Well the soft launch adds nothing if the intention is to quad pack them into the Mk41. Now if the plan is to remove the VLS and retrofit CAAM cells, well that would save weight and make use of soft launch but at the cost of flexibility.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
ESSM has secondary anti-surface capability, more so than Sea Ceptor I would think considering the difference in size between the two. I can't remember if it was on here or another forum but Abe posted a pic of an ESSM totalling a small surface target.
In the RNZNs case would that actually matter much?
So that pretty well answers that question. I think it could be better to retrofit the CAMM cells and lose the extra weight of the Mk41 cells. Maybe half could be retrofitted to the Canterbury and the other half fitted to the Endeavour replacement and then they are fitted for but not with Sea Ceptor. The CAMM cells arequad packed fromthe look of it MBDA - e-catalogue and can be a bit more flexible about placement around the ship.
I've quite liked CEAFAR for a while but ARTISAN does look interesting. One thing to note here is they have gone for an unproven system that is yet to enter operation which does provide an elemnet of risk - one that they think is worth taking.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If there is sufficient topweight margin for CAMM to be quad-packed, then CAMM does provide quite a bit more than the Sea Sparrow currently does. In terms of capability on an individual missile basis... Not as much. The CAMM is ~99kg vs. ~231kg for Sea Sparrow, but both have comparable ranges of ~25km for CAMM and ~19km for Sea Sparrow. The active radar homing of CAMM does mean that an illuminator is not required and that a channel limitation is less of a guidance issue, but that also means the missile itself needs to establish a lock on the target to my understanding. Given the smaller size of the onboard radar vs. the ship's radar, I could that being a potential issue. Also there is the potential of warhead, the Sea Sparrow warhead is 40kg, and I suspect the CAMM warhead is about 15kg, based off the warhead sizes for the RAM and Sea Wolf, which are the closest missiles in the CAMM weight class. Depending on what the target is, such a small warhead which is not HTK might not be enough.
Many of the other advantages that CAMM has (not requiring an exhaust for launch, etc) IMO do not matter, since the Mk 41 VLS was already designed to allow missiles requiring such to launch. Now if the RNZN were to completely rip out the Mk 41 and go with a dedicated CAMM VLS as Volkodav mentioned, the story could be somewhat different.
Part of my issue is that CAMM itself has basically the same reach as what is already in service. The real advantage is the potential for them to be quad-packed, thus allowing more potential shots.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
As for engagement range, not so such that only 20km is correct. Depending on a few factors (like radar and/or illuminator antenna height, inbound missile altitude, and ability to detect said missile) a missile could be picked up and engaged by shipboard sensors 30-40km out. I used a potential engagement vs. a Storm Shadow missile, with a ship antennae/illuminator height of 10m, and the Storm Shadow altitude of 30m, and that left me with a radar horizon of 35km, where for the first ~10km, the ship could 'see' the missile coming, but had to wait to take action.
Now if the use of offboard sensors/systems were included, and/or the target was at higher altitude, that potential engagement range could grow even further.
There is also the potential for the software integration into the existing FFH combat data systems to be a problem. Not sure how much of an issue it will be, but from what I understand, most of the work to make the CAMM so modular was on the software side, to reduce the amount of dedicated hardware required to deploy them.
ESSM has been tested for use against smallcraft, though not sure what the minimum engagement range is with one. Most of my other concerns I have already covered above.
The one concern I have not already mentioned relates to potential wartime usage. Had the RNZN gone with ESSM, then if reloads were required during a Pacific Ocean conflict NZ could potentially draw upon RAN, RCN, JMSDF or USN stocks to reload.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I honestly do not think fitting CAMM to Canterbury is viable/worthwhile.
Apart from where onboard to fit the VLS, AFAIK Canterbury has none of the sensor of combat data systems required to make it worthwhile.
