Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[40 deg south]

Story now up on Defence Industry Daily with some commentary, and a broadly positive analysis of where the CAMM missile sits in the greater scheme of ship defence. My undertsanding is that the option chosen by NZ is cheaper, simpler and capable of being fitted to smaller vessels, but the trade-off is less range than the Evolved Sea Sparrow that Australia has gone for.

I Think I CAMM: Britain’s Versatile Air Defense Missile

New Zealand is the 1st Sea Ceptor export customer, and they’re also the 1st customer to benefit from MBDA and Lockheed Martin’s MoU (q.v. May 15/13) around the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System.

New Zealand’s air defense upgrade is expected to be cheaper than Australia’s, and is also expected to be cheaper per missile, while providing a different set of performance advantages in the short term. CAMM’s active guidance is currently an advantage compared to the RIM-162 ESSM missiles aboard upgraded Australian ANZACs, in exchange for shorter range. Both missile types can be quad-packed, giving their 8-cell Mk.41 vertical launchers a maximum load of 32 air defense missiles. The tradeoff is that Australia’s ESSMs can use the ship’s more powerful radar for guidance, in exchange for additional work tying the missile into the frigate’s combat system. ESSM Block 2 will probably add an active guidance option, erasing CAMM’s edge and retaining longer range, but that isn’t even in the design stage yet. Sources: MBDA, Oct 7/13 release.

 

[Lucasnz]

The way I looking at things is that ESSM and a single fire control channel offer a very limited capability in terms of defence. Personally I tend to prefer Fire and Forget with data update over ship mounted guidance.

If you look at what the A4's used to do (4 point attack with multiple aircraft) a single Fire Control channel provides too much risk for a small navy. I don't think a mixed purchase option is a realistic option for the RNZN given the increased logistics / training costs, but upgrading the fire control radar won't hurt, assuming they don't change out the Mk 41 launcher.

 

[Todjaeger]

The way I looking at things is that ESSM and a single fire control channel offer a very limited capability in terms of defence. Personally I tend to prefer Fire and Forget with data update over ship mounted guidance.

If you look at what the A4's used to do (4 point attack with multiple aircraft) a single Fire Control channel provides too much risk for a small navy. I don't think a mixed purchase option is a realistic option for the RNZN given the increased logistics / training costs, but upgrading the fire control radar won't hurt, assuming they don't change out the Mk 41 launcher.

True, but if the illuminator were to be changed to a newer, more modern one then there would be more than just a single channel. The CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT system which makes up the RAN's ASMD upgrade programme for their ANZAC-class frigates provides 10 fire control channels, plus more advanced radar capabilities.

If as part of the Kiwi upgrade programme the intention was to keep radar and electronics upgrades to a minimum for cost reasons (and therefore not get a modern illuminator) then getting a missile which does not rely upon an illuminator makes more sense.

If the issue had more to due to topweight limitations, then I would advocate for removing the Phalanx from the Kiwi frigates, to recoup 5.7+ tonnes.

I suppose a good portion of what bothers me so much about the apparent upgrade path, is that I expect selection will be kept in service for 20 - 30 years, and will influence options for additional future vessels and the frigate replacements.

-Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

True, but if the illuminator were to be changed to a newer, more modern one then there would be more than just a single channel. The CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT system which makes up the RAN's ASMD upgrade programme for their ANZAC-class frigates provides 10 fire control channels, plus more advanced radar capabilities.

If as part of the Kiwi upgrade programme the intention was to keep radar and electronics upgrades to a minimum for cost reasons (and therefore not get a modern illuminator) then getting a missile which does not rely upon an illuminator makes more sense.

If the issue had more to due to topweight limitations, then I would advocate for removing the Phalanx from the Kiwi frigates, to recoup 5.7+ tonnes.

I suppose a good portion of what bothers me so much about the apparent upgrade path, is that I expect selection will be kept in service for 20 - 30 years, and will influence options for additional future vessels and the frigate replacements.

