yep, in BAMS the ISR and ISTAR vectoring comes from/via the Orions....
(unless the skimmer stumbles upon the intruder running around in the blue.....)
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
(unless the skimmer stumbles upon the intruder running around in the blue.....)
And that is why the NZ government regards the capability as the cornerstone of the future defence force. The whole joint amphibious task force would become deaf, dumb and blind without them.
If NZ eventually gets the P8's you'll be pleasantly surprised out how far they are ahead of the P3's in capability, ISR, ISTAR and bat-mgt
the collapse of the iron curtain had some benefits, everyone started to work out what else those platforms were capable of.
in a lot of areas they are far more valuable than some of the AWACs running around in some countries....
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Re the VLS for future OPVs, apart from the cost, space and weight, doesnt a VLS with ESSMs or whatever neccesitate expensive, large, heavy radar and fire control systems. Wouldn't something like a SeaRAM be better (cheaper, smaller, can be attached like a Phalanx CIWS, swapped out to other ships as needed).
Sea RAM would be ideal, but a self defence Mk 41 module can be fitted with vls RAM, Nulka and would future proof any OPV if a change the stratgeic situation ocurred. However you would be committed to CAMM for local defence to avoid the costs associated with the ESSM fire control/guidance. There would still be a weight penalty with the Mk41 over RAM
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
An alternative would be to use either a Mk 48 or Mk 56 VLS instead of a Mk 41. This would become particularly viable as an option if the RNZN adopts the use of at least some Stanflex systems like the Danes developed and use.
A properly positioned StanFlex container socket could allow an OPV/OCV/patrol frigate/etc to be tasked with relatively mundane missions like EEZ patroling, environmental protection, showing the flag around the S. Pacific, etc. Then if/when needed, the mission module could be changed out to a VLS depending on what was required. Having something as large as a Mk 41 fitted would require the VLS to be built into the vessel itself. Unless the primary intent of the class was to be a combatant, the VLS would likely spend most of the time as empty, but still be increasing the required volume and displacement of the vessel.
Also my preference would be for ESSM to be carried, or whatever is a follow-on to ESSM. RAM and/or CAMM would certainly be worth having to augment the ESSM, but I would still rather have something with a longer reach.
-Cheers
Looks like it might be Sea Ceptor instead - if they're going with that missile for the Anzac upgrades then it'd be logical to expect the same missile to be selected for any OPV. Easy missile to integrate into a small ship...
Very true, Sea Ceptor could be an option across the fleet, even the existing OPVs. The other possibility is NZ is looking at Mk26 as an ANZAC replacement and wants to be able to follow the UKs example with upgrading existing frigates and migrating the new systems to the new hulls once available.
It's possible the Sea Ceptor kit will be migrated to the OPV's - I'm not sure what NZ's plans for future ships are exactly and it's possible a larger pool of less capable ships would be chosen - replacing the Anzacs with four or five large, long legged OPV class ships.
Any thoughts as to how this upgrade hints at future intentions?
Ian
Any thoughts as to how this upgrade hints at future intentions?
Ian
The concept thus far is very embryonic, which is to replace Te Kaha and Te Mana with two "capable" frigates late next decade. The DWP/10 did not specify numbers, however released Cabinet docs worked on the assumption of 2 vessels costing up to NZ$2b. There is some qualified interest in the Type 26 within NZ Government circles, but the reality is that the Anzac replacement wont be looked at until after the next DWP and only beginning to get traction into configuration, numbers and build origin on the one after that. There still may be a decade lead in. That the Type 26 can be built to a price GBP350m (the aspirational figure bandied about) would make it an attractive option, however SEA 5000 is also on the watchlist. Whether there is convergence or not over the next few years is yet unknowable.
That the LAAD component of the project has been announced is good news Correct me if I have missed anything but still to come will be ASMD softkill with LAAD. I know that ESM and CESM, Tactical Datalink and IFF suite are on the shopping list. Nonetheless once the RNZN Anzacs get the improved Sprites they will be fighting fit, with them becoming a very useful regional asset. Seaceptor is of course different to the Aussie approach, but in my view that's not necessarily a bad thing in every case.
There is no plan to do much more with the OPVs as there are operational limitations. Weight growth is a huge concern due to the ice belt issue and will forever be a factor. They were only ever conceived for the NZEEZ patrol plus the Southern Ocean season, with occasional taskings into the Pacific focusing on the island states that we have defence arrangements with. If any future money is to be spent on them I would guess they will look to improved sensors. Doing much else like improving weapon systems in my view would be the naval equivalent of trying to pimp my ride a 2005 Daewoo Nubira.
Last edited:
I tripped over this link regarding the upgrade program for the Kiwi Anzacs
New Zealand Issues Request for Frigate Combat Systems | Defense News | defensenews.com
It's interesting.
New Zealand Issues Request for Frigate Combat Systems | Defense News | defensenews.com
It's interesting.
It certainly narrows the field......
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Thats great news, but I was anticipating ESSMs given that the aussies have just intergrated them on their ANZACs. I was looking forward to gaining the extra range.
There is a good bit of discussion on the RN thread about this. Weight is mentioned as a factor. I have no idea about the cost of the two systems but I imagine that EESs cost more. While this system may be too heavy for our OPV's might it be something we would look at for the Litoral warfare ship that sometimes gets mentioned (if its actually still on the cards).
