NZDF General discussion thread

ngatimozart

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Redlands18 said:
CAMM is smaller than the ESSM and the Mk 41 can fit 4 of them, so fitting 4 into a Mk 41 shouldn't be a major issue.
Click to expand...
It's not the missile size per se, but the capsule size that appears to be the problem. Sea Ceptor is cold launched, so the capsule has to allow for that as well. I think that they may have trouble fitting a capsule containing 4 Sea Ceptor into the Mk-41 VLS, but a capsule containing 3 Sea Ceptor may work. It's the size of the capsule they use on ExLS.
 
R

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
John Fedup said:
GTs provide extra speed but at extra cost and fuel consumption. Unless the frigates need to frequently accompany a CSG, minimal advantage I would think.
Click to expand...
The reality is that GT's provide the extra power in a lighter but less fuel efficient package. In the AH 140 the extra power is provided by a second set of diesel engines provide the extra power in what would be a little heavier but more fuel efficient package so could possibly maintain high speed longer. Putting aside hull form and weight etc, it is the max power provided that is the significant factor in maximum speed and how you provide it is irrelevant.
 
CJohn

CJohn

Active Member
ngatimozart said:
It's not the missile size per se, but the capsule size that appears to be the problem. Sea Ceptor is cold launched, so the capsule has to allow for that as well. I think that they may have trouble fitting a capsule containing 4 Sea Ceptor into the Mk-41 VLS, but a capsule containing 3 Sea Ceptor may work. It's the size of the capsule they use on ExLS.
Click to expand...
I think this may explain some confusion, Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for CAMM.
Each cell quad-packed with four CAMM munitions.

1706086006039.png
Lockheed Martin
https://www.lockheedmartin.com › documents


PDF
 
R

Reptilia

Well-Known Member
recce.k1 said:
I like the multi-functionality/options of the A140 and would make a great addition to the RNZN .... but wonder about the lack of a gas turbine for fast "sprints" (something that warships tend to need to do) or whether this is not so critical with the vessels existing engine configuration?

At least the ANZAC Frigates have both options - would an A140 be considered a "step backwards" from a maritime engineering/propulsion perspective operating in the Indo/Asia/Pacific?
Click to expand...
The A140 can use the Cube system from SH Defence.


The Cube – SH Defence

shdefence.com shdefence.com

CODAD to …?

 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
CJohn said:
I think this may explain some confusion, Lockheed Martin and MBDA-UK co-developed and qualified the ExLS 3-Cell Standalone Launcher for CAMM.
Each cell quad-packed with four CAMM munitions.

View attachment 51090
Lockheed Martin
https://www.lockheedmartin.com › documents


PDF
Click to expand...
The RCN's CSC will have two of these launchers quad packed thus offering 24 missiles as a substitute CIWS solution. This is actually a hybrid solution in a way given the longer range and bigger warhead. A 24 cell Mk41 is also included (would be nice to see an expansion to 32).
 
Last edited:
S

swerve

Super Moderator
ngatimozart said:
It's not the missile size per se, but the capsule size that appears to be the problem. Sea Ceptor is cold launched, so the capsule has to allow for that as well. I think that they may have trouble fitting a capsule containing 4 Sea Ceptor into the Mk-41 VLS, but a capsule containing 3 Sea Ceptor may work. It's the size of the capsule they use on ExLS.
Click to expand...
It's all been tested, & I've posted here about it more than once, with links to the relevant Lockheed Martin documents.

CAMM has been integrated into, & tested in, Mk41 via a canister containing 4 CAMM. It's called Host ExLS. The cold launch thingy fits under the missile, so the fitment is taller than just the missile, but it's not wide. I think it fits into Tactical Length Mk 41. I don't know if it fits in the old Self Defence Length (no longer marketed, but there are a lot out there). So, CAMM quad-packs in Mk 41.

I think you may be confused because there's also a 3-cell Standalone ExLS - but that's not 3 CAMM per ExLS cell, it's a set of 3 ExLS cells, each of which can hold 4 CAMM, for a total of 12.
See -
CAMM completes qualification trials from 3-cell ExLS launcher | Press Release | MBDA - " When operated from ExLS or MK 41 VLSD, CAMM comes in a quad-pack arrangement which allows to store and fire 4 missiles from a single cell. "
Host ExLS
Standalone 3-cell ExLS - "As a result, the basic building block to deploy is three cells, each cell quad-packed with four CAMM munitions. "
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
ngatimozart said:
The RDN Iver Huitfeldt Class regularly operate as escorts in USN CSGs and they don't appear to have a problem. The CODAD isn't a "step backwards" at all, just a different propulsion system. FYI our Leander Class frigates had steam propulsion and they could quite easily keep up with USN CVNs when they were part of USN CBGs. In fact they only they were the fastest non nuclear powered ships of the CBGs.

IF we acquire the AH140, maybe we should look at going full DE with electrical propulsion and the MTU diesels being used for pure electricity generation. That would simplify the drive trains by eliminating the requirement for gear boxes and drastically shorten the drive shafts which in turn significantly reduces the loss of energy to the props. Also, it reduces the noise potential because a source of noise is eliminated.

