Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Shanesworld said:
That's a pretty solid point. But we are the customer.
What about replacing phalanx with millennium. Lighter system, longer range, not us supplied(for the green party) but less rounds. Would clawing back 3 ton have helped?
Click to expand...

Possibly, TBH though I think the switch would have been an improvement in capabilities. The major difference though is that the Millennium Gun would need to tie into a ship's sensors where the Mk 15 Phalanx can operate independently. I personally do not consider that a major advantage on the part of the Phalanx though, certainly not when measuring the shorter effective range or # of shot. The Millennium Gun fires 252 AHEAD rounds which each break up into 152 projectiles, total of ~38k projectiles with a total mass of ~189 kg, vs. 1,550 projectiles with a total mass of ~232 kg, assuming both guns were fired until their ready magazines were emptied.
 
ngatimozart said:
Cost. Spend less money if possible.
Click to expand...
Has there been any update on cost or schedule for the upgrades?
The delays alone must have added costs and have left NZ short of any meaningful international naval inter reaction.
The only true cost comparison between ASMD/AMCAP and the ongoing saga will be known when both ships are back in service.
 
ASSAIL said:
Has there been any update on cost or schedule for the upgrades?
The delays alone must have added costs and have left NZ short of any meaningful international naval inter reaction.
The only true cost comparison between ASMD/AMCAP and the ongoing saga will be known when both ships are back in service.
Click to expand...
The last I can remember is the extra $140 million (IIRC) in 2018 over the original $440 million. They took the money out of the LOSC budget and that resulted in the Manawanui IV (Edda Fonn).

As an aside, I read a comment on another site a whiles back, written by an ex pusser who works for a marine engineering company here. They have the electric and electronic cabling for the ANZACs digitally mapped. So they offered that to the Canadian contracting shipyard. The Canadians turned them down saying that they don't work that way, preferring their paper drawings. Read into it what you want.
 
Last edited:
Todjaeger said:
But why would Australia and the RAN have included Sea Ceptor as part of the AMCAP or ASMD upgrades, especially in place of the ESSM? The RAN first test fired an ESSM back in 2003 from HMAS Warramunga using a CEA illuminator and if memory serves, all the RAN ANZAC-class frigates from HMAS Warramunga onwards were launched with the ability to fire ESSM as opposed to the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. The ESSM had been in RAN service for over a decade prior to the RNZN selecting Sea Ceptor for their upgrade, and ESSM had also been in RAN service for ~a decade by the time the CAMM completed trials...
Click to expand...
I agree, RAN and the ADF are wedded to ESSM. The Kiwis seemed primarily interested in CAMM. The Canadians are also a ESSM development partner and user. But had no problems installing CAMM for the Kiwis.

ESSM is a great missile, but it is bigger and heavier and more expensive. With bigger, heavier more expensive launchers. CAMM seems like a fairly easy missile to integrate, the Canadians seemed to be able to do it. I wonder with ASMD if it had a loadout of CAMM would that be enough to allow a CIWS to be fitted.

It would also be a bit of a mismatch.. The ASMD radar is the ideal partner with ESSM. Not sure how its advantages would go with CAMM.
ngatimozart said:
As an aside, I read a comment on another site a whiles back, written by an ex pusser who works for a marine engineering company here. They have the electric and electronic cabling for the ANZACs digitally mapped. So they offered that to the Canadian contracting shipyard. The Canadians turned them down saying that they don't work that way, preferring their paper drawings. Read into it what you want.
Click to expand...
Interesting. I wonder if that will change going forward with the CSC builds etc.
 
StingrayOZ said:
I agree, RAN and the ADF are wedded to ESSM. The Kiwis seemed primarily interested in CAMM. The Canadians are also a ESSM development partner and user. But had no problems installing CAMM for the Kiwis.

ESSM is a great missile, but it is bigger and heavier and more expensive. With bigger, heavier more expensive launchers. CAMM seems like a fairly easy missile to integrate, the Canadians seemed to be able to do it. I wonder with ASMD if it had a loadout of CAMM would that be enough to allow a CIWS to be fitted.

It would also be a bit of a mismatch.. The ASMD radar is the ideal partner with ESSM. Not sure how its advantages would go with CAMM.

Interesting. I wonder if that will change going forward with the CSC builds etc.
Click to expand...

If the ASMD upgrade had included both the Sea Ceptor missile, AND removal and replacement of the Mk 41 VLS, then going with 32 Sea Ceptor missiles in a cold launch VLS, plus a CIWS might have been a possibility. However, given a choice between 32 air defence missiles with a range of 50 km vs. 32 shorter ranged air defence missiles plus a CIWS with a max effective range <2km... I would rather be able to hit an aerial threat further away, as that gives more opportunities to re-engage should initial intercept shots miss.

Also, given that it seems the RNZN upgrade retained the CIWS, replaced the radars with newer systems and removed the Mk 41 VLS (which could be quad packed with Sea Ceptor) in favour of a smaller/lighter VLS with cells for 20 Sea Ceptor it might mean that the displacement of the Mk 15 CIWS, positioned atop the hangar roof, might not have left enough topweight margin for 32 missiles even of the smaller Sea Ceptor. In that case, I would definitely prefer 32 ESSM vs. 20 Sea Ceptor plus CIWS.

