Royal New Zealand Air Force

recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
Gooey said:
As well as the USN, I'm looking forward to NZ confirming that it too is adequately equipping 5 Sqn's massive fleet of 4 reconnaissance aircraft with modern protection systems. Obviously, war stocks of modern ASW torpedoes would be good too.
Click to expand...
May become "essential" for all P-8 operators (including NZDF) operating in the Asia-Pacific region even during peacetime, in anticipation of threats from the likes of North Korea potentially escalating?

Some other "good news" of sorts I guess, according to the recent Spiri arms transfer database, NZ has now received "40 (?)" Mk-54 Mod-0 LWT from the US in 2022/23 for the P-8's.

(They also mention receiving "13 (?)" Mk-46 Mod-5 NEARTIP LWT from the US in 2021. Unclear whether they would be in addition to any existing Mk-46 stocks? Or not, if for example, enough to maintain an interim capability until say the SH-2G Seasprites are replaced. Presumably whatever replaces the Seasprites, be that a helo type from the US (MH-60R) or Europe (AW-159 or NFH90) could result in Mk-54 or potentially String Ray or MU90 being offered/integrated)??

Apparently NZ has now received "250 (?)" CAMM from the UK for the ANZAC Frigates. So 12+ full loadouts for both (6 each).

(Mind you if it was to be feasible, space and weight wise, to replace the mushroom silos by 4x 3-Cell Extensible Launching System (EXLS) launchers on each Frigate, with each cell quad-packed with four CAMM, that would provide a potential loadout of up to 48 CAMM per vessel). :D

Which would surely be prudent in this age of mass missile/drone threats and the need to disengage from ops then travel distances to reload.
 
K

kiwi in exile

Active Member
recce.k1 said:
Some other "good news" of sorts I guess, according to the recent Spiri arms transfer database, NZ has now received "40 (?)" Mk-54 Mod-0 LWT from the US in 2022/23 for the P-8's.

Apparently NZ has now received "250 (?)" CAMM from the UK for the ANZAC Frigates. So 12+ full loadouts for both (6 each).

(Mind you if it was to be feasible, space and weight wise, to replace the mushroom silos by 4x 3-Cell Extensible Launching System (EXLS) launchers on each Frigate, with each cell quad-packed with four CAMM, that would provide a potential loadout of up to 48 CAMM per vessel). :D
Click to expand...
250 CAMMs seems a lot and i'm suprised given how slow and cheap NZ has traditionally been on missile acquisition (IE only antiship capability has been Mavericks then orphan Penguins, deliberate decision to keep our MPAs missileless, no AShMs for frigates).
The only downside is that having 250 now makes it less likely we will acquire CAMM-ER in the near future (not sure thay are compatable with ANZACs "mushroom farm" launchers.

I have seen CAMM/Sea Ceptor described as cheaper per shot that its competitors. Does anyone have any figures on per unit cost?

Which would surely be prudent in this age of mass missile/drone threats and the need to disengage from ops then travel distances to reload.
Click to expand...
NZ ANZACs still have a small onboard missile capacity (20) so they would still need to break off from operations and go to a friendly port to reload. Neither aust or US fleets use CAMM, and by moving from Mk 41 to bespoke CAMM VLS we loose the ability to rapidly intergrate and reload with ESSMs or other coalition munitions.

Recent Red Sea operations have highlighted the cost of shooting down cheap drones and lower end Anti-ship missiles (or even rockets) with $1M missiles. An enemy could exhaust an ANZACs magazine capacity relatvly cheaply and quickly with drones etc and then our ship would be left to rely on its Phalanx. Especially when stardard response is to launch 2 x missiles at a threat.

Leaving aside direct energy weapons, there is an arguments here for guns in the AAW/C-RAM/CUAS naval mission.
The type 31/Arrowhead 140 which may replace the ANZACs comes armerd with 2 x BAE Mk 4 40mm guns and 1 x Mk 110 57mm gun, with an option of replacing the 57mm with a Mk 45 127mm (which we currently operate). (Or replacing the 40MMs with Phalanx, Sea RAM, Millenium gun, etc)
The medium calibre guns are incredibly versatile and offer cheaper alternatives to countering low end missile and drone threats (as part of a layered defence) even when using advanced ammunition. Through threat classification, you could save your high cost CAMMs for high end threats. Mk 4s are non-deck penetrating and have greater range and versatility than Phalanx, and I would like to see them stadard as RNZNs medium calibre gun for combat, patrol and support ships.

The Mk 45s (which we have )also have air defence capability with BAEs hypervelocity projectile. This offers guided, mach 5 capability against aerial threats. BAEs pdfs give a 74km range from the RNZN ANZACs Mk 45 mod 2. Thats greater than the >25 km range of the CAMM. And rounds are costed at around $100 000 USD. This system was tested in RIMPAC 2018 and could be an relatvly affordable interim way of uparming our ANZACs before replacement (when the HVPs are opeartional), and something I would want on their replacement.
.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
kiwi in exile said:
250 CAMMs seems a lot and i'm suprised given how slow and cheap NZ has traditionally been on missile acquisition (IE only antiship capability has been Mavericks then orphan Penguins, deliberate decision to keep our MPAs missileless, no AShMs for frigates).
The only downside is that having 250 now makes it less likely we will acquire CAMM-ER in the near future (not sure thay are compatable with ANZACs "mushroom farm" launchers.

