It could also be applied to the VL Sea Wolf installation on the Malaysian Lekiu class.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if MBDA is offering the same fit-out to Malaysia & Chile.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
I wouldn't be at all surprised if MBDA is offering the same fit-out to Malaysia & Chile.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
According to the MBDA datasheet, the CAMM-ER is being developed for GBAD/land air defence. A ship-mounted system is not currently in the works.
The CAMM-ER VLS might be able to be lighter than a Mk 41 VLS which can fit ESSM, not so sure about smaller though. The CAMM-ER as I understand it, is a 'regular' CAMM missile that has an additional, booster stage giving the missile an overall length of 4m, vs. the 3.6m length of an ESSM. Now I am not sure exactly which type Mk 41 VLS the frigates were built with, but I suspect it was the self-defence length, though it might have been the tactical length.
It then becomes a question of how long the regular CAMM launcher's cells are, and whether or not the CAMM-ER can be cold-launched with the additional booster. since that adds ~60kg to the missile's weight.
There is a CAMM-ER datasheet on the MBDA CAMM-ER web page, with pictures.
It says that it uses soft launch, same as CAMM. 190 mm diameter vs 166 mm*, but that shouldn't be a problem for Mk 41, as it's still a fair bit slimmer than ESSM. It should stlll quad-pack in Sylver. The Mk 41 SDL is 5.2 metres tall according to the manufacturer, but I don't know if that's enough.
The MBDA website doesn't mention a naval model, but there are plenty of mentions (e.g. in the 2013 annual report of Avio, a major supplier) of it replacing the Aspide SAM - which is currently fitted to 13 Italian navy ships, plus those of several other navies, as well as used in land-based systems.
*Not exactly the same missile with a booster. Looks as if the front & back ends are the same, but there's a slightly fatter section in between with some longitudinal fins.
It says that it uses soft launch, same as CAMM. 190 mm diameter vs 166 mm*, but that shouldn't be a problem for Mk 41, as it's still a fair bit slimmer than ESSM. It should stlll quad-pack in Sylver. The Mk 41 SDL is 5.2 metres tall according to the manufacturer, but I don't know if that's enough.
The MBDA website doesn't mention a naval model, but there are plenty of mentions (e.g. in the 2013 annual report of Avio, a major supplier) of it replacing the Aspide SAM - which is currently fitted to 13 Italian navy ships, plus those of several other navies, as well as used in land-based systems.
*Not exactly the same missile with a booster. Looks as if the front & back ends are the same, but there's a slightly fatter section in between with some longitudinal fins.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The figures I was coming across (somehow missed them when I looked at the datasheet...) was that the CAMM-ER was 4m, and the canister was 4.4m yet according to the datasheet, the missile is 4.2m. I would suspect that the canister would be longer by a similar amount.
IMO the 'real' question would/should be, is the CAMM VLS compatible with CAMM-ER, and if so, what capacity can it have?
If the RNZN is changing to a lighter VLS for CAMM, but if it will not be large enough to accommodate CAMM-ER, and/or only provide a limited number of missiles, then the selection might end up being not so good. If the Mk-41 VLS is retained, then I have little doubt that CAMM could be quad-packed and I suspect the VLS would be large enough to fit CAMM-ER if/when it enters naval service.
What I am concerned about is the potential for the RNZN to have CAMM enter service, but a max missile loadout of only 20 missiles or less. Such a capability would absolutely be an improvement compared to the current situation, but 20 missiles equates to only ~10 warshots especially against inbound AShM. Given the growing potential for conflict in areas which can impact NZ...
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
PACIFIC 2015 Online Show Daily News Report Coverage Maritime Naval Defence Exhibition Sydney Australia Pictures Images Video Photos Salon Navy Web TV
Navy Recognition website has updates from the Pacific 2015 naval expo in Sydney.
As well as the inevitable submariners touting their wares. there are some exhibits of relevance to NZ.
Camm picture here:
MBDA Showcasing its Missile Solutions for Maritime Superiority at PACIFIC 2015
BMT touting the Aegir replenishment ships here - which I think is the most likely pick for the Endeavour replacement.
BMT to Showcase its Aegir Family of Tanker Vessel Designs at Pacific 2015
Navy Recognition website has updates from the Pacific 2015 naval expo in Sydney.
As well as the inevitable submariners touting their wares. there are some exhibits of relevance to NZ.
Camm picture here:
MBDA Showcasing its Missile Solutions for Maritime Superiority at PACIFIC 2015
BMT touting the Aegir replenishment ships here - which I think is the most likely pick for the Endeavour replacement.
BMT to Showcase its Aegir Family of Tanker Vessel Designs at Pacific 2015
Lockheed Martin Canada have successfully completed the critical design review of the combat system for the RNZN ANZAC frigate upgrade. According to the release this was on time. Also the this combat system is one of two selected for the MSC tender competition. If I can put my farthings worth in here, wouldn't it be logical to have the same combat system on the MSC as on the frigates? If the combat system is open architecture (I think that's the correct term) then the console type is not an issue.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
would it be possible to add this technology to our opv's or even canterbury or the new Aor when its ready, seeing we dont have enough frigates for escorting them,would it be a weight, space issue?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I do not know for sure, but I suspect the answer would be, "Yes."
