Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[John Fedup]

Radio NZ are reporting that the frigate Te Mana may be on her way home soon (where that information comes from I don't know, there has been no official Defence release as far as I know, other than the "mid-2022" on the MoD project page). Link. Usual standards of NZ mainstream journalist sensationalism apply; be warned. NZ Herald's headline on it's version of the same article is even more amusing.

Meanwhile, this project just keeps getting more & more absurd: Reports from Canada say the court case between Sea Span & Lockheed Martin Canada (they are now countersuing each other) has hit a snag. Every page of the court documents (some 200,000) is being assessed by the Canadian govt over national security concerns - at one page an hour! A quick calculation suggests that, even working around the clock, that could take nearly 23 years! Maybe that's a hint the two parties should find a better way. Link

Strange that the Canadian government doesn’t have some kind of secure electronic document transfer to their own judicial system. This fact, COVID, and perhaps a lack of judicial officials with sufficient security clearance equals C-F. LMC and SeaSpan should get their $hit together if they want to receive future export orders.

 

[ASSAIL]

Radio NZ are reporting that the frigate Te Mana may be on her way home soon (where that information comes from I don't know, there has been no official Defence release as far as I know, other than the "mid-2022" on the MoD project page). Link. Usual standards of NZ mainstream journalist sensationalism apply; be warned. NZ Herald's headline on it's version of the same article is even more amusing.

Meanwhile, this project just keeps getting more & more absurd: Reports from Canada say the court case between Sea Span & Lockheed Martin Canada (they are now countersuing each other) has hit a snag. Every page of the court documents (some 200,000) is being assessed by the Canadian govt over national security concerns - at one page an hour! A quick calculation suggests that, even working around the clock, that could take nearly 23 years! Maybe that's a hint the two parties should find a better way. Link

Her fb page still says departing for NZ mid Sep.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Ministry of Transport has released a NOI (Notice of Information) about the Dry Dock at Northport. Details from the notice:

The opportunity​

The proposition of a dry dock large enough to service New Zealand’s bigger commercial vessels (e.g. interisland ferries) has been considered for several years. Currently, larger vessels need to travel offshore to Australia or Southeast Asia to get serviced, which presents resilience issues and produces additional carbon emissions. Northport have been progressing with their consenting process, but the question remains as to whether a dry dock is something that the Government should invest in. We are seeking your expertise to inform future decision making.​

​

What we need​

The Ministry is seeking an experienced provider familiar with the Treasury’s Detailed Business Case process to lead work exploring the case for Government supporting the development of a dry dock in Northland. This business case needs to identify the strategic benefits of a dry dock for New Zealand, and what wider benefits it would bring to Northland and New Zealand as a whole. Considerations around ownership structures and financing will be beneficial.​

​

What’s important to us?​

The Ministry is looking for credible providers who have the capability and understanding of purchasing large infrastructure and who can build a robust case for potential investment. Engagement will be an important aspect of this work and bidders need to be prepared to engage with a wide range of stakeholders. Preferably you will have relevant maritime experience, such as relationships with shipping lines and ports and an ability to quantify the wider economic and strategic benefits of a dry dock. A proven track record to deliver a Detailed Business Case is preferred, as well as international experience.​

​

Why should you bid?​

This is a unique opportunity to influence Government investment in a large infrastructure project that could help to shape Northland’s economy and support New Zealand’s shipping industry. It will be a great opportunity to engage with New Zealand’s ports and shipping lines to better understand the commercial realities of a dry dock.​

​

Interested? What’s next?​

We intend to go to market in July 2022. The opportunity will be advertised on the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS).​

So it looks like Northport is the location and that work is about to start on the government business case. Maybe the MOD Acquisitions Branch should bid for the contract.