While the missiles themselves are active radar-guided, the launching vessel needs the ability to detect the inbound threat to know when to launch, as well as a vector to direct the missile towards. AFAIK Canterbury does not have any sort of air search radar system, a combat data system process such information, or a datalink capability to either receive such information from other sources, or relay the info to the missile after launch.
Such systems could potentially be installed, but again the question would be, where to put everything?
Now for the Endeavour replacement, if some of those features were included in the design, such an addition would IMO become viable.
-Cheers
the frigates and OPV's would basically have to have a complete comms refit - and as systems tend to be designed and integrated at construction (eg Aegis being a classic example), then it might not even be that easy to do
the citadels (esp on older vessels) don't have a great deal of construction leeway - and that's worse for smaller vessels
at some point someone would need to do a cost benefit analysis - and I can't see it falling in favour of a refit/rebuild.
there are more pressing things to spend money on - it's an overall force benefit or force balance issue, and that money impacts on the other services as much as it focuses on navy...
the citadels (esp on older vessels) don't have a great deal of construction leeway - and that's worse for smaller vessels
at some point someone would need to do a cost benefit analysis - and I can't see it falling in favour of a refit/rebuild.
there are more pressing things to spend money on - it's an overall force benefit or force balance issue, and that money impacts on the other services as much as it focuses on navy...
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I'm interested to know if NZDF sees the sea ceptor as just something to keep the ANZACs relevant until they are replaced, or are going to be part of a broader long term strategy, IE will be part of the Endeavour and canterbury replacements and the litoral vessel. Were they thinking just about about the ANZACs or the fleet/futurefleet as a whole.
Having sea ceptors fitted across a range of vessels, as a common fleet air defence system, would make more sense in some ways that having, say ESSMs for the ANZACS/ANZAC IIs and SeaRAM for the Canterbury II/ Endeavour II/ etc.
On the other hand, I think I would rather see the apparently more capable system on our actual combat ships, one where they can share resources with our allies when on regional/global deployments. And then have the simple clip on seaRAM fitted to Canterbury etc if it were ever deemed neccesary. Give that the 11 round SeaRAM comes with its own radar, you don't have the hassle/expense of having to re-do the electrics.
Having sea ceptors fitted across a range of vessels, as a common fleet air defence system, would make more sense in some ways that having, say ESSMs for the ANZACS/ANZAC IIs and SeaRAM for the Canterbury II/ Endeavour II/ etc.
On the other hand, I think I would rather see the apparently more capable system on our actual combat ships, one where they can share resources with our allies when on regional/global deployments. And then have the simple clip on seaRAM fitted to Canterbury etc if it were ever deemed neccesary. Give that the 11 round SeaRAM comes with its own radar, you don't have the hassle/expense of having to re-do the electrics.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Honestly I still do not see any reasonably efficient or effective way to upgrade the Canterbury armament, even for self-defence, apart from perhaps installing a mini-Typhoon mount or two to cover the after quarters and stern. SeaRAM, or Phalanx/SeaPhalanx would still require some sort of appropriately reinforced mount/slab to be connected to. To my knowledge, none exist and I suspect in order for a properly reinforced mount to be placed somewhere, appropriate internal reinforcements would need to be placed on the decks below the mounting.
There would also still be the matter of some sort of air search radar being required, so that Canterbury would have some idea that the SeaRAM was needed along a particular vector. Other the SeaRAM would need to be constantly on performing the air search function, and an operator would need to be standing by to give the ok to launch if a potential threat is detected.
If the RNZN were to move towards a 2-tier missile defence for the combatants, like the RAN has with ESSM and SM-2MR, the adoption of the CAMM would IMO make sense. However, I really cannot see a VLS being fitted to an AOR. That is really more where a modular, removable mounting (like Phalanx, SeaRAM, etc) would be desired. That way for regular deployments, the mounting is not fitted, but for operations to/in potentially hostile areas, the AOR defences could be upgraded.
Including a VLS in the design leaves the cells present and requiring appropriate checking/maintenence, even if no missiles are present.
