Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

Good day

I doubt these are destined for the future frigate as I think they are the tactical length unit. Future frigate will need strike length for the SM2/6 missiles (and Tomohawk or similar if we get it).

The Mk 41 Tactical length VLS is 6.7 m long and capable to carry almost all missile loadouts that the 7.6 m Strike length VLS can carry, except for sea-based BMD and long-range strike missions. With that, it would suggest that missiles like SM-2 and ASROC (if it or it's successor ever enters RAN service) could fit within the tactical length VLS. What I am uncertain on is whether the SM-3/6 would also fit within a tactical length VLS.

Me being me, I would prefer the RAN vessels be fitted with strike length to provide greater potential flexibility in missile load outs.

 

[oldsig127]

Good day

I doubt these are destined for the future frigate as I think they are the tactical length unit. Future frigate will need strike length for the SM2/6 missiles (and Tomohawk or similar if we get it).

I doubt if the RAN would have even thought of using them. What are we talking about? Two 8 cell units? So about 5% of the requirement if the future frigates only have 32 cells each, or less than sod all if they get 48 cells like the AWD. Small change, bigger fish to fry

oldsig

 

[40 deg south]

The Mk 41 Tactical length VLS is 6.7 m long and capable to carry almost all missile loadouts that the 7.6 m Strike length VLS can carry, except for sea-based BMD and long-range strike missions. With that, it would suggest that missiles like SM-2 and ASROC (if it or it's successor ever enters RAN service) could fit within the tactical length VLS. What I am uncertain on is whether the SM-3/6 would also fit within a tactical length VLS.

I have read an interview with the project manager for the Kiwi ANZAC upgrade, probably in APDR. He was pretty clear that removing the Mk 41s would save weight and also space, as they penetrated multiple decks vs. a single deck for the SeaCeptor.

Incidentally, the SeaCeptor installation on RN Mk 23s has a 4 x 8 layout, as shown here:
Redirect Notice

 

[Todjaeger]

I have read an interview with the project manager for the Kiwi ANZAC upgrade, probably in APDR. He was pretty clear that removing the Mk 41s would save weight and also space, as they penetrated multiple decks vs. a single deck for the SeaCeptor.

Incidentally, the SeaCeptor installation on RN Mk 23s has a 4 x 8 layout, as shown here:
Redirect Notice

With the RNZN going with Sea Ceptor, the replacement of the Mk 41 VLS for something smaller and light makes sense IMO. Where the questions concerns remain is whether the size of the new VLS (and number of cells/missiles) will be realistically sufficient should the RNZN end up needing to escort vessels into or through a hostile environment, or deploy a frigate to such an area.

With the RN Mk 23's having the 4 x 8 layout, that suggests the Sea Ceptor VLS configuration comes in units of 4 cells, so a 4 x 5 layout for the RNZN should be possible, though I would be happier with the frigates also having a 4 x 8 layout.

 

[chis73]

With the RNZN going with Sea Ceptor, the replacement of the Mk 41 VLS for something smaller and light makes sense IMO. Where the questions concerns remain is whether the size of the new VLS (and number of cells/missiles) will be realistically sufficient should the RNZN end up needing to escort vessels into or through a hostile environment, or deploy a frigate to such an area.

With the RN Mk 23's having the 4 x 8 layout, that suggests the Sea Ceptor VLS configuration comes in units of 4 cells, so a 4 x 5 layout for the RNZN should be possible, though I would be happier with the frigates also having a 4 x 8 layout.

I'm fairly certain there is no link between the cells on the Type 23s (which were re-using the old Sea Wolf cells - hence the 4 x 8 config) and whatever is going to happen on the Kiwi ANZACs (which presumably will be similar to what will eventually be on the Type 26). If you look closely at the 2nd photo in 40deg's link you will see that the VLS is the old Sea Wolf launcher with the tubes extended a bit for the thinner and longer Sea Ceptor, and new caps - ie. a typical British bodge job). On the RNZN frigates, IIRC, the drop-in Ex-LS quad-pack for the Mk41 tubes wasn't going to be used. The 20 missile loadout was mentioned in a Janes piece I think (there will be a link somewhere back in this thread). My interpretation was that the Kiwi ANZACs will be getting a unique configuration (designed to fit in the space of the MK41).