​

 

[Xthenaki]

The Ministry of Transport has released a NOI (Notice of Information) about the Dry Dock at Northport. Details from the notice:

The opportunity​

The proposition of a dry dock large enough to service New Zealand’s bigger commercial vessels (e.g. interisland ferries) has been considered for several years. Currently, larger vessels need to travel offshore to Australia or Southeast Asia to get serviced, which presents resilience issues and produces additional carbon emissions. Northport have been progressing with their consenting process, but the question remains as to whether a dry dock is something that the Government should invest in. We are seeking your expertise to inform future decision making.​

​

What we need​

The Ministry is seeking an experienced provider familiar with the Treasury’s Detailed Business Case process to lead work exploring the case for Government supporting the development of a dry dock in Northland. This business case needs to identify the strategic benefits of a dry dock for New Zealand, and what wider benefits it would bring to Northland and New Zealand as a whole. Considerations around ownership structures and financing will be beneficial.​

​

What’s important to us?​

The Ministry is looking for credible providers who have the capability and understanding of purchasing large infrastructure and who can build a robust case for potential investment. Engagement will be an important aspect of this work and bidders need to be prepared to engage with a wide range of stakeholders. Preferably you will have relevant maritime experience, such as relationships with shipping lines and ports and an ability to quantify the wider economic and strategic benefits of a dry dock. A proven track record to deliver a Detailed Business Case is preferred, as well as international experience.​

​

Why should you bid?​

This is a unique opportunity to influence Government investment in a large infrastructure project that could help to shape Northland’s economy and support New Zealand’s shipping industry. It will be a great opportunity to engage with New Zealand’s ports and shipping lines to better understand the commercial realities of a dry dock.​

​

Interested? What’s next?​

We intend to go to market in July 2022. The opportunity will be advertised on the Government Electronic Tenders Service (GETS).​

So it looks like Northport is the location and that work is about to start on the government business case. Maybe the MOD Acquisitions Branch should bid for the contract.

Very positive to see this potential project gaining further traction. An absolute no brainer with a vast range of benefits to both our navy and commercial shipping. If NZ were to be involved in a Pacific conflict proper modern repair and docking facilities are essential to be able to carry on functioning.

 

[chis73]

This appeared on the MoD website yesterday, so I guess it amounts to a formal announcement that Te Mana is finally coming home (link)

FRIGATE SYSTEMS UPGRADE PROGRAMME DRAWS TO A CLOSE

Date: 31/05/2022 Category: News
The Royal New Zealand Navy frigate HMNZS Te Mana and its 165-strong crew are setting sail for Aotearoa New Zealand, following completion of a major systems upgrade in Canada.
Te Mana on way home
Haka for delivery of Te Mana
NEXT


“This complex programme of work has upgraded both Anzac-class frigates’ combat systems including radars, weapons, hardware, electronic systems, and sonars,” said Mike Yardley Deputy Secretary Capability Delivery at the Ministry of Defence. “I’d like to thank the Royal Canadian Navy for their support while the frigates have been based in Victoria.”

The Frigate Systems Upgrade is one of a series of projects that has replaced or upgraded aging or obsolete systems, extending the Anzac-class frigates’ operational life out to 2035.

“With the upgraded HMNZS Te Kaha already home, the return of HMNZS Te Mana signals the restoration of the Royal New Zealand Navy’s combat capability,” said Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Proctor.

“Once their modern systems have been fully introduced, the frigates will provide Aotearoa with high end options over the full range of maritime operations. Te Kaha and Te Mana will be able to deploy anywhere in the world to advance our national interests, including providing maritime security alongside our partners where needed.”

The upgrade by Lockheed Martin Canada has delivered new radars, electronic detection and other above water systems, the self-defence missile system, decoys against missiles and torpedoes, and upgrade to the hull-mounted sonar, and the combat management system that integrates these.

Lockheed Martin Canada were contracted to complete the upgrade and, after stripping out legacy systems, began the project’s installation phase in May 2018 on HMNZS Te Kaha, with working commencing on Te Mana in 2019.

“The work for each frigate involved removal of 44 tonnes of old equipment and structure, and the addition of 67 tonnes of new equipment. More than 55 kilometres of new cabling was pulled through the two ships; and over two million lines of code was written, linking the ships’ weapons and sensors to her new combat management system,” Mike Yardley said.

On returning to Aotearoa, Te Mana will undertake a series of trials, tests, and exercises, allowing for the progressive release of the ship’s operational capabilities.

 

[alexanderthegreat368]

New Zealand Frigate Sails Home Following Upgrade - Naval News

The Royal New Zealand Navy's second Anzac-class frigate HMNZS Te Mana departed Canada on May 31st for home, three years after she commenced her Frigate Systems Upgrade, at Lockheed Martin Canada.

www.navalnews.com

"Initially, $446 million NZD was budgeted to upgrade both ships, though the actual cost has blown out to $700 million"

Not worth the upgrade I must say especially if you include the delays. Only notable changes are CMS 330, CAMM and Thales SMART-S. Which have limited improvement on capability if you compare to the Aus FSU. For the same $700m you could get a fresh Arrowhead 140 (or similar) fully kitted. Govt should have ordered a replacement earlier so they would be ready about now and then there would be no need for such a costly upgrade. Anzacs have given a good rough 25 years of service.