-Cheers

I think there is a bit of both going on in terms of cost and weight margin. Labour has already expressed some displeasure at the upper cost range bandied about. Given CAMM is said to have a min range of <1km it would possibly provide an opportunity to transfer Phalanx to the OPV / MRV on a modular basis. The RNZN on Page 45 of their strategic plan talked about fitting Canterbury to take Phalanx (fitted for but not with) as an Aspiration. I love to know where they'd put it.

I suspect that you've hit the nail on the head in terms of the upgrade path. If in service equipment carried over into a new ship would offer significant advantages in reducing overall acquisition costs. A bit of a strategic move on the RNZN's part maybe.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have been finding info on the StanFlex system and there is not a lot about it on the web. Most appears to be on Wikipedia - StanFlex that seems to give a reasonable description. I tried to follow the citations but could not access most, not having an account at Janes. However I was able to access this one from the Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force: Volume 6: Platforms:

Some years ago the Royal Danish Navy could not replace all of the types of ships it was then operating. Yet it could not abandon roles such as pre-hostilities surveillance, mine laying, missile attack, torpedo attack, and mine countermeasures. The technologies of data buses and general-purpose computers suggested a solution. A 300-ton corvette, StanFlex 300, ...... was designed with containerized weapons and in some cases sensors. Each could plug into the combat system data bus, which also ran through the ship's combat information center (CIC). Each CIC computer and console had its role defined entirely by software, so that it could shift roles easily. In theory, StanFlex 300 can change all of its combat system in 24 hours or less simply by replacing containers and software.
Technology for the United States Navy and Marine Corps, 2000-2035 Becoming a 21st-Century Force: Volume 6: Platforms

The StanFlex container / module is 3m (l) x 3.5m (w) x 2.5m (ht) and plugs into electricity, water, comms etc. Standardised consoles are installed in the CIC and re-roles take 24 hours including the change of software. The following is a list of the different types of StanFlex containers / modules currently used by the Royal Danish Navy.

• SSM - twin launchers for Boeing RGM-84 Harpoon missiles

• SAM - 6 cell Mk 48 Mod 3 launcher for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles;
  Mk41 VLS with ESSM

• Gun - Otobreda 76/62 Super Rapid gun

• ASW - Launchers for MU90 Impact torpedoes

• VDS - Thales Underwater Systems TSM 2640 Salmon variable-depth active/passive sonar

• MCM - Command and control equipment to operate MSF and MRD class drone mine hunters and Double Eagle ROVs

• Crane - hydraulic crane for launch/recovery of a RHIB or deployment of sea mines

• Oceanography

• Anti-pollution

• Survey

• Storage

• SIGINT/ELINT

There are quite a few items on that list that I see the RNZN using. The one that is now redundant is the RIM Sea Sparrow and I see no reason why a CAMM Sea Ceptor module could not be built, to fit in with RNZN needs. The Harpoon would be nice but I feel that cost will count that out along with the VDS sonar and the MU90 torpedo unless a module is built for the Mk46 Torpedo. The antipollution modules would be a bonus to NZDF because NZ doesn't have any vessels for marine pollution spills, which was shown in the Rena incident. This would capability would be very cost effective and keep the greenies happy. The oceanographic module wouldn't be acquire because that work is done by NIWA. I think that this system on 3 frigates (with permanent 5in guns) and on 4 OPVs would be quite a feasible, practical and fiscally sensible option for NZ. This excludes the Protector Class OPVs because it would not be feasible to alter them for this system.

 

[swerve]

... 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. ...

-Cheers

MBDA press release, last month -

MBDA and Lockheed Martin demonstrated the first launch of a Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) from Lockheed Martin’s MK 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) launcher using the host variant of the Extensible Launching System (ExLS).

This is the first test by MBDA and Lockheed Martin since the May 2013 announcement of cooperation between the two companies to offer MBDA missile systems for use with the MK 41 and ExLS family of launchers. The test used MBDA’s soft vertical launch technology to eject the CAMM from its canister and position the missile for main motor ignition. The trial is the first in a series to demonstrate that the CAMM can be installed using ExLS in vessels that use the MK 41 launcher or on the 3-cell stand-alone ExLS CAMM launcher.

