Ahh, great to get some detail on that, I had wondered about the sources I'd read as I could find very little direct mention of any missile firings, so I thought it might be a hypothetical capability rather than a proven one. Thanks for the information!
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
They did indeed, if I remember the order of things properly I think at least some of the Harpoons might have missed due to the fleeting radar pictures of their rapidly sinking targets... I know the Iranian vessels were pounded with Standards and Skippers before one launch in particular. I'd assume both Standard and ESSM would be far more effective than Tartar/Talos in this area given the advancements in illumination and seeker technology. What I'd like to hear about is the anti-surface capability in SM-6 and how that goes relative to SM-2 given it should be able to provide a significant range boost.
So with our current missiles "ability" to engage surface targets was this then the reasoning behind not aqquiring a dedicated missile system such as harpoon? (as per our allies). Either wise spending or penny pinching, forward thinking or as per? Not sure whether to applaud our govt or roll my eyes either way.
Short answer Reg - stinginess.
Sadly this is more the conclusion I was realising as well, hopefully come replacement time we will tick a few more boxes and gain a few more options. The difference between hitting a target and becoming one.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Camm system being put in our current frigates with range, loadout of missiles already is a improvement on what we have, can engage against 'saturation ' or multiple attacks, at least thats the speech coming from their website. I wounder if we will transfer much of the new systems over though to new frigates as they will only be ten yrs old by the time new frigates are due.
The Sea Ceptors will be pulled through. But what Reg was getting at is the lack of a shipborne SSM (Surface to Surface Missile) or ASM (Anti Ship Missile) capability within the RNZN, such as Harpoon. We do have the Penguin but that is helo launched and the helo has to get well within the enemy ships SAM umbrella to launch it. They only carry one helo so if it eats a SAM then the RNZN FFH is as useful in any further anti surface action as an electric coat hangar unless it gets to within 5in gun range.
It's a shame there isn't more investment in 127mm ammunition with active terminal homing, a la Vulcano. I would have thought that would be the cheapest way of providing an anti-surface capability beyond lobbing precious point-defence missiles at a hostile ship. Of course there'd need to be a few sympathetic capabilities to really make smart rounds work, but still it seems a hell of a lot cheaper than anti-ship missiles?
I guess it's just not a priority, and to be honest I can see why when one has limited funds in the pot, but you wouldn't want your surface combatants getting anywhere too hostile...
Leonardo do have 127mm Vulcano ammo for their 127mm x 64 calibre light weight naval gun. It looks like that we would have to obtain a module to fit with our existing Mk45 Mod 2, 5 in (127 mm) x 54 calibre gun. Again it would come down to cost and whilst we would see the logic and benefits of it, the pollies and most definitely the misers in Treasury wouldn't.
Since you already have the bookmark for the JHU APL tech digest archive from the other thread, you can check out Vol. 3 No. 2 1982 which has an entire issue devoted to Talos. The article on "Unified Talos" in particular has a nice discussion on the surface modes used: either an up-and-over/lofting trajectory used with the conventionally armed midcourse beam-riding, sarh terminal talos which resulted in a steep dive attack profile onto the target, or a full beam-riding air-bursting trajectory for the nuclear armed talos variant.
Re. the surface clutter and multipath issues, issue Vol. 1 No. 2 1961 has an article "Low Angle Beam-Riding Over the Ocean" which discusses the multipath interference effects on the beam riding guidance mechanism and the various methods JHU APL used to mitigate it.
---
On a related topic, although not mentioned above, Terrier's surface modes are also discussed by Friedman in his book "US Destroyer History" where he recounts how the nuclear armed Terrier variant was considered by USN brass as an effective substitute for gun-based anti-ship and shore fire, hence the all-missile armed Leahy class. He also described how R.Adm Daniel (DesLant) tried to have Tartar discontinued for DDGs and instead replaced with Terrier in part because of the nuclear variant's utility for air-burst anti-ship/shore use.
Oh great, thanks very much for the info, very interested in these missiles and their various modes!
Thanks for that link, those impacts were a lot larger than what I had expected. I've seen a few Standard surface hits before so I'm not sure why these were larger, but then I'm not certain as to variations within the type/block of the missiles.
Have embedded your link below for ease of use, thanks again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbOxz4r-27w
EDIT: For the sake of comparison (though I realise it's apples to oranges) here is an impact video of a dedicated anti-ship missile, this one the Kongsberg NSM. Modern missile and looking better each day, may see the JSM variant on the F-35 at some point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNTLy83O4qk
EDIT 2: One more, this is another SINKEX in which Standards are fired, and later in the video there's a zoom on some hits which I believe reference the initial Standard launch. The hits don't look as pronounced as the SM-1 video above, make of that what you will.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itz3UbVQYsM
kiwi in exile
Active Member
At the risk of being controversial, lack of a decent ship bourne SSM seems part of a wider trend against having larger offensive capabilities across NZDF since the loss of the ACF at least.