 

[Underway]

New Zealand Frigate Sails Home Following Upgrade - Naval News

The Royal New Zealand Navy's second Anzac-class frigate HMNZS Te Mana departed Canada on May 31st for home, three years after she commenced her Frigate Systems Upgrade, at Lockheed Martin Canada.

www.navalnews.com

"Initially, $446 million NZD was budgeted to upgrade both ships, though the actual cost has blown out to $700 million"

Not worth the upgrade I must say especially if you include the delays. Only notable changes are CMS 330, CAMM and Thales SMART-S. Which have limited improvement on capability if you compare to the Aus FSU. For the same $700m you could get a fresh Arrowhead 140 (or similar) fully kitted. Govt should have ordered a replacement earlier so they would be ready about now and then there would be no need for such a costly upgrade. Anzacs have given a good rough 25 years of service.

Limited improvement? In the notable changes section, you've missed Elisra (critical detection capability for missile defense and radar emissions), MASS (soft-kill system for missile defense), Laser warning detectors, and IRST upgrades. Their sense and self-defence capabilities have improved by orders of magnitude. It's not even close to what it was before.

I won't argue ship costs though. Trying to figure out comparables between different projects in different countries is a waste of time, as the sticker price is never really the true cost. Particularly when places like the UK and US are so big they can reduce project costs with other government-supplied materials from their pre-existing inventories.

 

[Gooey]

I agree. I know the benefit of hindsight makes me sound like a p*****, but the scope always seemed limited.

Even at the outset the upgrade seemed to be built around the perceived benefits of having active radar SAM, thus allowing less radar systems for Semi-active SAM guidance. Anyway, that’s how a RNZN Lt Cmdr described it to me. I was left unconvinced about the superiority of CAMM over Sparrow and that was before I knew about Block II Sparrow. I always knew that the RAN radars (CEA) would be generations ahead of the mechanical SMART-S.

The lack of Harpoon and very small number of CAMM only confirmed that this upgrade was severely limited by Treasury and NZ MoD and presumably an inadequate argument from Navy staff.

 

[alexanderthegreat368]

Limited improvement? In the notable changes section, you've missed Elisra (critical detection capability for missile defense and radar emissions), MASS (soft-kill system for missile defense), Laser warning detectors, and IRST upgrades. Their sense and self-defence capabilities have improved by orders of magnitude. It's not even close to what it was before.

ESM certainly has its use, but regarding self defense the radar is much more important to locate the target. You can't have good ESM without good radar. I would also argue that soft-kill measures (while still important) such as MASS are not something you would rely on over hard-kill measures. Effectiveness of ECM is debated and that is a topic for another time.

Particularly when places like the UK and US are so big they can reduce project costs with other government-supplied materials from their pre-existing inventories.

The AH140 is a design advertised for export, so its price is more stable than an exclusive government program. UK plans to spend 250m GBP (480m NZD) and the Indonesians plan to spend about 240m GBP converted in the local currency. So the figure can be assumed to be in the same ballpark. This leaves about NZD 200m for other costs eg. overruns and upgrades.

 

[Underway]

I agree. I know the benefit of hindsight makes me sound like a p*****, but the scope always seemed limited.

Even at the outset the upgrade seemed to be built around the perceived benefits of having active radar SAM, thus allowing less radar systems for Semi-active SAM guidance. Anyway, that’s how a RNZN Lt Cmdr described it to me. I was left unconvinced about the superiority of CAMM over Sparrow and that was before I knew about Block II Sparrow. I always knew that the RAN radars (CEA) would be generations ahead of the mechanical SMART-S.

Active homing missiles are always better then semi-active in a self defence context as they don't need direct LoS, and can engage multiple targets in multiple directions without the limiting factor of a fire control radar. ESSM is the upgrade of the Sea Sparrow and ESSM II is the next step (with dual homing capability, active and semi-active).