Announcing the result of the trial, Paul Mead, Business Development Director for MBDA said, “This first CAMM trial is an example of how MBDA and Lockheed Martin are offering the global MK 41 customer base a real choice in which missile they use. The missile offers a wide range of benefits, not least its active seeker, as well as low impact of installation on-board due to the soft vertical launch method. This is the start of what we hope will be a wider range of MBDA missile systems available to Lockheed Martin vertical launcher users.”

“The multi-missile MK 41 VLS has fundamentally changed the way world navies think about sea-launched weapons by providing the flexibility to respond to numerous threats," said George Barton, vice president of business development of Ship & Aviation Systems for Lockheed Martin's Mission System and Training business. "Our partnership with MBDA allows us to grow the MK 41 multi-missile capability and offer our customers an outstanding VLS launcher alternative.”

Lockheed Martin, in collaboration with MBDA, is developing a 3-cell stand-alone ExLS CAMM launcher for those navies whose ships cannot accommodate the larger MK 41 VLS but desire the superior missile packing density, survivability and reliability that the 8-cell MK 41 launcher has been offering for over 30 years to 13 navies worldwide.

The trial was carried out on the 10th of September near Bedford, England, using a MK 41 launcher outfitted with a host ExLS.

Great picture of launch.

 

[ADMk2]

The way I looking at things is that ESSM and a single fire control channel offer a very limited capability in terms of defence. Personally I tend to prefer Fire and Forget with data update over ship mounted guidance.

If you look at what the A4's used to do (4 point attack with multiple aircraft) a single Fire Control channel provides too much risk for a small navy. I don't think a mixed purchase option is a realistic option for the RNZN given the increased logistics / training costs, but upgrading the fire control radar won't hurt, assuming they don't change out the Mk 41 launcher.

I guess the thing about modern SARH missiles like ESSM is that they only require terminal guidance from that illuminator, they do not require guidance for their entire flight and this are not limited to missile by missile engagements. Ships equipped with such a set-up can still handle multiple missiles in the air simultaneously I understand...

The ideal solution would of course be the SM-6 approach where both active and SARH modes are possible with the same weapon as required, but of course that is the very top end of anti- air capability at the present time and not all nations can afford it.

 

[Todjaeger]

• SAM - 6 cell Mk 48 Mod 3 launcher for RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missiles;
  Mk41 VLS with ESSM

Slight correction I believe. The info I have is that only the Mk 48 Mod 3 and Mk 56 VLS have been adapted to StanFlex modules. The Mk 41 VLS is too large to fit within the dimensions of the socket. Incidentally, AFAIK the difference between the Mk 48 Mod 3 and Mk 56, is that the Mk 56 makes use of composites to reduce the weight. ESSM has been twin-packed into both launchers.

MBDA press release, last month -

Great picture of launch.

I was aware of the ExLS launcher, but so far, it does not indicate whether such a launcher needs to be permanently mounted to a ship. With the Phalanx and IIRC RAM, those systems can be pooled and then quickly installed on a docked ship immediately before deploying.

-Cheers

 

[StobieWan]

CAMM isn't self contained however - you'd need the radar and some integration into the CMS at least. I'm sure if you had say, a class of ship with a useful radar plus cabling already installed, then it'd not be a big deal to integrate CAMM with STANFLEX or simply to have pre-surveyed emplacements for the cannisters, ready to bolt them down.

 

[Sea Toby]

The good ferry MV Ben-My-Chree's 15 years.

HMNZS Canterbury is based upon this merchantman. A link of her service and accomplishments of the last 15 years will be the first link below. The second link will be a video of her pulling into Douglas during a gale. The third link will be a video/audio of Ben.