Pretty sure CAMM is quad packed for the MK-41 VLS. It has been advertised as such for the last few years.
Click to expand...
A Charles F Adams was faster than a Leander; at least 36 knots (I was in Derwent when we tracked Perth at 39 in an emergency, although admittedly she probably had a knot or so of current behind her) against about 30. Mind you, it seemed like you had to RAS about twice a day at that speed! - although in Hobart we once maintained 31 for nearly 24 hours
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
spoz said:
A Charles F Adams was faster than a Leander; at least 36 knots (I was in Derwent when we tracked Perth at 39 in an emergency, although admittedly she probably had a knot or so of current behind her) against about 30. Mind you, it seemed like you had to RAS about twice a day at that speed! - although in Hobart we once maintained 31 for nearly 24 hours
Click to expand...
During our time (HMAS Perth) in the Gulf of Tonkin on CVA escort/planeguard duty we remained on 2xboilers (half power for those uninitiated, the ships had 4boilers) mostly, which gave 27kts max
This was not fast enough to keep up with the carriers on the downwind leg of their racetrack where they always exceeded 30+kts.
It mattered not however because by the time they slowed and turned onto flying course we had caught up and slotted neatly 1000yds onto the port quarter in time for launch and recovery.
 
K

koala

Member
spoz said:
A Charles F Adams was faster than a Leander; at least 36 knots (I was in Derwent when we tracked Perth at 39 in an emergency, although admittedly she probably had a knot or so of current behind her) against about 30. Mind you, it seemed like you had to RAS about twice a day at that speed! - although in Hobart we once maintained 31 for nearly 24 hours
Click to expand...
Its HMAS Hobart not Perth, but a great vid from You Tube on her decommissioning voyage, she could certainly hoot at full steam.

HMAS Hobart's Final Voyage, Speed Trial 36 knots - YouTube
 
ASSAIL

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I just loved the comparative silence of steam, even at full power.
The boiler room fans would be working hard but no combustion noise and no gas turbine whine was something to experience.
On my first ever training cruise in Anzac D59 we completed an 18hr relocation at 32kts during an exercise in the Bismarck/Solomon sea.
The most outstanding event for this Snotty was the “panting” boiler fronts, quite alarming.
 
A

At lakes

Well-Known Member

Stuff

www.stuff.co.nz www.stuff.co.nz

The minister acknowledged that the NZDF needs more money not up to 7.5 percent cut like some other Government Departments have been asked to endure. She also has acknowledged that there are some capital items needs and she will fight to secure the necessary funding.
When she was the minister of Police in a previous National Government I use to refer to her as Artilla the Hen because she appeared to not stand for any crap from anyone, well maybe she needs to get some of that attitude back.
 
X

Xthenaki

Active Member
At last some urgency is being shown. Whilst we all await the outcome of the Defence force needs and recommendations I would expect a lump sum be set aside in the May budget for what would be deemed essential to stabilise some of the navys needs. Leased helicopters to cover the shortfall in maintaining our Tier one assets as new procurements may take some time before delivery. Installing CIWS onto RNZN Aotearoa and further upgrading or adding further missile capacity to the Teir one units. As the Protector assets can be deemed "obsolete" in todays world it remains to be seen if they would be sold (Excluding RNZN Manawanui which came recently) and if so we start with a new third frigate with further additions to follow over time. Our OPV*s have the navy in a similar predicament to Aus with their "Arafura" class - "underarmed" excuse the pun.
 
A

Aerojoe

Member
Xthenaki said:
At last some urgency is being shown. Whilst we all await the outcome of the Defence force needs and recommendations I would expect a lump sum be set aside in the May budget for what would be deemed essential to stabilise some of the navys needs. Leased helicopters to cover the shortfall in maintaining our Tier one assets as new procurements may take some time before delivery. Installing CIWS onto RNZN Aotearoa and further upgrading or adding further missile capacity to the Teir one units. As the Protector assets can be deemed "obsolete" in todays world it remains to be seen if they would be sold (Excluding RNZN Manawanui which came recently) and if so we start with a new third frigate with further additions to follow over time. Our OPV*s have the navy in a similar predicament to Aus with their "Arafura" class - "underarmed" excuse the pun.
Click to expand...
May Budget allocation to stem staffing outflow a likely given but given the PM refused to be drawn during the post-Cab media briefing on whether the ring-fencing of Defence from public sector cuts still remained I would caution about looking beyond that in the current year.
 
R

RegR

Well-Known Member
Nighthawk.NZ said:
Pm luxy say nzdf will get an increase in budget but still have to find savings...

www.newshub.co.nz

PM confirms Defence Force will have increased Budget, but will still need to find savings

Luxon said NZDF will still be asked to generate savings but they will be recycled back into the existing Defence Force budget.
www.newshub.co.nz www.newshub.co.nz
Click to expand...
Think NZDF will have to "increase" their own budget, ie rob Peter to pay Paul. Nothing new for DF, give you something but then take something else away so you find youre actually no better off in the end. A classic smoke and mirrors tactic from way back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top