SMART-S only rotates its face, the rest of the radar is not mechanical at all, it uses digital beamforming to sweep and track targets. I'm not going to argue that it's better than any other 3D radar but it's not "generations" behind. It's quite good and pairs well with the operation of the Sea Ceptor.

ESM certainly has its use, but regarding self defense the radar is much more important to locate the target. You can't have good ESM without good radar. I would also argue that soft-kill measures (while still important) such as MASS are not something you would rely on over hard-kill measures. Effectiveness of ECM is debated and that is a topic for another time.

ESM gives you three critical things. Information on what type of missile is coming at you (based on its radar emissions signature), the bearing it is coming at you from and time. Knowing the missile type cues CMS 330 to implement the appropriate defensive procedures both hard and soft kill as they can be optimized for the missile type. MASS will launch a pattern to take advantage of that missile, EW will jam appropriately and the hard-kill systems will engage knowing the terminal maneuver of the missile and any penetration aids it has. People always underestimate soft kill.

Knowing the bearing the missile is approaching from is important to manouver your ship to the best position to apply all your defensive measures.

And time because you can often detect the enemy radar from over the horizon well before you would detect with your own radar, giving you seconds to minutes extra warning. That may be the most valuable effect of all as it allows for manouver, crew to get to stations and the Ops team to prepare their response more thoroughly.

 

[ngatimozart]

ESM certainly has its use, but regarding self defense the radar is much more important to locate the target. You can't have good ESM without good radar. I would also argue that soft-kill measures (while still important) such as MASS are not something you would rely on over hard-kill measures. Effectiveness of ECM is debated and that is a topic for another time.

I suggest that you read back through this thread and have a see what has been posted WRT the Anzac Class upgrades before making any further comments.

The AH140 is a design advertised for export, so its price is more stable than an exclusive government program. UK plans to spend 250m GBP (480m NZD) and the Indonesians plan to spend about 240m GBP converted in the local currency. So the figure can be assumed to be in the same ballpark. This leaves about NZD 200m for other costs eg. overruns and upgrades.

Have you looked at the specifications for the Type 31 which is what the RN are paying for their variant of the Babcock AH140, which BTW is the OMT F370 and is in service with the Royal Danish Navy as the Iver Huitfeld Class FFG? The Type 31 is nothing more than a glorified OPV which is than a complete waste of a perfectly good frigate hull.

I will make one point about upgrades to the Anzac Class in general. If you look at RAN & RNZN upgrades, the RAN have substantial stability problems because they have reached the maximum safe displacement for the hull. That's after closing on the quarterdeck and using substantial ballasting. The ships look and top heavy and without sufficient ballasting are. This results in slower speed (2 knots slower than RNZN ones) and increased fuel consumption. The Anzac Class was designed as a patrol frigate, which in RNZN service it is; but the Australians have turned them into mini DDGs which they definitely are not by any feat of the imagination. Now they want to fit a towed sonar array to them - good luck with that. It is not the fault of the RAN but the fault of the Aussie pollies who couldn't make a decision and in the end didn't bother replacing the Adelaide Class FFG-7 when they should have. Instead they co-opted the unsuitable Anzacs for that role as well as their normal patrol frigate role.

 

[Gooey]

Active homing missiles are always better then semi-active in a self defence context as they don't need direct LoS, and can engage multiple targets in multiple directions without the limiting factor of a fire control radar. ESSM is the upgrade of the Sea Sparrow and ESSM II is the next step (with dual homing capability, active and semi-active).
SMART-S only rotates its face, the rest of the radar is not mechanical at all, it uses digital beamforming to sweep and track targets. I'm not going to argue that it's better than any other 3D radar but it's not "generations" behind. It's quite good and pairs well with the operation of the Sea Ceptor.

Yes of course ESSM. Thanks, and for your detailed response.

CAMM (218 lb) CAMM (missile family) - Wikipedia is under half the missile of ESSM (620 lb) RIM-162 ESSM - Wikipedia. By both range and warhead.

In many ways, CAMM fits into a scaled-up CIWS role where LoS is not an issue. More importantly, it has a small active seeker with likely limited ECCM capability over mid-course (command guidance) and semi from a descent radar and C2 system I would have assumed that RNZN would have known about the ESSM II development before the update, which could evolve further into IR seeker as well. Furthermore, I have no assessment on how NZ settled for 20 shots of a small missile v the 32 shot of ESSM, other than cost was driving everthing including rational national defence.