What I do not really see happening, is for CAMM to enter Kiwi service, only to be replaced in ~15 years (give or take) with another missile in the same weight class (Rolling Airframe Missile) and a better SAM more suited to local & area air defence.
-Cheers
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Just to clarify: what would be the second tier in addition to CAMM? Do you mean the Phalanx's or 2 tiers of missile defence.
Phalanx is basically a "hail mary" response
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The CAMM would IMO be the 'inner' or 'lower' tier response. Something like ESSM, or perhaps Aster-15 or better Aster-30 or Standard would be the outer tiers.
From my perspective (and I readily admit I might have this wrong) the CAMM is really more one of the latest generation VSRAD missiles, in the weight class or the RAM or Sea Wolf. Being of the latest generation, the range has essentially more than doubled, with a different seeker also featured. Not sure though whether for close-in work an active radar or IR seeker (found on RAM) is better. Design work to reduce the missile launch impact also was good, particularly in reducing the launch system requirements. Now if some sort of modular, bolt-on self-contained launcher like for the RAM could be developed, then CAMM would beat RAM like a drum. AFAIK though a VLS of some sort is currently required. Also, even if there was a dedicated VLS for more missile capacity for nn RNZN vessel, I would want any for the major combatants to have a longer 'reach' than just the ~25km range of the CAMM, especially if the combatant was as a surface escort for a task force or another vessel.
Using the RAN as an example, once the MH-60R 'Romeo' Seahawks are stood up and the ASMD programme progresses, a RAN ANZAC-class FFH will have very comprehensive sensor coverage and SA, with the ability to engage even sea-skimming targets at the outer edges of the radar horizon (~45km depending on antennae & target height). If the RNZN were to be relying on just the CAMM to provide air defence for both the escort and high value ship, that engagement range is basically cut in half.
The beauty of being able to start the engagement further away is that as leakers get closer, then other systems can be brought to bear, ie.e ESSM for inbounds 20-50km out, CAMM from 8-25km out, RAM from 1km-9km, with Phalanx engaging targets within 2km.
If the CAMM is the most capable air defence missile the RNZN ends up with, any Kiwi escort ship is going to need to stay almost on top of any vessel being escorted to provide the maximum time to respond to a potential strike. That or additional escorts would be required.
-Cheers
Me either - if they stick Sea Ceptor onto the Anzacs then I'd expect whatever replaces them to pull that stuff through - the missile will presumably get updates and upgrades - and that'd be your lot. There are dedicated box launchers available as far as I know - in something like 16 round capacities, although there may be smaller ones to be had. Its definitely a good option for OPV's etc etc, big boost from the sort of stuff like Mistral etc that might have been the upper edge of capability available on those size ships til now.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
I have seen images of the UK land launced version CAMM(L) sometimes referred to as FLAADS, mounted on the back of a MAN truck. If you can pop it on a truck, surely you can bolt it into a ship. This might be the box launchers Stobiewan is referring to.
I agree with you about the need for major combat boats having systems with more reach. But in my mind, i'd feel a lot safer with 32 CAMMS over 8 sea sparrows.
Cheers.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
No argument from me that 32 CAMM is much better than 8 Sea Sparrow. Unfortunately still not sure if the FFH's will be getting 32 CAMM or not. It seems likely, but...
The thing which gets me, is that 32 ESSM plus CEA-FAR and CEA-Mount seems much better than 32 CAMM plus a Mk 15 Phalanx 1b. Given that a Phalanx weights in 5,700+kg (depending on model) and that at this point, a Phalanx is of very limited use for air defence, it would also seem like a better option would have been to remove them from the FFH's and the take the proven RAN upgrade path.