 

[chis73]

Found the link to the Janes article regarding the 20 missile loadout (from 2014 - yikes!). See last page - here.

 

[thedon]

The tender process for the LOSC has been terminated:

LOSC is gone, but the DHV projerct and acquisition is underway. Dive Hydrographic Vessel. Personnel are lookiong at potential ships at the moment for conversion to military use.

We expect to have it here in NZ by year end. Operational test and tries next year after final fitout. Many ships left over from the oil and gas boom fill the basic core needs we require.

Don sends

 

[40 deg south]

LOSC is gone, but the DHV projerct and acquisition is underway. Dive Hydrographic Vessel. Personnel are lookiong at potential ships at the moment for conversion to military use.

We expect to have it here in NZ by year end. Operational test and tries next year after final fitout. Many ships left over from the oil and gas boom fill the basic core needs we require.

Don sends

Welcome aboard the forum, Don.
Do you have any indication of the size of vessel being considered, and where the customisation to a military configuration will be carried out?
RNZN have been very quiet on the details.

 

[ngatimozart]

I doubt if the RAN would have even thought of using them. What are we talking about? Two 8 cell units? So about 5% of the requirement if the future frigates only have 32 cells each, or less than sod all if they get 48 cells like the AWD. Small change, bigger fish to fry

oldsig

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

 

[recce.k1]

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

I wonder whether there really would be a market for the ex-RNZN Mk41 VLS? Presumably not (especially if the Aussies aren't interested), which suggests to me they will either be stored (for future use options) or worse case scenario scrapped in time.

According to this FMS news release the cost for Finland to acquire 4 new strike-length VLS's (plus comprehensive support and training) is "only" US$70m.

Also some other cost examples were provided at DT last year.

Surely any new (international) Naval projects would simply buy new, to the latest design standards & modifications, rather than re-use a ~25 year old example?

 

[recce.k1]

Found the link to the Janes article regarding the 20 missile loadout (from 2014 - yikes!). See last page - here.

Here's the full article - which includes the last few paragraphs and provides additonal backdground info on the RNZN FSU Project.

*ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Australia (TKMSA) was responsible "for the mast and upper deck design, compartment layout, and physical integration of the new and legacy systems".

*Thales Australia was responsible for the hull-mounted sonar upgarde ("under a Capability and Technology Demonstrator programme ... in conjunction with Australia's Defence Science and Technology organisation").

*Info on the Passive Radar Decoy System (Airborne Systems FDS-3) "rapid-response inflatable RF decoy".

*Torpedo Defence: Sea Sentor Surface Ship Torpedo Defence (SSTD) system - "in-line towed-array solution utilising a passive tow for detection, classification, torpedo threat, and a flexible towed-body and localisation of the inbound countermeasure able to decoy and jam all torpedo types, including wake-homers. Optional launchers fitted topside can deploy expendable acoustic countermeasures."

About the torpedo defence in-line towed-array system, could the same fitting system also be used for the passive towed-array sonar system (that had to be removed in the 2000's)? Presumably the RNZN still has that system?

http://ikahan.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Janes_Defence_Weekly_-_27_August_20141.pdf

 

[Todjaeger]

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

The upcoming RAN Supply-class AOR's might be able to be fitted with Mk 41 VLS, but at this point, the space aboard the Canberra-class LHD's which had been left for a VLS has been re-purposed. Even with the Supply-class possibly being able to fit a Mk 41, without additional electronics it would not make sense IMO. The electronics currently appear to be Link 11 (not Link 16 or 22) compatible, and air/sea search radars would need to be fitted, as would illuminators if the VLS would be used to launch ESSM. If upgraded missile defences were deemed necessary for the AOR's, it would probably be easier to add and integrate SeaRAM than install everything needed to make a Mk 41 VLS worthwhile.