Someone will have to correct the ESSM wikipedia page as it's stated that NZ has ESSM's all along.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
As an aside,
does this open the door for the possibility of getting land launched CAMMs to replace the mistrals that were sold. Might fit nicely on the back of the new MAN trucks.
Or is that wishfiul thinking?
does this open the door for the possibility of getting land launched CAMMs to replace the mistrals that were sold. Might fit nicely on the back of the new MAN trucks.
Or is that wishfiul thinking?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Wishful thinking IMO. The Mistrals were sold to reduce costs and of the capabilities the NZDF had, but could not maintain due to VfM defence reduction schemes, the Mistral MANPADS were deemed less vital than others. Unless/until there is either an obvious service need (Kiwi troop deployments prevented due to inability to operate in unsanitized airspace, and/or Kiwi casualties as a result of same) or a significant increase in Vote Defence spending, I just do not see it happening. On a side note, this means that the sole air defence capability now operating within NZ, is the Sea Sparrow missiles and Phalanx CIWS now aboard the RNZN frigates...
Here is to hoping nothing bad happens.
As for the selection of CAMM for the Kiwi frigates, I find myself with questions and reservations about the selection.
The first is what were the main drivers behind the selection?
The second is what is the expected programme cost and degree of risk.
As others have noted in the RN thread, the RAN has deployed quad-packed ESSM in RAN frigates for several years, and have also been doing recent upgrades to RAN frigates to include more/more effective radar systems, illuminators, etc. Including testing the effectiveness of the ESSM vs. FIAC. With the recent upgrade work in Australia, going with the ESSM could follow an established programme path which would minimize risk and likely reduce costs.
Now the CAMM can also be quad-packed in a Mk 41 VLS, but if one of the major drivers behind the CAMM selection was limitations imposed on topweight, would there still be sufficient weight margin after removal of the Sea Sparrow illuminator and presumbably other required radar upgrades to allow CAMM quad-packing? The Sea Sparrow missile itself is only a little more than twice the weight of a CAMM missile, unless the current illuminator weights close to 1,300kg a quad-packed CAMM is going to increase that topweight.
A CAMM does provide better 'reach' than a Sea Sparrow, with a range of ~25km vs. 19km, but that is about half the reach of the ESSM. Given that the NZDF appears to be looking to a more joint/amphib multi-service capability, then some sort of area air defence would seem in order. The descriptions I have been coming across for CAMM is that for ship/local defence, much like point defence missiles systems like Sea Wolf and the RAM. Not sure if CAMM would really suit for escorting Endeavour, Canterbury, or their respective replacements in areas of potential air or AShM threat.
What I also wonder about is how problematic is the system going to actually be to install and integrate (likely the real potential problem area) into the ship. In terms of physical plant requirements, those seem minimal. However, the missile needs to be integrated into the Kiwi FFH combat data systems, which IIRC are also due for a MLU, as are the radar arrays.
I do think CAMM is a better missile for Kiwi use than the rather aged Sea Sparrow, but depending on a few factors, it is not a significantly better missile. That is what I worry about, or at least one of the things.
-Cheers
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Thanks for your thoughts. I have to respectfully disagree. I think CAMM is a significantly better than a sea sparrow, which in many ways is pretty redundant AFAIK
From what I have read, as a sea sparrow needs to be 'walked' to its target by ship radar, and current ANZAC radars/fire control only have a single channel, only one can be fired at once. I may be wrong here, but this is what I have read in the past. On the other hand several CAMMS can be launched in succession. This is better for saturation attacks.
And as you have mentioned, there is a range improvement.
For one, the Mk 41 VLS can pack 4 times as many missiles. 8 vs 32.
I don't know much about how CAMM stacks up vs ESSM, apart from the range figures that are publicly available. In my mind, this make ESSM significantly better than both.
Cheers.
This is the question - I wonder what sensor/CMS updates have been selected to go with that. CAMM itself isn't particularly fussy - anything that can crunch some numbers down a data link to give it a reasonable steer will get it going in the right direction but I wonder if there's other BAE work involved, that might bear on Type 26 selection? Because if you really wanted to keep the price down, you'd do the same as the RN and pull some kit through the Anzacs.
They could stick on the CEAFAR set from the Australian updates (skip the TI's of course) and that'd be a significant upgrade, or could we be about to see the first ARTISAN export order? Certainly, either would fit into a Type 26.
In terms of range for CAMM, I've been told that short of any airborne assets being present, 20km is the start of the engagement cycle against a sea skimmer in any event, so as a self defence system, there's not much in it.
Obviously if we're talking engaging mid altitude aircraft, then that's a different kettle of fish.
You could certainly do local area defence with CAMM - it's got double the reach of RAM or SeaWolf - it's not an AWD fit missile but it's got reach enough to cover a convoy or a task force. And yes, of course, I'd sooner be sitting behind a Daring or a Hobart with Aster or SM6
From what I can see the Sea Ceptor has an ability to attack small surface craft as well as its anti aircraft / missile capability. I don't think ESSM can do that. It also doesn't need a specific radar and targeting system, theoretically integrating with 3rd party equipment. It also has a soft launch capability and has a minimum range of 1km with a max range exceeding 25km so it's far better than what we have. So we'll see. http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/files/sea-ceptor_datasheet-1379420378.pdf
I too am interested in the driving force behind the decision. I would think cost is a large part of it. Speaking of cost I am doubtful of the RNZN acquiring UK Type 26 frigates.