As for use aboard OPV's, I think yes, CAMM can find a place, however not aboard the current RNZN OPV's. Firstly is that due to ice-belt, there is a very real limitation on how much additional weight/displacement can be added. Secondly, AFAIK the OPV's have nothing to provide any sort of air search/surveillance radar capability. While the CAMM does have an active radar seeker, the launching vessel needs to have some awareness of inbounds in order to launch, as well as the ability to provide an initial vector for the CAMM to intercept. The OPV's with their limitated sensor, electronic, and comms fitout AFAIK lacks the kit needed to be aware of a need to launch, the data processing capability to determine launch vector, and the datalink to relay that to a missile. Also having looked over the apparent vessel schematics, there also does not really appear to be any suitable space to put a boxed CAMM launcher.
Future vessels are a very different story however. One thing of potential interest along these lines, would be for a StanFlex CAMM container module to be developed. It appears that the Danes have developed a 6-cell Mk 48 Mod 3/Mk 56 VLS container with twin-packed ESSM. Given the weight and size difference between a CAMM and ESSM, is just might be possible to fit a quad-packed CAMM into a Mk 48 Mod 3 or Mk 56 VLS cell.
If this were to occur, and the RNZN adopt the use of StanFlex for some of the future vessels, or have some portions of vessels alloted for StanFlex, then CAMM could provide an as needed increase to a vessel's self-defence capabilities. Assuming of course sufficient modules were purchased and maintained, and of course the vessel's baseline sensor and electronics would support the module.
-Cheers
The thing which gets me, is that 32 ESSM plus CEA-FAR and CEA-Mount seems much better than 32 CAMM plus a Mk 15 Phalanx 1b. Given that a Phalanx weights in 5,700+kg (depending on model) and that at this point, a Phalanx is of very limited use for air defence, it would also seem like a better option would have been to remove them from the FFH's and the take the proven RAN upgrade path.
As for use aboard OPV's, I think yes, CAMM can find a place, however not aboard the current RNZN OPV's. Firstly is that due to ice-belt, there is a very real limitation on how much additional weight/displacement can be added. Secondly, AFAIK the OPV's have nothing to provide any sort of air search/surveillance radar capability. While the CAMM does have an active radar seeker, the launching vessel needs to have some awareness of inbounds in order to launch, as well as the ability to provide an initial vector for the CAMM to intercept. The OPV's with their limitated sensor, electronic, and comms fitout AFAIK lacks the kit needed to be aware of a need to launch, the data processing capability to determine launch vector, and the datalink to relay that to a missile. Also having looked over the apparent vessel schematics, there also does not really appear to be any suitable space to put a boxed CAMM launcher.
Future vessels are a very different story however. One thing of potential interest along these lines, would be for a StanFlex CAMM container module to be developed. It appears that the Danes have developed a 6-cell Mk 48 Mod 3/Mk 56 VLS container with twin-packed ESSM. Given the weight and size difference between a CAMM and ESSM, is just might be possible to fit a quad-packed CAMM into a Mk 48 Mod 3 or Mk 56 VLS cell.
If this were to occur, and the RNZN adopt the use of StanFlex for some of the future vessels, or have some portions of vessels alloted for StanFlex, then CAMM could provide an as needed increase to a vessel's self-defence capabilities. Assuming of course sufficient modules were purchased and maintained, and of course the vessel's baseline sensor and electronics would support the module.
-Cheers
Quad-packable in Mk41 or Sylver (down to A35), or single canisters. Single canisters should be very flexible in placement. The soft launch helps.
What you call very short range was considered to be medium range, adequate for fleet defence, within my lifetime. It's longer range than the missiles ANZAC was bought with.
As for the modular, bolt-on launcher - see above. The canisters which hold the missile fit inside Sylver or Mk41, but I think don't require either. The flexibility of installation is emphasized by MBDA.
Dedicated quad cells are available too, IIRC that's the plan for the T23 CSP
There is space , if not weight, reserved on the ANZACs for a second 8 Cell VLS adjacent to the current unit. Now I am not sure what length Mk41s the ANZACs have but I believe they are Tactical length, i.e. long enough to accommodate SM2 etc. If this is the case then this suggests there is more weight to play with and a full 64 CAMM could possibly be accommodated if ExLS is substituted for the Mk-41, or possibly the ExLS could be installed next to the Mk41 and both used for CAMM with the Mk 41 being retained should the greater range of ESSM ever be required.
