Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I don’t believe the Sierra is still in production; stopped in the mid teens I think.
AFAIK that is correct, however LockMart/Sikorsky still has versions of the S-70 in production and a customer has quite a very capability requirements which they can request so a new S-70 order could likely be spec'd to be an equivalent to a MH-60S.

In terms of the Kiwi MH-60 order... it does seem like any lessons learned in the past from the SH-2G(NZ) order have been lost or forgotten. Looking at the RAN's first MH-60 order, the requirement was for a force of eight naval helicopters available for ops and/or deployment, and therefore 24 helicopters were ordered. Using the same ratio for the RNZN/NZDF, that would suggest the Kiwis only had a requirement for a single deployed or operational naval helicopter. Also worth noting is that, by my count, it appears that the RNZN have six ships which can support embarked helicopters, with the entire Navy able to handle up nine helicopters at once.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
I don’t believe the Sierra is still in production; stopped in the mid teens I think.
That was the reason given for ordering MH-60Rs as the replacements for the MRH-90s operated by RAN (which replaced the Seaking Ml50As in the VERTREP role). My understanding from the information in the public domain was that the ASW equipment etc "could be quickly removed to support personnel or cargo transfer". Whether that actually happens is a question for those with far more knowledge of day-to-day naval aviation operations in RAN
 

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
It might be possible to still overwhelm a theoretical RNZN Mogami-class FFG loaded with 128 Sea Ceptor missiles by just having more inbounds cross within 25 km of the ship at once than the CMS and missiles can respond to.
You are not waiting till the missile gets to 25km before you launch or fire at any incoming threat, that 25km is where you would like to hit your target and depending on height speed etc it could be further out... (again we don't know the exact range of the SeaCeptor and for good reason)

However fire enough missiles at any ship it an over whelm the CMS and missile guides of any ship.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
You are not waiting till the missile gets to 25km before you launch or fire at any incoming threat, that 25km is where you would like to hit your target and depending on height speed etc it could be further out... (again we don't know the exact range of the SeaCeptor and for good reason)

However fire enough missiles at any ship it an over whelm the CMS and missile guides of any ship.
I agree that the vessel would likely fire before the inbounds were 25 km away, but as they approached the umbrella coverage. Going off the publicly available data (yes, I am aware that the reliability of such data can be questionable) it should take a Sea Ceptor missile ~24 sec to reach the 25 km range mark. Depending on the inbound and it's flight profile, an inbound might not be that much further away before a Sea Ceptor would get to that outer range mark. Using an inbound YJ-83 on a cruising speed approach of ~0.9 Mach, that could get fired up whilst ~32 to 33 km away from the targeted ship if the Sea Ceptor is getting fired for max range. The ship could very well be aware of an approaching in bound for multiple minutes, but just not have options available to respond until the inbounds get closer.

Where this could get problematic is if there is a need for a ship to re-engage an inbound that became a leaker, or if there is a saturation attack which seeks to overwhelm the CMS and missile guidance. Not sure what the capabilities of the Sea Ceptor and CMS 330 are in terms of handling and guiding multiple outbound SAM's against multiple inbound threats. From published data on the RAN ANZAC-class frigates, the CEAMOUNT illuminator for the ESSM Block I can engage 10 targets simultaneously. I would imagine that the ESSM Block II which has an additional seeker and extra guidance capabilities, there could be both a larger number of targets engaged at once as well as greater range to engage inbounds as they approach.

Where I grow concerned is that it seems people might grow complacent, thinking that because a ship holds/can hold nnn-number of Sea Ceptor missiles the vessel and nearby assets are protected, when it is distinctly possible that the ships sensors, CMS and missiles cannot effectively engage numerous inbounds even though there are plenty of missiles onboard.

Now of course I could also be quite wrong and the CMS configuration along with Sea Ceptor guidance could permit a significant portion of the VLS to be emptied all at once, but that does sound a little unlikely.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
One must also keep in mind that low flying missiles may not come into a defending systems radar horizon until quite late. this may be as little as 10 t0 15 km so most system have the potentual to be overwelmbed by numbers should the attack be below the radar horizon and in some numbers as the time factor becomes very short. this is one of the reasons that I think navies are still fitting systems like philanx as last ditch defence .
Having very long range missiles is of little use if the enemy and the missiles stay below your radar horizon, which they will if they can.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
One must also keep in mind that low flying missiles may not come into a defending systems radar horizon until quite late. this may be as little as 10 t0 15 km so most system have the potentual to be overwelmbed by numbers should the attack be below the radar horizon and in some numbers as the time factor becomes very short. this is one of the reasons that I think navies are still fitting systems like philanx as last ditch defence .
Having very long range missiles is of little use if the enemy and the missiles stay below your radar horizon, which they will if they can.
Hence my regular use of radar horizon calculators.