As for the radar, I would imagine that the CEAFAR radar panels would work just fine with Sea Ceptor as well, the part which would make a difference would be the CEA MOUNT illuminator which the ESSM requires while Sea Ceptor, using a different type of guidance, does not require illumination.
 
StingrayOZ said:
ESSM is a great missile, but it is bigger and heavier and more expensive. With bigger, heavier more expensive launchers. CAMM seems like a fairly easy missile to integrate, the Canadians seemed to be able to do it. I wonder with ASMD if it had a loadout of CAMM would that be enough to allow a CIWS to be fitted.
Click to expand...

It is also used by the USA and Japan in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and by a multitude of other friendly navies, whereas CAMM is not. The RAN fired its first ESSM in 2003. I doubt there was much appetite to wait for Sea Sceptor for over a decade when it actualy became available and was still not in any widespread use by anyone at all with whom we could share a supply and maintenance infrastructure.

Too late, too little benefit.

oldsig
 
oldsig127 said:
It is also used by the USA and Japan in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and by a multitude of other friendly navies, whereas CAMM is not. The RAN fired its first ESSM in 2003. I doubt there was much appetite to wait for Sea Sceptor for over a decade when it actualy became available and was still not in any widespread use by anyone at all with whom we could share a supply and maintenance infrastructure.

Too late, too little benefit.

oldsig
Click to expand...
Which begs the question, in combined ops within our region, how does the RNZN replenish CAMM?
The alternative is buying war stocks by the dozens but given the of parsimony for defence matters across the Ditch they had better be short engagements.
 
ASSAIL said:
Which begs the question, in combined ops within our region, how does the RNZN replenish CAMM?
The alternative is buying war stocks by the dozens but given the of parsimony for defence matters across the Ditch they had better be short engagements.
Click to expand...

Yes a very good question which one wonders if such crucial logistic considerations were even considered when making the decision. Ultimately the RNZN will have to make it's own arrangements in that respect, but I'm curious... wouldn't that by & large be expected regardless of the missile type?

In a shooting match how likely is it that RNZN, or any Navy for that matter, could expect others to provide high-end weapons top-ups to get thru the immediate need?

I guess with HMNZS Aotearoa (A11) able to supposedly carry up to 4 TEU of weapons then in theory there is scope for Frigates to drop-back to a safe area to allow restocking from A11... not sure how that would be undertaken... presumably using a wharf. If they were to be transferred by chopper they'd have to be manhandled from the ammo TEU on the bow thru to the flightdeck on the stern... can't see a SOP being considered for that!
 
Gibbo said:
Yes a very good question which one wonders if such crucial logistic considerations were even considered when making the decision. Ultimately the RNZN will have to make it's own arrangements in that respect, but I'm curious... wouldn't that by & large be expected regardless of the missile type?

In a shooting match how likely is it that RNZN, or any Navy for that matter, could expect others to provide high-end weapons top-ups to get thru the immediate need?

I guess with HMNZS Aotearoa (A11) able to supposedly carry up to 4 TEU of weapons then in theory there is scope for Frigates to drop-back to a safe area to allow restocking from A11... not sure how that would be undertaken... presumably using a wharf. If they were to be transferred by chopper they'd have to be manhandled from the ammo TEU on the bow thru to the flightdeck on the stern... can't see a SOP being considered for that!
Click to expand...

Perhaps, and perhaps not. IIRC during the air campaign over Libya, France had to purchase additional ordnance from US warstocks because the sortie rate was such that French stocks were getting burned through. There have been a few other instances were a nation started burning through ordnance and had to source either additional stocks or production of ordnance in order to meet service needs.

Presently the UK is the only operator for the CAMM/Sea Ceptor family of missiles though in time that it expected to grow beyond the UK and NZ (once in service) but NZ would still be a very long way from other users of Sea Ceptor. This means both limited availability for reloading, as well as replenishment beyond whatever warstocks NZ maintains would take time as it would need to travel a great distance. When looking at ESSM, there are five ESSM users in the Asia-Pacific region that might have missiles available to be drawn upon if there was a crisis.
 
Gibbo said:
Yes a very good question which one wonders if such crucial logistic considerations were even considered when making the decision. Ultimately the RNZN will have to make it's own arrangements in that respect, but I'm curious... wouldn't that by & large be expected regardless of the missile type?

In a shooting match how likely is it that RNZN, or any Navy for that matter, could expect others to provide high-end weapons top-ups to get thru the immediate need?

