Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

JohnJT said:
Full test, real targets.
The targets were QinetiQ Air Affairs Australia Phoenix jet powered drones flying anti-ship missile profiles. Both were shot down successfully.
Click to expand...

And yes they, and the range facilities, are provided by the ADF; as they (and their predecessor systems at least as far back as Jindivick) have been for the RNZN for generations. It’s something we’ve got on with doing without fanfare because it just plain makes sense.
 
InterestedParty said:
At the risk of sounding stupid, when these test firings are done, is it just to show that the missile clears the ship or is is a full test with a real target
Click to expand...
All good, because the Frigates were upgraded with various new systems the test firings (as mentioned in the article) are part of the testing and evaluation process i.e. to test and validate systems/processes work as designed. Looks like that was the last capability to be tested as the vessels have now achieved full capability release (even with CAMM only being tested on the one Frigate). No doubt following their TransCap upgrades one or some of the RAN ANZAC's will undertake testing and evaluation of their new capabilities (eg MASS decoys, NSM etc) on behalf of the fleet.

Suspect Te Mana will be put alongside soon for its turn to have its major maintenance overhaul and the recently overhauled Te Kaha will be put to sea, if so, who knows perhaps Te Kaha may also test fire CAMM at the forthcoming Rimpac exercise? We will have to wait and see re: both scenarios.
 
Last edited:
JohnJT said:
It's pretty grim reading as far as the Seasprites are concerned. Sounds like they're on their last legs (three cockpit MFDs failing on one deployment), with a distinct lack of serviceable spares.

Let's hope they don't have to ditch at sea...
Click to expand...
Might be time for NZ to ask Australia for a RAN Seahawk and crew detachment agreement till they can get their replacement Helicopters. With the immanent retirement of a couple of Anzacs, the Hobarts going in for refits and the delivery of 12 more Seahawks, on paper it seems the RAN is going to be short on ships for the Seahawks to deploy to at least for the rest of this decade. Might actually benefit both countries.
 
Thanks for the CAMM video, Nighthawk.NZ

With our 2 warships now fully operational, has anyone seen if US has asked NZ for support in the Red Sea too?
 
Gooey said:
Thanks for the CAMM video, Nighthawk.NZ

With our 2 warships now fully operational, has anyone seen if US has asked NZ for support in the Red Sea too?
Click to expand...
I haven’t seen anything to suggest it. How I believe the Te Mana will go into a “major” maintenance period and Te Kaha will need time to work up. On previous schedules I couldn’t imagine anything available to March or April. Given the capabilities of the rebels, I’m not sure our Frigates are “tooled up” to that level of operations.
 
Whilst handy for self defence, I’m not sure of efficiency of CAMM in an area defence role?
i understand the Red Sea drama to require an area defence solution providing trade traffic security.

happy to be advised otherwise.
 
Wombat000 said:
Whilst handy for self defence, I’m not sure of efficiency of CAMM in an area defence role?
i understand the Red Sea drama to require an area defence solution providing trade traffic security.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why the US, France and the UK have all sent air defence ships to the area. That's the appropriate vessel type for the situation.
 
Redlands18 said:
On the RAN thread it is generally thought that they are referring to a Hobart class DDG.
Click to expand...
In the future would you expect the Hunter-class FFG (with its Air Defence capabilities eg Aegis combat system/CEAFAR-L/CEAFAR-S/CEAMOUNT/Mk41 VLS & missile load-out options etc), to be able to fulfill this type of tasking as well as the Hobart class DDG's?

If so it may further justify the decision to add to the complexity/weight growth of the Hunter-class design and placate the critics?
 
recce.k1 said:
In the future would you expect the Hunter-class FFG (with its Air Defence capabilities eg Aegis combat system/CEAFAR-L/CEAFAR-S/CEAMOUNT/Mk41 VLS & missile load-out options etc), to be able to fulfill this type of tasking as well as the Hobart class DDG's?

If so it may further justify the decision to add to the complexity/weight growth of the Hunter-class design and placate the critics?
Click to expand...
In hindsight a modernised FFG-7 could have made a much better ANZAC.

A base FFG-7 platform or a modified one as considered by Taiwan with two shafts and cruising diesels. Mk-13 GMLS replaced with Mk-41 VLS maybe eight cells with space and weight for upto thirty two. Maybe even a forward mounted gun, allowing the superstructure where the existing Mk-75 was located to be cut down, saving top weight and reducing the sail effect of the legacy profile.

Retain the dual hangars and have pretty much every other capability as for, but not with.