I have seen CAMM/Sea Ceptor described as cheaper per shot that its competitors. Does anyone have any figures on per unit cost?


NZ ANZACs still have a small onboard missile capacity (20) so they would still need to break off from operations and go to a friendly port to reload. Neither aust or US fleets use CAMM, and by moving from Mk 41 to bespoke CAMM VLS we loose the ability to rapidly intergrate and reload with ESSMs or other coalition munitions.

Recent Red Sea operations have highlighted the cost of shooting down cheap drones and lower end Anti-ship missiles (or even rockets) with $1M missiles. An enemy could exhaust an ANZACs magazine capacity relatvly cheaply and quickly with drones etc and then our ship would be left to rely on its Phalanx. Especially when stardard response is to launch 2 x missiles at a threat.

Leaving aside direct energy weapons, there is an arguments here for guns in the AAW/C-RAM/CUAS naval mission.
The type 31/Arrowhead 140 which may replace the ANZACs comes armerd with 2 x BAE Mk 4 40mm guns and 1 x Mk 110 57mm gun, with an option of replacing the 57mm with a Mk 45 127mm (which we currently operate). (Or replacing the 40MMs with Phalanx, Sea RAM, Millenium gun, etc)
The medium calibre guns are incredibly versatile and offer cheaper alternatives to countering low end missile and drone threats (as part of a layered defence) even when using advanced ammunition. Through threat classification, you could save your high cost CAMMs for high end threats. Mk 4s are non-deck penetrating and have greater range and versatility than Phalanx, and I would like to see them stadard as RNZNs medium calibre gun for combat, patrol and support ships.

The Mk 45s (which we have )also have air defence capability with BAEs hypervelocity projectile. This offers guided, mach 5 capability against aerial threats. BAEs pdfs give a 74km range from the RNZN ANZACs Mk 45 mod 2. Thats greater than the >25 km range of the CAMM. And rounds are costed at around $100 000 USD. This system was tested in RIMPAC 2018 and could be an relatvly affordable interim way of uparming our ANZACs before replacement (when the HVPs are opeartional), and something I would want on their replacement.
.
Click to expand...
To operate those hypervelocity rounds - unless they have already had it as part of their earlier upgrade - may well mean those RNZN Mk45 Mod 2 guns require the Common Control System (CCS) upgrade the RAN recently invested in for her remaining Mod 2 gun systems.

www.navalnews.com

BAE Systems to provide critical Mk 45 naval gun systems upgrade to Australian Navy frigates - Naval News

BAE Systems won a contract to upgrade existing Mk 45 Mod 2 naval gun systems on Anzac class frigates with a Common Control System (CCS).
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Such a (relatively) large investment in CAMM could also potentially pave the way for a renaissance in NZ ground based air defence capability. UK’s Sky Sabre uses the same CAMM effector…

A battery’s worth of Sky Sabre, leveraging a shared pool of CAMM interceptors, would hardly break the bank so to speak, but would add significant capability for the NZDF including a very useful capability it could deploy as a niche package offering NZ support for regional exercises / deployments, as well as improved air defence capability for domestic NZ operations.
 
Last edited:
S

swerve

Super Moderator
kiwi in exile said:
...
Leaving aside direct energy weapons, there is an arguments here for guns in the AAW/C-RAM/CUAS naval mission.
The type 31/Arrowhead 140 which may replace the ANZACs comes armerd with 2 x BAE Mk 4 40mm guns and 1 x Mk 110 57mm gun, with an option of replacing the 57mm with a Mk 45 127mm (which we currently operate). (Or replacing the 40MMs with Phalanx, Sea RAM, Millenium gun, etc)
The medium calibre guns are incredibly versatile and offer cheaper alternatives to countering low end missile and drone threats (as part of a layered defence) even when using advanced ammunition. Through threat classification, you could save your high cost CAMMs for high end threats. Mk 4s are non-deck penetrating and have greater range and versatility than Phalanx, and I would like to see them stadard as RNZNs medium calibre gun for combat, patrol and support ships.
Click to expand...
The Polish version, Miecznik, comes with different guns where Type 31 has 57 & 40mm, & a pair of remotely-controlled 12.7mm turrets, as well as more capable radars & both hull-mounted & towed sonars. It shows the scope for fitting additional sensors & weapons.
 