As I mentioned, the Australian CEA Tech AESA system for RAN ANZACs CEA Technologies - Solutions With Commitment is generations ahead of any mechanical radar. It has L, C(? I believe), and X band over 360 deg continously; and, that is the huge difference. Again, how NZ settled on something less capable when it must have know about this system from Australia is seriously interesting for a case-study on decision making.

Finally, I understand cost is everything. Hence, why NZG, NZ MoD, Treasury, and not least RNZN settled for a damp squid. But not having Harpoon, 32 shot SAM, and an active decoy Nulka Nulka - Wikipedia, seems like a Claytons upgrade to me. Which at $700m is also somewhat miss-managed. One that you have when you are playing at being a war fighting navy. Sorry, if that sounds overly negative.

 

[ngatimozart]

New Zealand Frigate Sails Home Following Upgrade - Naval News

The Royal New Zealand Navy's second Anzac-class frigate HMNZS Te Mana departed Canada on May 31st for home, three years after she commenced her Frigate Systems Upgrade, at Lockheed Martin Canada.

www.navalnews.com

"Initially, $446 million NZD was budgeted to upgrade both ships, though the actual cost has blown out to $700 million"

Not worth the upgrade I must say especially if you include the delays. Only notable changes are CMS 330, CAMM and Thales SMART-S. Which have limited improvement on capability if you compare to the Aus FSU. For the same $700m you could get a fresh Arrowhead 140 (or similar) fully kitted. Govt should have ordered a replacement earlier so they would be ready about now and then there would be no need for such a costly upgrade. Anzacs have given a good rough 25 years of service.

Where do I start. I have just answered about the RAN Anzac Class and its limitations, so I won't rehash that.

The RAN use the ESSM Blk I. They've just ordered the ESSM Blk II which I believe has just been certified for use by its user group. We've had Sea Ceptor in service for over about 18 months and it is far more capable than ESSM Blk I. There's nothing wrong with the Thales Smart S radar at all. We didn't go down the road of the RAN FSU because of the cost and the time it takes. It was an unproven system at the time so was considered to risky, which considering the RAN & new unproven technology, is a wise move.

Govt should have ordered a replacement earlier so they would be ready about now and then there would be no need for such a costly upgrade. Anzacs have given a good rough 25 years of service.

The Anzac frigates replacement was never due until the end of this decade and the MLU (Mid Life Upgrade) was always planned. That is standard operating practice for most navies, to sail their ships for 30 odd years with a MLU around the 15 year mark.

For the same $700m you could get a fresh Arrowhead 140 (or similar) fully kitted.

Define fully kitted. With what? If it is built in an UK, Western European, North American, or Australian yard NZ$700 million isn't going to buy you a lot because they are the most expensive yards to build in. For NZ$700 million you would receive a ship with very basic weapons an sensors systems that would make the ship unfit for service in a contested environment. For twice that amount of money, using an AH14 hull and machinery as the base, it is possible to have a very capable warship most likely with AEGIS and SPY-7 radar. As always the trick is integrating the systems and negotiating the contracts with the Primes. That's just one option and my personally preferred one.

If tomorrow there was a miracle of miracles and the government ordered the MOD to acquire a brand new fully equipped frigate, they aren't going to go buy one with the same specs as the current Anzac class. That's stupid because it's well obsolete when the order was given. It is going to be in RNZN service for most likely 30 years so it has to be modern and uptodate. So they will want the latest of technology, within reason, that is reliable, proven and in use with at least one of our FVEY partners installed in it. Today WRT defence acquisitions the NZG is risk adverse. For example Sea Ceptor is used by us and by the RN with the RCN installing it on their new CSC Type 26 frigates. If we were to follow most of the RCN CSC fitout we could stay with the CMS330 and wouldn't have to worry about integration of many new systems because integration is both expensive and time consuming. For example, since the RCN will also be using the ESSM Blk II we would already have it integrated into the CMS330 and therefore if required could use that if we ran out of Sea Ceptor at sea and needed to restock from the USN Fleet Train when next alongside.

It's not just about ships either. What about crew? Modern crew aren't something that can be trained up in a number of weeks and then thrown into a ship. Each individual takes years of training to achieve the high level of competency required, especially amongst the technical trades. That's true in both the officers and the ratings because each has their own specialisation. At present the RNZN, like the rest of NZDF, is deliberately short handed. Some RNZN ships haven't been able to sail because they haven't been able to fill one technical berth.

