can make argument that MCDVs and AOPs are not war ships. But the CPF is a war ship, just not a war ship designed to slug it out one one with a peer on the surface. Its meant to be a convoy escort ship. Or a GP Frigate. You have to remember we had DDGs when we built the FFHs and they were meant to work as a team.

 

[FormerHorseGuard]

I think one has to remember the CPFs are basically a grown up ASW Corvette on steroids. The CPF was built with surface combat as secondary and probably actually a tertiary role, behind ASW and AWW.

Also war ships do not fight alone, or are not supposed to, they are designed to be smaller pieces of a bigger puzzle.

I think you can make argument that MCDVs and AOPs are not war ships. But the CPF is a war ship, just not a war ship designed to slug it out one one with a peer on the surface. Its meant to be a convoy escort ship. Or a GP Frigate. You have to remember we had DDGs when we built the FFHs and they were meant to work as a team.

But the big guys who sat in the towers in downtown Ottawa, knew the DDHs at the time were not going to be around forever. They knew the last cruise was coming up faster then they would like or get replacements.

I have all the tools in my tool box at home but when I start a project, I suddenly realize I am missing the tool that would make it easier to do the job. I think the RCN is missing that tool and most the CAF is missing the tools. Biggest coast line in the world. 243 042 Km long, 12 Frigates, 4 subs, 2off shore patrol ships and 14 coastal defense vessels.

I give my opinion but never argue with a sailor. They do the job, I just sit back and watch. I cannot tell them they are wrong.

 

[QV]

I think one has to remember the CPFs are basically a grown up ASW Corvette on steroids. The CPF was built with surface combat as secondary and probably actually a tertiary role, behind ASW and AWW.

Also war ships do not fight alone, or are not supposed to, they are designed to be smaller pieces of a bigger puzzle.

I think you can make argument that MCDVs and AOPs are not war ships. But the CPF is a war ship, just not a war ship designed to slug it out one one with a peer on the surface. Its meant to be a convoy escort ship. Or a GP Frigate. You have to remember we had DDGs when we built the FFHs and they were meant to work as a team.

Still, even the Iroquois class were heavily invested in ASW, no?

 

[Kirkhill]

LOL You're making a joke right.

MMEV
View attachment 77722

Multi-Mission Effects Vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In what way was that wrong?

Or, for that matter the MGS?



We can argue about execution.
We can argue about protection and mobility levels.

But, fundamentally, conceptually, in what way was Rick's System of Systems approach wrong?

Or for that matter his BHS

LPD - Big Honking Ship (BHS)

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[DBNSG]

In what way was that wrong?

Or, for that matter the MGS?

View attachment 77736

We can argue about execution.
We can argue about protection and mobility levels.

But, fundamentally, conceptually, in what way was Rick's System of Systems approach wrong?

Or for that matter his BHS

LPD - Big Honking Ship (BHS)

www.globalsecurity.org

Rick it seems was forced to play the Ottawa game and deliver affects without calling anything a Tank.

 

[Kirkhill]

If Canada went to war and there was a serious naval threat.

24 × Honeywell Mk 46 torpedoes
16 × Evolved Sea-Sparrow SAM
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon SSM
1 × 57 mm Bofors Mk2 gun
1 × 20 mm Vulcan Phalanx CIWS
6 × .50 caliber machine guns

does not seem like much fire power compared to a Chinese frigate

1 × 32-cell VLS
HQ-16 SAM
Yu-8 anti submarine rocket launcher
2 × 4 YJ-83 anti-ship missiles
1 × PJ26 76 mm dual purpose gun
2 × Type 730 7-barrel 30 mm CIWS guns or Type 1130
2 × 3 324mm Yu-7 ASW torpedo launchers
2 × 6 Type 87 240mm anti-submarine rocket launcher (36 rockets carried)
2 × Type 726-4 18-tube decoy rocket launchers
Aircraft carried 1 Kamov Ka-28 'Helix' or Harbin Z-9C

Royal Australian Navy Frigates
5-inch/54 Mk 45 DP gun
8-cell Mk 41 VLS
8 × Harpoon Block II
2 × 3-tube Mk 32 torpedo tubes

The Canadian Frigates do seem lightly armed compared to other frigates out there.


The Canadian Government went for light weight ship.

The RN is plussing up its designs with more VLS cells because they were too defensively oriented and seen as "herbivorous hedgehogs"
Friendly little critters that are no threat to anyone.