K

kiwi in exile

Active Member
ADMk2 said:
To operate those hypervelocity rounds - unless they have already had it as part of their earlier upgrade - may well mean those RNZN Mk45 Mod 2 guns require the Common Control System (CCS) upgrade the RAN recently invested in for her remaining Mod 2 gun systems.

www.navalnews.com

BAE Systems to provide critical Mk 45 naval gun systems upgrade to Australian Navy frigates - Naval News

BAE Systems won a contract to upgrade existing Mk 45 Mod 2 naval gun systems on Anzac class frigates with a Common Control System (CCS).
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com

Such a (relatively) large investment in CAMM could also potentially pave the way for a renaissance in NZ ground based air defence capability. UK’s Sky Sabre uses the same CAMM effector…

A battery’s worth of Sky Sabre, leveraging a shared pool of CAMM interceptors, would hardly break the bank so to speak, but would add significant capability for the NZDF including a very useful capability it could deploy as a niche package offering NZ support for regional exercises / deployments, as well as improved air defence capability for domestic NZ operations.
Click to expand...
I like sky sabre and if we needed GBAD it might be my pick. I'm not going to join the chorus of posters arguing for restating the ACF but many posters have made a good case for fast air being our best air defence given our geography.
Sky sabre is a bit short range too for defence of the home islands.
For deployed forces I would want skyshield 30 or 35 turret on a LAV or boxer etc as shorad/CUAS/CRAM
 
Last edited:
J

jbc388

Member
Alberto32 said:
Embraer Eyes NZ 757 replacement - Australian Defence Magazine, your thoughts Everyone?
Click to expand...
With a National led government that is allergic to spending the $$ needed to fund 3 x military Spec airframes, they will probably only provide funding for 2 civil airliners that maybe secondhand, then have to spend extra on mods to make them usable for the NZDF.
Then it will be back to square one again!! lack of numbers, limited airframe life etc etc.
 
Last edited:
OldTex

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Perhaps the 757s might be replaced by 767s, although as suggested by others, not in the numbers actually required for reliable availability. Simple Flying has a very basic comparison of the 2 aircraft. Perhaps the most important part is that (in 2019 at least) the 767 was still ion production. It would definitely take a very detailed analysis to determine whether a 767 was a suitable replacement for the RNZAF 757s. Which would mean that the Govt would have to have the will and the money to pursue it.
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Gibbo said:
Are we really that surprised? There won't be a windfall for the NZDF and the delayed DCP2024 is likely being massaged to make it fiscally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Massaged? Or maybe massacred? TBH unless/until contracts are signed, with significant penalty clauses included (and even then...) I remain dubious about efforts buy/build/acquire what is needed, and this applies not just to NZ.
 
A

A4scooter

New Member
I’d argue that 757 / 767 have a limited role as anywhere they go they need ground handling equipment like stairs, baggage belts, cargo loader (767) etc while the C17, C390, C2 are self sufficient.
Money is always the issue but 2 x C390 & 2 x Legacy 650 for the VIP, medevac etc role?
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
A4scooter said:
I’d argue that 757 / 767 have a limited role as anywhere they go they need ground handling equipment like stairs, baggage belts, cargo loader (767) etc while the C17, C390, C2 are self sufficient.
Money is always the issue but 2 x C390 & 2 x Legacy 650 for the VIP, medevac etc role?
Click to expand...
But then the vast majority of places they do go DO have ground handling equipment (ie airports..) and tbh if they can handle a 757 landing there in the first instance then chances are they have the required infrastructure to support as they don't usually build runways of x amount of length, strength, purpose etc without at least some kind of plan for its overall use? Point being the 757s are not for austere airports, that falls to the tactical lifter.

As an aside, the 757 does actually have internal air stairs and I have even seen baggage being unloaded from the cargo hold directly to the back of a truck so not ideal, but also not entirely unheard of either.

Even the hercs fly to established airports for the vast majority of their life despite the rumours and in fact do not routinely land in paddocks on cliff faces in pitch black as alot tend to think. Flying into an unestablished airport is not as common as many obviously seem to think even for the RNZAF in general never mind the B757s in particular as it is literally not their role, intended or otherwise. It's alittle like assuming an ANZAC class frigate is limited because it is not overly suited to littoral use when obviously we wouldn't/shouldn't and don't put it in that type of position to begin with as it is A. ridiculously risky, B. Foolhardy and C. Not required, hence why we also have other better suited options for that particular requirement ie littoral craft.

This thinking of that we routinely send 757s to unprepared, unsecured and unknown strips is similar to believing that all the Boeings do is fly the PM and VIPs around on lavish jaunts when in reality it's only @10% of its actual workload therefore kind if a false perspective of the overall type, use and role in general.
 
R

RetirementIsGood

Member
Now that the first C-130-J-30 has been delivered to Whenuapai, we can see that they're fitted with SATCOM, a FLIR turret and extended range wing-mounted 'drop' tanks.
Will the drop tanks give them enough range to do Christchurch -> McMurdo -> Oh bother it's socked in -> Christchurch (or even just Invercargill), or whether they'll still have to make a go/no go decision at a PNR an hour or two out from McMurdo?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top