An ANZAC-class frigate (radar height ~38 m above water line) should have a radar horizon of ~35 km for an aerial threat flying at ~5 m, which would roughly match the believed terminal approach flight of something like the YJ-83 AShM. This is of course also assuming that there is no datalink contact info coming into the frigate via from other assets, or that inbound missiles were not already detected prior to their reducing altitude for terminal approach. It is also making assumptions about the launching platform(s), since I would expect a frigate to at least be able to detect an air group in flight from 150 km to 200 km away where they would likely be when launching a strike.

If one is trying to factor in AShM launched by surface vessels, then things get more complicated still because the launching ship would most likely be below the radar horizon (and therefore be just as blind of the Kiwi frigate as the Kiwi frigate is of it) if greater than 50 km away. This in turn means that an offboard asset would need to provide contact and targeting data prior to launch.

Potentially further complicating things is if the RNZN frigate ends up with an embarked MH-60R 'Romeo' once they enter service, and the helicopter is aloft. Not sure exactly what the normal patrolling altitude would be for an MH-60R, but I would suspect it would likely be somewhere around the 3,000 m mark unless engaged in ASW ops deploying sonobuoys or the dipping sonar to provide the APS-147 radar with a decent field of view for sea (and some air) searches. The potential radar horizon then for a target at an altitude of 5 m is over 200 km.

The Sea Ceptor itself does appear to be a very good VSHORAD to SHORAD missile, but there is also a reason why most air defence ships currently feature a few different air defence missile types with different engagement range capabilities.

One final thought. Realistically if a RNZN frigate is getting engaged by hostile forces belonging to a state actor whilst by itself/unaccompanied, then either it is one of the very first actions in a conflict which is just beginning, or else something has done gone horribly, horribly wrong.
 

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That was the reason given for ordering MH-60Rs as the replacements for the MRH-90s operated by RAN (which replaced the Seaking Ml50As in the VERTREP role). My understanding from the information in the public domain was that the ASW equipment etc "could be quickly removed to support personnel or cargo transfer". Whether that actually happens is a question for those with far more knowledge of day-to-day naval aviation operations in RAN
It can definitely be removed and kept in a warehouse for airframes deployed as logistics platforms. Lower weight means they will last longer and the gear is still available if required.
 

Catalina

Active Member
Some points further to the discussion on the massively (7x) increased air defence capability of upgraded Mogami over our current ANZACs.

1. Quad Packing

1. The MBDA Missile Systems CAMM data sheet confirms that Sea Ceptors can be quad packed in Mk 41 VLS systems. The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems. That's potentially 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, plus the 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles of the SeaRAM SAM-based CIWS, plus 8 anti-ship missiles.

2. Gaming Changing Increase in Missile Defence

The above load out provides a 157 missile battery per frigate, a game changing step up from the 20 missiles our ANZACs currently carry. The upgraded Mogami's now give us more than 7 times the defensive missiles than our ANZACs.

Todjaeger also raises some interesting points that I would like to offer replies to...

3. Area Air Defence

enable a vessel to provide robust self-defence vs. most aerial threats as well as a defensive air bubble relatively close to a frigate, it would still be well short of providing a real area air defence capability

I would politely disagree as I feel Sea Ceptor does allow a real area air defence capability. A 13nm bubble around each frigate provides over 500 nm2 defence. This does provide a local area air defence, which is perfect for the role of escort. The 1st December 2023 successful testing of Te Mana's Sea Ceptors in the Eastern Australian Exercise Area confirmed our navy's ability to now provide successful Local Area Air Defence. We have now moved from a defend self to defend others capability. We can now protect the ships we need to escort. LAAD is a real area air defence capability, is a massive improvement in the RNZN naval power and opens both the naval escort role and the localized fleet air defence role. In March 2024 HMS Richmond successfully used her Sea Ceptors against Houthi drone attacks.

4. Range

the limited range of ~25 km (13nm)

Should a longer range air defence umbrella be required the solution is simple. Just load some of the VLS cells with Camm-ERs in place of standard CAMMs. This doubles the range targets can be struck at, out to the standard radar horizon of some 25nm+, and provides some two thousand square nautical miles of air defence.

5. Layered Defence

air defence umbrellas usually try have things arranged in layers, to enable time to respond to inbounds.

A 75/25 loadout split between CAMM-ER and CAMM would for give each frigate a very flexible response of 24 longer range CAMM-ER SAMs, 32 mid-range CAMMs and 21 close in RIM-116s. This would allow each frigate to provide a three layered protective air defence umbrella over itself and its escorted vessels .

*****

Let us hope the RNZN follows the RAN and likewise purchases these highly capable upgraded Mogami-class frigates.
 