Ben-my-Chree carries 3.9 million passengers, 1.1 million cars in 15 years service | Isle of Man News :: isleofman.com

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZGw9EewhGg"]Severe Gale 9 | Ben My Chree | Arrival in Douglas - YouTube[/nomedia]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRIjetc5uoQ"]Ben-my-Chree up close at Heysham Harbour - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[kiwi in exile]

True, but if the illuminator were to be changed to a newer, more modern one then there would be more than just a single channel. The CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT system which makes up the RAN's ASMD upgrade programme for their ANZAC-class frigates provides 10 fire control channels, plus more advanced radar capabilities.

If as part of the Kiwi upgrade programme the intention was to keep radar and electronics upgrades to a minimum for cost reasons (and therefore not get a modern illuminator) then getting a missile which does not rely upon an illuminator makes more sense.

I suppose a good portion of what bothers me so much about the apparent upgrade path, is that I expect selection will be kept in service for 20 - 30 years, and will influence options for additional future vessels and the frigate replacements.

-Cheers

Yeah, this worries me as well. I'm reasonably happy with what CAMM offers us now, but I'd hate to think that this will lead to us getting ANZAC II's with limited radar, etc, and therefore limited ability to operate anything other than CAMM.

Ideally, I'd like to see NZ's next generation naval combat force armed with anti-ship missiles too (aside from sprites and penguins). Or at least fitted for and trained for. But this is probably just wishful thinking.

 

[Lucasnz]

Yeah, this worries me as well. I'm reasonably happy with what CAMM offers us now, but I'd hate to think that this will lead to us getting ANZAC II's with limited radar, etc, and therefore limited ability to operate anything other than CAMM.

Ideally, I'd like to see NZ's next generation naval combat force armed with anti-ship missiles too (aside from sprites and penguins). Or at least fitted for and trained for. But this is probably just wishful thinking.

I'm going to play devils advocate here. Within the context of the South Pacific does the RNZN need an extensive radar / weapons outfit. Short answer is probably not.

While I see NZ has always needing high end ships as part of international obligations. Within the South Pacific a 76mm/127mm, CAAM, helicopter and a couple of 25mm, limited ASW combined with a restricted sensor outfit along the lines of Thetis / Floreal / Sigma would allow the RNZN to cover 90% of the contingency's in the South Pacific. In essence a corvette with limited all round capability, but with the range and endurance to operate in S/Pacific. Mmmm almost a new Leander in some ways.

In terms of high end capability I think NZ needs to find a niche roll in terms of either "Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support, Area Air Defence or even subs (NZ rejected subs in the 1980's)", with limited capability in other areas, rather than been a general purpose ship trying to do everything. The only qualifier to that is that specialising is designed to reduce costs. I personally see the Naval Surface Fire Support roll as a area that NZ could specialise in given how cheap shells and the politicians are.

 

[ngatimozart]

I personally see the Naval Surface Fire Support roll as a area that NZ could specialise in given how cheap shells and the politicians are.

That would be quite good. The only problem can I see is the high level of corrosion and surface ablation that the politicians will cause on the gun barrels, unless we can find a way of using low cost rockets as propulsion units.

 

[Shanesworld]

That would be quite good. The only problem can I see is the high level of corrosion and surface ablation that the politicians will cause on the gun barrels, unless we can find a way of using low cost rockets as propulsion units.

Considering the poison they spread would't that put NZ in violation on some sort of treaty to do with the use of biological's, chemical's and faecal matter?

LucasNZ respect the devil's advocate role your taking. However if we overspent on a well kitted fleet that ended up in a shooting war it would be considered prescient of those authorising the expense. If they never shot a round in anger it would (probably) be forgotten amongst all the other overspend projects government engages in.

That last 10% might be the part that contains NZ's ability to exert influence over its future.

 

[t68]

I'm going to play devils advocate here. Within the context of the South Pacific does the RNZN need an extensive radar / weapons outfit. Short answer is probably not.