Not all of the ships are fit for purpose either so that makes it harder. This is because of the politicians overriding the Admirals. The Admirals know what is best required to meet the policy requirements that the pollies set them. But the pollies usually think that what the Admirals want are to warrie and / or to expensive. Some pollies even think that because it's painted gray and got things that go bang on it, that the Admirals are going to go plunder the Spanish Main. Sometimes I wonder if Helen Clark, Ardern, Roberston and our current MIA MINDEF think that. Treasury just are allergic to spending the money. It's against their religion; a prime tenant of their faith. Their second commandment is "Thou shalt not spend money upon Defence."

You also have to look at the complete fleet structure too as well as the overall NZDF forces structure and how the RNZN capabilities fit into the NZDF overall strategy. CDF's strategy and plans will inform force requirements and structures of all three services.

 

[Pusser01]

Where do I start. I have just answered about the RAN Anzac Class and its limitations, so I won't rehash that.

The RAN use the ESSM Blk I. They've just ordered the ESSM Blk II which I believe has just been certified for use by its user group. We've had Sea Ceptor in service for over about 18 months and it is far more capable than ESSM Blk I. There's nothing wrong with the Thales Smart S radar at all. We didn't go down the road of the RAN FSU because of the cost and the time it takes. It was an unproven system at the time so was considered to risky, which considering the RAN & new unproven technology, is a wise move.

I would be interested to know if the Kiwi Anzacs prior to Sea Ceptor fitout, had the weight allowance to have had a 2nd 8 cell Mk41 installed for a total of 64 ESSM. I remember seeing a photo of the Sea Ceptor installation on the Kiwi Anzac, it looked as though the installation took up the entire area of where the previous VLS & space for 2nd used to be. I since can't find said photo. Cheers.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would be interested to know if the Kiwi Anzacs prior to Sea Ceptor fitout, had the weight allowance to have had a 2nd 8 cell Mk41 installed for a total of 64 ESSM. I remember seeing a photo of the Sea Ceptor installation on the Kiwi Anzac, it looked as though the installation took up the entire area of where the previous VLS & space for 2nd used to be. I since can't find said photo. Cheers.

I believe that they could've because we haven't added anywhere near the weight that the RAN have.

 

[Todjaeger]

I would be interested to know if the Kiwi Anzacs prior to Sea Ceptor fitout, had the weight allowance to have had a 2nd 8 cell Mk41 installed for a total of 64 ESSM. I remember seeing a photo of the Sea Ceptor installation on the Kiwi Anzac, it looked as though the installation took up the entire area of where the previous VLS & space for 2nd used to be. I since can't find said photo. Cheers.

I do not believe so. The Kiwi frigates, unlike the RAN ones, have a Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS mounted aft above/atop the hangar which would have added ~5 tonnes of topweight. Had the RNZN adopted the ESSM as a replacement for the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, they might have been able to fit a 2nd 8-cell Mk 41 VLS, but only if it was single-cell packed and not quad-packed like the RAN does.

Prior to the RAN upgrading their FFH's with CEAFAR and CEA Mount and other features, the RAN found that they were getting too close with the topweight margins once ESSM was quad-packed. Given a choice of 32 quad-packed ESSM or 8 ESSM + CIWS, or 16 ESSM... the RAN opted to get more of a more capable missile and forgo a CIWS.

Also, whilst well aware of the vs. prohibitions on the forum, I find descriptions of Sea Ceptor being "more capable" than ESSM Block I to be misleading or inaccurate. There are certainly some capabilities which Sea Ceptor possesses which ESSM Block I does not, OTOH ESSM has capabilities which Sea Ceptor does not. Broadly speaking, the two missiles can be either described as being at opposite ends of the same missile category spectrum, or as being in two different categories but adjacent to each other.

 

[Pusser01]

I believe that they could've because we haven't added anywhere near the weight that the RAN have.