Last edited:

swerve

Super Moderator
IIRC Sea Ceptor has been tested in a quad-pack configuration for the Mk 41 VLS. Whether or not that also would apply to any of the newer CAMM versions with longer range I am uncertain of. Depending on which version of the Mk 41 VLS which gets fitted aboard a Mogami-class FFG though, I would imagine that a multi-pack version could be developed. It would likely be more a matter of interest and funding.
Tested in quad pack via ExLS, which comes in a free standing version & as an insert to Mk41. From what I've read, it seems that the UK-Italian CAMM-ER version (>40 km range) also quad packs in ExLS/Mk41.

The UK & Poland are jointly working on a longer-range (>70km - I've seen 100m stated) CAMM-MR. MBDA publicity shows it dual-packed into Mk41. See MBDA picture in this article.

CAMM & CAMM-ER are in service. I've not found an expected date for service entry of CAMM-MR.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yes, but the Mogamis feature a Japanese combat system which at present only has US family AAW missiles integrated with it. The short range missile in that is ESSM of course. And, even though its range is quoted as “greater than 50km” (compared to CAMM-ER > 40 km) it is not normally considered an area air defence missile. (I would note for those not aware that a naval task group is often spread over an area more than 10nm (18 km ) in diameter. Don’t be fooled by pics of FOTEXs, RASs or OOW manouvres - in real ops ships are often not even in sight of one another.)

If NZ wanted CAMMM integrated in the Mogamis they would have to pay for that unless somebody else did first - and there is presently no sign of that.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Some points further to the discussion on the massively (7x) increased air defence capability of upgraded Mogami over our current ANZACs.

1. Quad Packing

1. The MBDA Missile Systems CAMM data sheet confirms that Sea Ceptors can be quad packed in Mk 41 VLS systems. The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems. That's potentially 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, plus the 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles of the SeaRAM SAM-based CIWS, plus 8 anti-ship missiles.

2. Gaming Changing Increase in Missile Defence

The above load out provides a 157 missile battery per frigate, a game changing step up from the 20 missiles our ANZACs currently carry. The upgraded Mogami's now give us more than 7 times the defensive missiles than our ANZACs.

Todjaeger also raises some interesting points that I would like to offer replies to...
Sea Ceptor and RAM are both in more or less the same class of missile, namely a VSHORAD/SHORAD missile, albeit at opposite ends of that particular spectrum. Unless there was some sort of significant advantage to keeping the RIM-116 RAM also side any Sea Ceptors, I would opt to drop the RAM and just have Sea Ceptors loaded. One type of missile would simply logistics and in the same air defence space, Sea Ceptor has IMO a greater scope of capability.

3. Area Air Defence

enable a vessel to provide robust self-defence vs. most aerial threats as well as a defensive air bubble relatively close to a frigate, it would still be well short of providing a real area air defence capability

I would politely disagree as I feel Sea Ceptor does allow a real area air defence capability. A 13nm bubble around each frigate provides over 500 nm2 defence. This does provide a local area air defence, which is perfect for the role of escort. The 1st December 2023 successful testing of Te Mana's Sea Ceptors in the Eastern Australian Exercise Area confirmed our navy's ability to now provide successful Local Area Air Defence. We have now moved from a defend self to defend others capability. We can now protect the ships we need to escort. LAAD is a real area air defence capability, is a massive improvement in the RNZN naval power and opens both the naval escort role and the localized fleet air defence role. In March 2024 HMS Richmond successfully used her Sea Ceptors against Houthi drone attacks.
I understand you disagree regarding area air defence, but in reality area air defence is much larger than a local bubble around one ship and out to the horizon. Examples of missiles intended for the area air defence role would be Aster 30 (120 km+ range), RIM-67 Standard (SM-2 120 km+ range), or RIM-174 Standard (SM-6 240 km+ range).

A TF formation needs a bit of room to move and maneuver as well as to avoid interfering with each other.

Here is an interesting diagram of an air defence config around a USN CBG from the 1980's. Unfort it does not provide any real distance references, but if one keeps in mind that the ASW escort screening vessels are each likely to be ~8-10 km away from the carrier, that should help provide some kind of scale.

4. Range

the limited range of ~25 km (13nm)

Should a longer range air defence umbrella be required the solution is simple. Just load some of the VLS cells with Camm-ERs in place of standard CAMMs. This doubles the range targets can be struck at, out to the standard radar horizon of some 25nm+, and provides some two thousand square nautical miles of air defence.

5. Layered Defence

air defence umbrellas usually try have things arranged in layers, to enable time to respond to inbounds.

A 75/25 loadout split between CAMM-ER and CAMM would for give each frigate a very flexible response of 24 longer range CAMM-ER SAMs, 32 mid-range CAMMs and 21 close in RIM-116s. This would allow each frigate to provide a three layered protective air defence umbrella over itself and its escorted vessels .
A few potential problems come to mind. Firstly, has the CAMM-ER be adapted for naval use? Sea Ceptor is the naval variant of CAMM, whilst Sky Sabre is the land-based version, but I have not seen confirmation that the -ER version of CAMM has been adapted for naval use.