While I see NZ has always needing high end ships as part of international obligations. Within the South Pacific a 76mm/127mm, CAAM, helicopter and a couple of 25mm, limited ASW combined with a restricted sensor outfit along the lines of Thetis / Floreal / Sigma would allow the RNZN to cover 90% of the contingency's in the South Pacific. In essence a corvette with limited all round capability, but with the range and endurance to operate in S/Pacific. Mmmm almost a new Leander in some ways.

In terms of high end capability I think NZ needs to find a niche roll in terms of either "Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support, Area Air Defence or even subs (NZ rejected subs in the 1980's)", with limited capability in other areas, rather than been a general purpose ship trying to do everything. The only qualifier to that is that specialising is designed to reduce costs. I personally see the Naval Surface Fire Support roll as a area that NZ could specialise in given how cheap shells and the politicians are.

So you really want a Zumwalt class destroyer, but without the price tag And can provide stand off capability with JATF or Anzac battle group

 

[Lucasnz]

Please don't temp me. I was thinking more F125, with a couple mods like 2 x 127mm.

The way I see it we need to balance quality over quantity, we just aren't doing it properly right now. Were heavy on the light end and light on the combat end. There is IMHO no balance in the fleet right now.

 

[t68]

Please don't temp me. I was thinking more F125, with a couple mods like 2 x 127mm.

The way I see it we need to balance quality over quantity, we just aren't doing it properly right now. Were heavy on the light end and light on the combat end. There is IMHO no balance in the fleet right now.

The reference to Zumwalt was more about the capability the US is trying to achieve more than the ship itself in a Kiwi perspective.

I think Nagati is on the right track with a couple of Absolon class support ships, by having these with an emphases on NGS and using a standoff missile capability such as the Joint Strike Missile would go along way in suporrting a JATF and also frees up CY for follow on strategic lift and using something like the Spaniah BAMS for protecting your EEZ

 

[ADMk2]

Yeah, this worries me as well. I'm reasonably happy with what CAMM offers us now, but I'd hate to think that this will lead to us getting ANZAC II's with limited radar, etc, and therefore limited ability to operate anything other than CAMM.

Ideally, I'd like to see NZ's next generation naval combat force armed with anti-ship missiles too (aside from sprites and penguins). Or at least fitted for and trained for. But this is probably just wishful thinking.

ESSM is merely an evolved variant of Sea Sparrow yet features significantly greater range than it's ancestor. The Block II Rolling Airframe Missile features greater range than it's original design and so on.

I suspect CAMM Block II may well feature a range increase through means of a booster, re-grained rocket motor, re-packaged rocket / propellant / guidance assembly, GPS/INS adjusted ballistic trajectory and/or all the other tricks missile manufacturers use to squeeze more oomph out of the same missile body.

I wouldn't be too worried about CAMM's range. The RNZN and RN aren't, apparently...

 

[Sea Toby]

Please don't temp me. I was thinking more F125, with a couple mods like 2 x 127mm.

The way I see it we need to balance quality over quantity, we just aren't doing it properly right now. Were heavy on the light end and light on the combat end. There is IMHO no balance in the fleet right now.

New Zealand has a larger EEZ than Ireland, but the Irish have eight OPVs. Of course the Irish have nations and their fishermen much closer than New Zealand as well. But I don't consider having two OPVs as being excessive anymore than I do having two frigates as being excessive. Nor do I consider having four IPVs as being excessive. If anything, New Zealand is short in every type of ships.

 

[StobieWan]

ESSM is merely an evolved variant of Sea Sparrow yet features significantly greater range than it's ancestor. The Block II Rolling Airframe Missile features greater range than it's original design and so on.

I suspect CAMM Block II may well feature a range increase through means of a booster, re-grained rocket motor, re-packaged rocket / propellant / guidance assembly, GPS/INS adjusted ballistic trajectory and/or all the other tricks missile manufacturers use to squeeze more oomph out of the same missile body.

I wouldn't be too worried about CAMM's range. The RNZN and RN aren't, apparently...

If range really becomes an issue, chucking Aster 30 into the Mk41 cells can be done. No quad pack but 100km + range..