Like Todjaeger, I'm hoping for a ESSM/Sea Ceptor combo (& CIWS). The convoy/ocean-escort role is one I expect an RNZN ANZAC may have to fulfill. Sea Ceptor on it's own would be more appropriate for a specialist ASW frigate, which expected to operate regularly in a task group containing dedicated air warfare vessels. I feel a NZ vessel might often find itself outside of that protection.
How about this as an upgrade path: we're likely to keep the Celsius Tech 9LV453 tracker/illuminator or upgrade it only slightly (to the Ceros model, as the RAN have done). It is still needed for the gun fire-control. Adding control of ESSM to it should be an easy & cheap upgrade pathway*. Admittedly that gives only one channel of fire, and it's shared with the gun (as the RNZN ANZACs are now). If possible, I'd add a second tracker/illuminator (probably just forward of the phalanx). That would give 2 channels of fire for ESSM, at quite low cost/risk. Underwhelming compared to the RANs ANZAC upgrade I know - but it gives about the same performance & range as a cold-war USN FFG-7. To me, ESSM fits better as a medium-range area missile (replacing the SM-1) for use against aircraft, than as a point defence one.
The target indication radar (which currently is still the 2D Sea Giraffe?) is almost certain to be upgraded, to at least the 3D model (or to something of even higher performance). Linking Sea Ceptor to it should produce an excellent anti-missile point defence system (a step up from RAM, which has IR guidance and/or homes in on the incoming missiles transmissions).
Having both ESSM & Sea Ceptor in the Mk41 VLS would mean a very limited number of each could be carried (ie perhaps 16 of each), unless you could fit Sea Ceptor cells elsewhere. So we had best avoid any drawn-out slugfests! But such a missile loadout I feel fits quite well with the role of a frigate.
* infact, the existing system should be capable of ESSM already as the tracker /illuminator looks to be the CWI version.
Chis73
How about this as an upgrade path: we're likely to keep the Celsius Tech 9LV453 tracker/illuminator or upgrade it only slightly (to the Ceros model, as the RAN have done). It is still needed for the gun fire-control. Adding control of ESSM to it should be an easy & cheap upgrade pathway*. Admittedly that gives only one channel of fire, and it's shared with the gun (as the RNZN ANZACs are now). If possible, I'd add a second tracker/illuminator (probably just forward of the phalanx). That would give 2 channels of fire for ESSM, at quite low cost/risk. Underwhelming compared to the RANs ANZAC upgrade I know - but it gives about the same performance & range as a cold-war USN FFG-7. To me, ESSM fits better as a medium-range area missile (replacing the SM-1) for use against aircraft, than as a point defence one.
The target indication radar (which currently is still the 2D Sea Giraffe?) is almost certain to be upgraded, to at least the 3D model (or to something of even higher performance). Linking Sea Ceptor to it should produce an excellent anti-missile point defence system (a step up from RAM, which has IR guidance and/or homes in on the incoming missiles transmissions).
Having both ESSM & Sea Ceptor in the Mk41 VLS would mean a very limited number of each could be carried (ie perhaps 16 of each), unless you could fit Sea Ceptor cells elsewhere. So we had best avoid any drawn-out slugfests! But such a missile loadout I feel fits quite well with the role of a frigate.
* infact, the existing system should be capable of ESSM already as the tracker /illuminator looks to be the CWI version.
Chis73
Last edited:
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
New Zealand selects Sea Ceptor for ANZAC Frigate upgrade - News - Shephard
The intended (but still not finalised) Sea Ceptor purchase has now popped up on Shephard Media. Expect it to make the NZ papers in another month!
The intended (but still not finalised) Sea Ceptor purchase has now popped up on Shephard Media. Expect it to make the NZ papers in another month!