 

[oldsig127]

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

If it's true that they are FFBNW, then there might be some sense in it, but honestly, if you were cashed up to buy a fleet of new cars would you get two less and a pair of second hand Morry's? One owner, careful driver, only took them to church Sundays?

Joking entirely aside, my age is catching up on me. I was entirely unaware that the Canberras were ESSM ready and would appreciate a source to add to my "off brain storage"

oldsig

 

[Todjaeger]

If it's true that they are FFBNW, then there might be some sense in it, but honestly, if you were cashed up to buy a fleet of new cars would you get two less and a pair of second hand Morry's? One owner, careful driver, only took them to church Sundays?

Joking entirely aside, my age is catching up on me. I was entirely unaware that the Canberras were ESSM ready and would appreciate a source to add to my "off brain storage"

oldsig

To my recollection they were not 'ESSM ready' but more like space and weight had been set aside for a Mk 41 VLS and Sea Sparrow/ESSM either in the Canberra-class design, or in the parent BPE/SPS design which became the Juan Carlos I.

Subsequent changes to various Australia system layouts at this point would make installation of a Mk 41 VLS problematic, as operating the VLS will (IIRC that is) have a negative impact on ship systems. I am not certain exactly which systems would be impacted, but the impression I had gotten was that hot exhaust from a missile launch would damage some of the sensor or comm arrays.

 

[alexsa]

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

I am happy to be corrected but .... the only part of the LHD design we really changed for the RAN was the island and I think these changes removed the space and weight for a Mk41. To be honest I would prefer SeaRAM as the solution to the LHD and AOR point defence. Less intrusive and it can use the space provided for Phalanx on the AOR and going to be provided on the LHD.

Edit .... Sorry Tod, read yours after posting mine. Same idea though

 

[kiwipatriot69]

If it's true that they are FFBNW, then there might be some sense in it, but honestly, if you were cashed up to buy a fleet of new cars would you get two less and a pair of second hand Morry's? One owner, careful driver, only took them to church Sundays?

Joking entirely aside, my age is catching up on me. I was entirely unaware that the Canberras were ESSM ready and would appreciate a source to add to my "off brain storage"

oldsig

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

Nevermind a use for other navys ships, what about using the VLS removed for our new Endevour when she arrives, or even Canterbury as extra protection?

 

[MrConservative]

Nevermind a use for other navys ships, what about using the VLS removed for our new Endevour when she arrives, or even Canterbury as extra protection?

If extra protection was required installation of Sea Ceptor canisters would be less onerous in terms of weight and space, integration and cost.

 

[swerve]

...
With the RN Mk 23's having the 4 x 8 layout, that suggests the Sea Ceptor VLS configuration comes in units of 4 cells, ....

The configuration may be flexible. The individual canisters are probably rather simple, not needing efflux management, & thus it shouldn't be hard to bundle them in a variety of ways. It's been suggested that individual ones could be mounted in customised blocks on ships. But the British army Land Ceptor was shown last year with an 8-cell lorry-mounted launcher, with what looks like a framework holding 2 sets of 4 canisters, so that may be the usual set-up.

 

[matt00773]

Mind you those 8 cell VLS could be installed on likes of the Canberra LHDs and the new Cantabria class AOR. That way you're recycling the old kit and the Canberra and Cantabria classes are FFBNW ESSM.

Would you be able to cite a source for this? I'd be interested to read up on this possibility.

 

[Todjaeger]

Would you be able to cite a source for this? I'd be interested to read up on this possibility.

Like several of us have mentioned within the last couple of days, fitting a Mk 41 VLS to a Canberra-class LHD is no longer a possibility due to changes made to the ship layout and fitout from the original SPS design and JC1.