I guess with HMNZS Aotearoa (A11) able to supposedly carry up to 4 TEU of weapons then in theory there is scope for Frigates to drop-back to a safe area to allow restocking from A11... not sure how that would be undertaken... presumably using a wharf. If they were to be transferred by chopper they'd have to be manhandled from the ammo TEU on the bow thru to the flightdeck on the stern... can't see a SOP being considered for that!
Click to expand...
Double post
 
Last edited:
ASSAIL said:
The RAN Deployed HMAS Vendetta for Naval Gunfire Support duty during the VietNam conflict with the USN 7th Fleet.
This caused huge logistical problems as nothing in her was compatible with the USN sustainment vanguard.
The effort required to keep 4.5” ammo supplied was disproportionate to her role and if it weren’t for the remaining remnants of the RNFEF in Singapore the problem would have been worse.
None of the above detracts from the very good work which she accomplished but I simply state this as a precautionary tale.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
oldsig127 said:
It is also used by the USA and Japan in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and by a multitude of other friendly navies, whereas CAMM is not. The RAN fired its first ESSM in 2003. I doubt there was much appetite to wait for Sea Sceptor for over a decade when it actualy became available and was still not in any widespread use by anyone at all with whom we could share a supply and maintenance infrastructure.

Too late, too little benefit.

oldsig
Click to expand...
Just one note of caution on future supply of the ESSM - its parts come from a number of countries and in this COVID19 era of interruption to international trade some suppliers may fall behind and limit or halt production. Roketsan in Turkey makes some or all of the ESSM rocket motor and after US sanctions on F-35 export following the Turk's purchase of the S-400, the ESSM production may be interrupted for political reasons. During Gulf War 1 in 1990 US placed an embargo on military electronic components while it ramped up production of Patriot missile for its use - at least one Australian defence program faced delays as a result.
 
SteveR said:
Just one note of caution on future supply of the ESSM - its parts come from a number of countries and in this COVID19 era of interruption to international trade some suppliers may fall behind and limit or halt production. Roketsan in Turkey makes some or all of the ESSM rocket motor and after US sanctions on F-35 export following the Turk's purchase of the S-400, the ESSM production may be interrupted for political reasons. During Gulf War 1 in 1990 US placed an embargo on military electronic components while it ramped up production of Patriot missile for its use - at least one Australian defence program faced delays as a result.
Click to expand...

That could be an issue, assuming additional production was required. Realistically I do not think that production, unless it was already underway, would be able to make up for a sudden use of a large quantity of warstocks. A more realistic scenario IMO would be if one country involved in a conflict had assets deployed somewhere that needed re-arming sooner than would be possible if missiles had to be transported from their domestic warstocks. If there was a closer supply of replacement ordnance from a friendly nation of coalition ally, or if another nation had a logistics train which could be tapped into, that could help support and sustain a deployment.

Where I get concerned with the Sea Ceptor missile in RNZN use is that RNZN vessels which get drawn into conflict or operate alongside others in a coalition setting are most likely going to be in either the Indian or Pacific oceans. While it is possible that a RN vessel might also be involved, I would not anticipate there being a significant supply train which the RNZN might be able to tap into for ordnance from the UK just due to the distances involved. That would pretty much leave NZ without any additional options except to maintain stocks of munitions in theatre, or establish a rapid shipment/replenishment capability stretching potentially thousands of km's.
 
Todjaeger said:
Perhaps, and perhaps not. IIRC during the air campaign over Libya, France had to purchase additional ordnance from US warstocks because the sortie rate was such that French stocks were getting burned through. There have been a few other instances were a nation started burning through ordnance and had to source either additional stocks or production of ordnance in order to meet service needs.

Presently the UK is the only operator for the CAMM/Sea Ceptor family of missiles though in time that it expected to grow beyond the UK and NZ (once in service) but NZ would still be a very long way from other users of Sea Ceptor. This means both limited availability for reloading, as well as replenishment beyond whatever warstocks NZ maintains would take time as it would need to travel a great distance. When looking at ESSM, there are five ESSM users in the Asia-Pacific region that might have missiles available to be drawn upon if there was a crisis.
Click to expand...
FF-05 Almirante Cochrane, the first modernised Chilean Type 23 began sea trials in October 2019 & returned to Valparaiso naval base on November 8th. CAMM_Chile posted photos here, including one of its CAMM launchers, on 4th March. Its modernisation began in March 2018. FF-07 Almirante Lynch was reported on 5th June 2019 to have arrived at Talcahuano to begin its modernisation, & is scheduled to finish in the first half of this year. FF-06 Condell will start later this year.

Asmar, capacidades industriales al servicio de la Armada de Chile (2) - Noticias Infodefensa América
In Spanish, I'm afraid, but Google will translate adequately.

So I think there are now two navies with CAMM. Chile's not exactly close, & isn't a formal ally, but there's nothing much between it & New Zealand except a lot of water. Not too much for air freight, though.
 
Nighthawk.NZ said:
HMNZS Manawanui entering Drydock for her final planned upgrades, and once done she will be ready for tasking and deployments...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1257514274907291648
Click to expand...


Cool... she will hopefully get her paint-job tidied up... then Canterbury (desperately) needs the same! Once out of dock she'll still need to complete her operational sea trials of onboard systems (as outlined in Feb Navy Today mag). Quite excited by Manawanui... she's going to be a great asset... wonder if she's still off to RIMPAC, can't see it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top