Search results

New concept art from LM

LM is not going to drop the ball on that fighter contract. The CSC is a forgone conclusion as well given the work that's gone into it.

Pretty Happy with the delay actually. This way we will get block 4 planes.

Sorry Can't see it as everything they have ever done has indicated the opposite and historically. As long as other parties prop them up or their rivals shoot themselves in the foot there will be no change soon or in the future. Would love for them to at least give us the basics.

Sorry not in this case.

Well your going to be waiting for a long time to that to happen. Canada has charted its own course of nuclear procurement for the military.

What you purpose is 20 years in the making if not longer, in other words too late and that's if we started tomorrow, had enough submariners which we don't and the right political climate and public support. While horrific of what's occurring in the Ukraine not an indicator that Putin will...

Wishful thinking and tilting at windmills. Its not a matter of hoping for this to happen but having serious discussions of what we currently doing and what we can reasonably do in the future that is cost effective and have a chance of actually occurring.

It is a ASW ship along with being everything else. The point is the original design of the type 26 only has a torpedo magazine to accommodate torpedo's for its own helo. The CSC has to have extra space for torpedo's for its helo and onboard launchers. Quite aware of the difference in weight of...

The reason why they were removed was the inclusion of torpedo's and extra mag storage which the type 26 doesn't have, the heavier Spy 7 radar and other systems. Every bit of weight saved here allows the ship to meet its speed potential. LEADMARK 2050 has the CSC operating in task groups and thus...

Not very puzzling at all and was just only released. The graphics on the LM page as you very well know show 24 VLS in the new renderings. I would think a fact sheet from the end user who pays the bills and sets the requirements would supersede anything else.

You just need to know where to look...... https://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/csc-fact-sheet-eng.pdf

New Graphic from the RCN confirming my prediction of 24 VLS. It still has CAMM VLS with 24 more missiles.

I guess my point is that you commented on my post here that "Seen that rendering from Lockheed Martin before so nothing new there" and right after you post the same graphic on another forum that " Notice that the 32 MK 41 VLS cells are now down to 24". Its a free country but you seem to take...

Yet you post it on Canadian Naval review four days later like its a revelation and point out the 24 VLS........

Note the 24 VLS from the newest rendering from the government. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2022/01/contract-awarded-to-begin-design-work-for-land-based-testing-facility-in-nova-scotia.html?fbclid=IwAR2ImMNo5d4W6riaUPq1mO2_KTAmpoy3s5b1M2czVK7pfhWkJk-CxOlJa48

Often enough the GOC includes such things as infrastructure to the overall cost of a project. We saw this with AOPS where jetties specially designed to host this class ship were built in Halifax and Esquimalt and even the naval arctic fueling facility was added to the overall cost of the AOPS...

Heading back to Canada after repairs in Norway from a fire. Picture courtesy of Warship Cams.

You keep saying "vision" but what you're really saying is pipedreams right up there with nuclear subs and drones in the Arctic. Nothing wrong with being a dreamer of course....

A see a few problems with your proposal. First of all who exactly will build these? the actual shipbuilding capacity in Canada is nearly maxed out. Davie is currently upgrading their yard to build CCG vessels and are at capacity doing CPF refits. The US can't do it because only two yards build...