As they currently stand, I see the ANZACs as severly limited in combat capability. The 8 sparrows that they currently have are of limited range/use against saturation attack (only one can be guided to target at once). Their use offensivly as SSM is limited by range and would put us within range of any decent opponents ship bourne defences. Ditto for the sprite/penguin combo. While replacing the maverick with the penguin does give us a much bigger missile with a better range, has this really gained us a relevant ASM capability. It's debatable.The existing guns are also limited in range. Of the CIWS available, the Phalanx we operate have the smallest calibre and shortest range. While these may be the best fit for our top heavy ANZACs in their current position, I would have liked to see something better for the new tanker. I realise there are benefits of operating the same system across the fleet. My guess is that once we have CAMM onboard our ANZACs, Phalanx may be seen as redundant, and the new tanker will simply be getting an old Phalanx. That is why RFT specified Phalanx. It's great to see all the new systems being added to the frigates. But I think that they need the offensive firepower to back it up. CAMM will enable us to defend ourselvels better. Sure the systems will make us a valuable node in a systems of systems and we will always be supported by our allies, but I think its a choice between being equipped for low intensity combat or as the NZDF has put it a "credible combat force"
As they currently stand, I see the ANZACs as severly limited in combat capability. The 8 sparrows that they currently have are of limited range/use against saturation attack (only one can be guided to target at once). Their use offensivly as SSM is limited by range and would put us within range of any decent opponents ship bourne defences. Ditto for the sprite/penguin combo. While replacing the maverick with the penguin does give us a much bigger missile with a better range, has this really gained us a relevant ASM capability. It's debatable.The existing guns are also limited in range. Of the CIWS available, the Phalanx we operate have the smallest calibre and shortest range. While these may be the best fit for our top heavy ANZACs in their current position, I would have liked to see something better for the new tanker. I realise there are benefits of operating the same system across the fleet. My guess is that once we have CAMM onboard our ANZACs, Phalanx may be seen as redundant, and the new tanker will simply be getting an old Phalanx. That is why RFT specified Phalanx. It's great to see all the new systems being added to the frigates. But I think that they need the offensive firepower to back it up. CAMM will enable us to defend ourselvels better. Sure the systems will make us a valuable node in a systems of systems and we will always be supported by our allies, but I think its a choice between being equipped for low intensity combat or as the NZDF has put it a "credible combat force"
This post is not controversial. You are speaking a plain "truth".
The Sea Ceptor is an advance but it is not a CIWS and the Phalanx is not redundant. It is used by the USN, RN, RAN etc., and the RNZN ones are the Block 1B (upgraded) within last 10 years. It is a 20mm Gatling gun. I believe that with the advance of modern and faster ASM's, a heavier calibre CIWS is preferable, i.e., 30mm or 35mm, something like Goalkeeper or Rheinmetall's Millennium gun. My reasoning for this is that these quicker missiles have to be hit further out, especially the supersonic ones and with heavier rounds. Whilst modern SAM are good you always have to allow for the possibility of leakers, especially in a mass attack. However the pollies and Treasury would have a conniption because of the cost. With regard to SSMs I would avoid Harpoon because it is now obsolete and go for something like LRASM or NSM / JSM. I would definitely want SSMs on the ANZAC replacements as a matter of course.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Agreed. You've basically filled out what I was alluding to.
Except you say that Phalanx is not redundant because USN, RAN etc use it but Harpoon is obsolete, despite being used by the same navies.
My thinking regarding CAMM and phalanx redundancy was that CAMM offers a better point defence system agains ASM attack in terms of range, saturation.
Cheers
The USN acknowledges that Harpoon has passed its use by date and is in the process of replacing it. LRASM is one of the replacement options with NSM / JSM another. CAMM and Phalanx are part of the AA protection system and CAMM has a minimum range of about 700m - 1km. Also remember that the cabinet in its wisdom has only authorised 20 Sea Ceptor missiles per frigate, which is 5 VLS cells. Not much in a saturation attack.
You might actually see NSM/JSM as part of the OASuW program, at least for the air-launched variant, in competition with the JASSM-based LRASM. In addition Raytheon is bidding for the surface-launched variant with an upgraded anti-ship Tomahawk. And we might possibly see SCALP Naval/MdCN from Europe. We'll see. But yes, each one is definitely a notable capability upgrade from Harpoon blk II. Depending on how OASuW goes I might be inclined to think the RNZN would be best served with the NSM considering the USN requirement might end up filled with a larger, more expensive missile type, but again, it's dependent on how everything goes. Certainly if the USN decide to splurge on AShM numbers it might make more sense to piggyback from that. I do wonder if the RNZN might be tempted with some notional strike capability from the missile selected but as far as I know that wouldn't be likely to be a requirement...