I found a photo that indicates the 20x Sea Ceptor installation takes up approx. the same area as 64x ESSM would have done. My question is, if they have the space & weight, why go for the fewer numbers? I guess it comes down to funding & maybe train of thought that the RNZN had at the time. Myself personally, I would prefer to be on the ship that carried the greater number of missiles that have a similar capability, even if that is only 32 compared to 20. Please note, this is not a criticism of the RNZN, just my own opinion as an ex-member of the RAN. Cheers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520775212102569985

 

[swerve]

I found a photo that indicates the 20x Sea Ceptor installation takes up approx. the same area as 64x ESSM would have done. My question is, if they have the space & weight, why go for the fewer numbers? I guess it comes down to funding & maybe train of thought that the RNZN had at the time. Myself personally, I would prefer to be on the ship that carried the greater number of missiles that have a similar capability, even if that is only 32 compared to 20. Please note, this is not a criticism of the RNZN, just my own opinion as an ex-member of the RAN. Cheers.

64 ESSM weigh as much as 180 CAMM - about 18 tons instead of 2 tons for 20 CAMM. 32 weigh as much as 90 CAMM. I don't know the weight of the CAMM mushroom launchers, but they're simpler than a launcher for an ESSM, e.g. no efflux control. I understand that topweight is a major issue with the ANZACs, & the RNZN didn't want to have to adopt the RAN solution, which IIRC consists of enclosing more volume & ballasting.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

I found a photo that indicates the 20x Sea Ceptor installation takes up approx. the same area as 64x ESSM would have done. My question is, if they have the space & weight, why go for the fewer numbers? I guess it comes down to funding & maybe train of thought that the RNZN had at the time. Myself personally, I would prefer to be on the ship that carried the greater number of missiles that have a similar capability, even if that is only 32 compared to 20.

The space for CAMM and the mushroom farm I think you will find is limited... it's not just the clear space on the upper deck but space and what alterations are required below decks to house them. Currently it using the space that was the VLS...

Sure they could have been quad packed into the MK-41 VLS sure we could have gone ESSM...but we didn't no point flogging a dead horse...

The final weight of the Kiwi ANZAC's work out to be 23 odd tons heavier than they were before the refit.

The work for each frigate involved removal of 44 tonnes of old equipment and structure, and the addition of 67 tonnes of new equipment. More than 55 kilometres of new cabling was pulled through the two ships; and over two million lines of code was written, linking the ships’ weapons and sensors to her new combat management system,” Mike Yardley said.

Don't forget our ANZAC's have the 6 tons extra weight of the CIWS... and I can not confirm this as I can not find the article again, but pretty sure I read somewhere that weight reserves have been left just in case they want to add the Harpoon Canisters... (FFBNW) Though after the refit not sure where as it could interfere with the DLF Floating Decoy Launchers.

Other things to consider is the timing when we bought a lot of the equipment and decided to go with CAMM back in October 2013 ... which was similar to what Canada was getting hence the tacking on to the end of the Halifax upgrades... however they were delayed and which pushed the Anzacs back before the started their upgrades by a few years... add in the issues they had adding to even more delays...

 

[ADMk2]

I found a photo that indicates the 20x Sea Ceptor installation takes up approx. the same area as 64x ESSM would have done. My question is, if they have the space & weight, why go for the fewer numbers? I guess it comes down to funding & maybe train of thought that the RNZN had at the time. Myself personally, I would prefer to be on the ship that carried the greater number of missiles that have a similar capability, even if that is only 32 compared to 20. Please note, this is not a criticism of the RNZN, just my own opinion as an ex-member of the RAN. Cheers.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520775212102569985

Funding I am going to assume, bearing in mind this was still a substantial upgrade for RNZN, going from 8x Sea-Sparrow missiles to 20x CAMM might seem to be a worthwhile investment to a funding limited force, particularly 20x active radar guided missiles that can be fired singularly against missiles or aircraft, rather than the more common practice of 2x missiles fired in the case of ESSM.

Of course ESSM Blk II negates that advantage, but ESSM Blk II wasn’t available when this choice had to be made.

I can also imagine a scenario as well where with MASS, Phalanx Block IB2 and CAMM, RNZN may feel with the slightly fewer missile warshots, that those additional systems add flexibility to defensive options that a larger missile load may not?

None of this explains the lack of NSM or some other suitable ASM of course. Even from an ideologue point of view this is a strange one. You contemplate your ship having missiles fired at it, so you equip it with anti-missile capabilities. Then decide it’s perfectly acceptable (inherent to the ship itself) to give it nothing with which to fight back, except a helicopter launched anti-ship missile?

Loco ese…