Aside from the question of just where the VLS could be located, without it interfering with normal vessel operations, there are issues with fitting the required sensors and combat data system.
Neither the MRV or OPV's were fitted with sensor suites of the type usually used for air, or air/surface search. This means that the antennae and associated control systems would need to be fitted somewhere, as well as power and cooling to actually operate the consoles and radar transceiver. The electronics which would actually control/target the missiles themselves would similarly need to be fitted and get power and cooling, etc.
Given that the vessels were only ever supposed to be 'patrol' vessels, AFAIK they did not have space reserved for additional consoles, and/or the wiring harness and spare power generation and cooling capacity required to operate the additional electronic systems.
During a mid-life refit the capabilities could be added (depending on available displacement margin, of course...) but honestly I doubt it would provide a useful capability, especially for the likely cost.
Well I see no real point on the OPVs because they aren't designed for naval warfare per se; they are constabulary vessels. In the case of the Protector Class OPVs it would prove to costly to upgrade there combat capabilities. In the long term it would be more viable to have vessels that were specifically designed and built to carry out the current OPV requirements and have medium intensity naval combat capabilities. If the NZG decided to follow that path then you would need to look at a 2,500 - 3000 tonne OCV built to 1A ice requirements with a 6,000+ nautical mile range. It should have an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS, a modular gun capability on the fo'c'sle capable of taking a gun up to 76mm, helo pad and hangar rated for the NH90, modular mission system capabilities on the quarter deck based around the 20ft ISO container footprint, modular weapons system capabilities on top of and behind the hangar, plus the appropriate sensor suites.
It could be possible to put one of the Mk 41 VLS being removed from the ANZAC frigates onto Canterbury. It shouldn't affect stability per se because Canterbury has a ballets system for stability. The radar may have to be upgraded though.
I'm going to agree with NG on not upgrading the current OPV and acquiring new class of OPV. With regards to Canterbury the only viable place for the Mk41 in where the existing 25mm is located. However both the radar and operations room would need a serious upgrade. Given Canterbury's design there is no place for the relocation of the 25mm, if the specifications from the MSC tender documents are to be matched (basically lower on the ship structure is better). I think for Canterbury a better option would be SADRAL / TETRAL on top of the bridge, radar something like Terma 4100, a more capable but limited CMS and passive countermeasures.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
kp69
The MSC referred to in the article is the Maritime Sustainment Capability, also known as the new AOR. So the answer to that part of your question is 'yes'.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
good to know thanks everyone for your input. actually was thinking of the mk 41 as a 'cheap fix' for some air defense capability for canterbury or Aor I just read here the ice belt limits what can be added to the opvs. So hopefully they will upgrade the armament on the new opv then, or is that going to be similar specification as what we have already?
That we don't know but to be honest money is tight for defence so don't hold your breath. Whilst the pollies will talk the talk, they have very long pockets and very short arms, with it being a rarity for them to walk the walk when it comes to defence.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
kp69
That's the hundred million dollar question.
Firstly, it isn't a done deal yet the NZ will be getting a third OPV. The Navy wants one, and have gov't approval to explore acquiring one, but they are still a long way off getting a final approval to purchase.
Getting another OPV similar to the Otago and Wellington would be good for commonality, spare parts inventory and ability to easily switch crews between vessels. And would avoid NZ running an 'orphan' vessel.
On the other hand, Tenix (who built the existing vessels) has been taken over by BAE, who may or may not be interested in building another one (I strongly suspect 'yes', but who knows). More seriously, building in Australia would be more expensive than building almost anywhere else. And sticking rigidly to the design of the existing OPVs would reduce the ability to incorporate improvements and 'lessons learnt'.
So it could go either way. For what its worth (very little, I suspect), my pick is that they will go for a different vessel type, built in Asia, from an existing design of OPV by an international supplier (e.g. Damen). That gives you cost savings on construction, but reduces the risk of having a totally uniqe orphan type in the fleet. But don't hold your breath, any decision is probably a couple of years away.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
In the mean time,would our Navy ever be operating near disputed areas then that might put itself in danger, like in the disputed south china sea thats in the news yesterday? or is it highly unlikely China would threaten foreign freindly navies such as ours?:shudder
We aren't that friendly with China. They will see us as an imperialist navy that is a lacky of the US, pure and simple. We aren't allied in any way to China and nor should we be.
t68
Well-Known Member
How the world has changed hey, We were allies in WWII and Japan part of the Axis of evil, alliance are a fickle beast
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Yes, and even more ironic that Austrailia is looking at defending its eez with Japanese subs, considering it was Jap subs that threatened them in WW2. I would hope our pollies are paying attention to chinese aggression,and start spending more on defence or i reckon our next flag we fly will be the white one
TVNZ News have reported on this evenings news that NZDF has issued an invitation to the USN to attend the RNZN 75th Anniversary next year. The thrust of the item by Andrea Vance was that the invite was in the form of a ship visit. This shouldn't be an issue for the USN now because the ban on USN ship visits has been lifted by the USG and a non nuclear powered surface ship will meet the criteria of NZ nuclear legislation. USN non CVN surface ships no longer carry nuclear weapons and that has been publicly acknowledged by the USN and USG for years now. Just watch the greenies and peaceniks get their underwear in various twists now.