Following on from Melbourne and Newcastle there would have been even greater economies of scale.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, I know but thinking outside the square is often better than the totally risk adverse decisions that see so much time and money wasted on flawed assumptions.
 
Volkodav said:
In hindsight a modernised FFG-7 could have made a much better ANZAC.

A base FFG-7 platform or a modified one as considered by Taiwan with two shafts and cruising diesels. Mk-13 GMLS replaced with Mk-41 VLS maybe eight cells with space and weight for upto thirty two. Maybe even a forward mounted gun, allowing the superstructure where the existing Mk-75 was located to be cut down, saving top weight and reducing the sail effect of the legacy profile.

Retain the dual hangars and have pretty much every other capability as for, but not with.

Following on from Melbourne and Newcastle there would have been even greater economies of scale.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, I know but thinking outside the square is often better than the totally risk adverse decisions that see so much time and money wasted on flawed assumptions.
Click to expand...
Apparently the Unisys Corporation proposed the FFG-7 in the initial RFP round (but didn't make it into the final 3 which was Meko 200, Type 23 and the Dutch M-class).

Was a reason ever given for ruling out the FFG-7? Cost perhaps? Asking as have never seen the reason why (here in NZ).

Pity because the FFG-7 was already in RAN service so was "known commodity" (and for the RNZN I recall reading in the then Evening Post (Wellington newspaper) that they were advocating for them in the early 1980's to replace the two Type 12M's but the GOTD deemed them to be too expensive). Why is it that the Forces know what they need but Govts have other ideas!
 
recce.k1 said:
Apparently the Unisys Corporation proposed the FFG-7 in the initial RFP round (but didn't make it into the final 3 which was Meko 200, Type 23 and the Dutch M-class).

Was a reason ever given for ruling out the FFG-7? Cost perhaps? Asking as have never seen the reason why (here in NZ).

Pity because the FFG-7 was already in RAN service so was "known commodity" (and for the RNZN I recall reading in the then Evening Post (Wellington newspaper) that they were advocating for them in the early 1980's but the GOTD deemed them to be too expensive). Why is it that the Forces know what they need but Govts have other ideas!
Click to expand...
I have no idea what was offered but I do know the Tenix FFGUP options looked much better than ADIs (now Thales).

Maybe Spoz has some information.
 
Dredging up long ago memories, cost (including estimated through life costs) and the extant design requirement ruled out the modified FFG option, remembering that at the time we were just discovering the cracks. What was known as the T23 light was knocked out on cost. M vs Meko was a very tight contest, came down to the more minor issues like the fact that the Meko looked more upgradable, and was more easily able to accomodate the Mk 45; and comparative cost for what you got. You have to remember that the Anzac was in those days supposed to be a cheap and cheerful patrol frigate; indeed it was called a Tier 2 or maybe even Tier 3, it’s a bit hazy, at the time (things that go around come around). As I say, that’s my memory but it was more than 35 years ago, and I was a Commander who was on one part of the evaluation, not a senior member of the team.
 
Last edited:
spoz said:
Dredging up long ago memories, cost (including estimated through life costs) and the extant design requirement ruled out the modified FFG option, remembering that at the time we were just discovering the cracks. What was known as the T23 light was knocked out on cost. M vs Meko was a very tight contest, came down to the more minor issues like the fact that the Meko looked more upgradable, and was more easily able to accomodate the Mk 45; and comparative cost for what you got. You have to remember that the Anzac was in those days supposed to be a cheap and cheerful patrol frigate; indeed it was called a Tier 2 or maybe even Tier 3, it’s a bit hazy, at the time (things that go around come around). As I say, that’s my memory but it was more than 35 years ago, and I was a Commander who was on one part of the evaluation, not a senior member of the team.
Click to expand...
Thanks I thought you'd know more on it. The ANZACs were tier 2 and if I recall weren't even meant to get torpedo tubes but it was later decided to fit refurbished ones from the River Class. Tier 3 was the Fremantle's which were meant to be replaced with a missile corvette.
 
ngatimozart said:
CAMM is designed for area air defence. What we now need is the CAMM-ER.
Click to expand...
The range of 25k+ for the CAMM would be useful in area defence and there are many reports of success at significantly increased ranges, I suspect that the 25k+ is the low level range, which due to air density is usually only 1/3 of the high level range. The poms do tend to quote the worse case scenario's when referring to range and speed.
The other point in the CAMM's favor is the active radar guidance, which means that errors reduce as it nears the target, and multiple targets can be engaged quickly. I like them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top