Secondly, even if/when CAMM-ER has a Sea Ceptor version, that would still only provide a short to medium-range air defence missile. The long-ranged air defence missiles are typically 100 km+ in range, with newer versions typically going even further. Part of the reason behind the push to increase max missile range is to provide greater defensive depth to an engagement, but also because threats are increasing their ranges. By having a longer ranged missile available, that could enable hostile aircraft to get engaged during or just prior to their launching a missile strike.

Also, as previously mentioned RIM-116 RAM and Sea Ceptor are effectively in the same class of missiles, so they would both be in that inner most layer of an air defence umbrella.
 

chis73

Active Member
FYI Tod,

CAMM-ER has a naval version, called Albatros NG. It received its first order back in 2021. It entered service in Sept 2024 aboard the Pakistani Babur class corvettes (themselves versions of the Turkish MILGEMs). It seems though that Albatros NG needs different datalink systems than Sea Ceptor (presumably more powerful transmitters to cope with the longer range), so the Sea Ceptor datalink transmitters don't work as is (or perhaps only work at short range). No idea if the Albatros NG datalink also works with Sea Ceptor.
 

kiwi in exile

Well-Known Member
Yes, but the Mogamis feature a Japanese combat system which at present only has US family AAW missiles integrated with it. The short range missile in that is ESSM of course. And, even though its range is quoted as “greater than 50km” (compared to CAMM-ER > 40 km) it is not normally considered an area air defence missile. (I would note for those not aware that a naval task group is often spread over an area more than 10nm (18 km ) in diameter. Don’t be fooled by pics of FOTEXs, RASs or OOW manouvres - in real ops ships are often not even in sight of one another.)

If NZ wanted CAMMM integrated in the Mogamis they would have to pay for that unless somebody else did first - and there is presently no sign of that.
This may be expensive. I have seen on some CAMM youtube coverage that it is designed to be reasonbly adaptable in terms of fire control system. Which given its design goal of being launched from a range of land/air/sea based systems you would hope a design feature. Hopefully, in the name of ANZAC interoperability we dont switch to ESSM after acquiring CAMM (if we go Mogami).

aparently we have 250 CAMMs
 

Sender

Active Member
Yes, but that also applies to the ranges for other air defence missiles like ESSM and SM-2. IIRC there was work on a -ER version of CAMM, of which Sea Ceptor is the essentially the naval variant of (the CAMM family) but there had been some question on how close in size the -ER version was to Sea Ceptor and whether or not the regular Sea Ceptor mushroom farm could accommodate newer/larger and long-legged versions of CAMM.

One of the key points from a planning perspective would likely be how large of an area at sea or underway could a Sea Ceptor-armed frigate realistically protect from hostile aerial threats and/or how far away or spread out could vessels be, whilst still under a Kiwi frigate's defensive air umbrella. In such instances I would expect that, unless the NZDF and/or RNZN knew for certain that the missiles in service had longer ranges, the planning would then reflect the shorter confirmed ranges rather than what might be intercepts under ideal conditions.
CAMM-ER is a thing. The datasheet at the link below specifies a range of greater than 40 KMs, a length of 4.2 m, and weight of 160 Kg, and a diameter of 160 mm. It's not clear if it would fit in the current "mushroom" launchers.


There is also reputedly an "MR" version under development with a range exceeding 100 Kms, but very little in the way of information on that variant.
 

Sender

Active Member
CAMM-ER is a thing. The datasheet at the link below specifies a range of greater than 40 KMs, a length of 4.2 m, and weight of 160 Kg, and a diameter of 160 mm. It's not clear if it would fit in the current "mushroom" launchers.


There is also reputedly an "MR" version under development with a range exceeding 100 Kms, but very little in the way of information on that variant.
Apologies for posting redundant information on CAMM ER. The pace of this conversation exceeded the speed of my typing. :)
 

Milo

New Member
1. Quad Packing

1. The MBDA Missile Systems CAMM data sheet confirms that Sea Ceptors can be quad packed in Mk 41 VLS systems. The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems. That's potentially 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, plus the 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles of the SeaRAM SAM-based CIWS, plus 8 anti-ship missiles.
The SeaRAM launcher only has 11 cells but it can be reloaded at sea.
 

Aerojoe

Member
In order to fit those slots when would an order need to be placed?
Back to my question of last week. Does anyone on the group have a sense of when an order would need to be made in order to gain these build slots? I hope it's not required in 2026 as I can't imagine the GOTD wanting to announce this level of spend in an election year.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
CAMM-ER is a thing. The datasheet at the link below specifies a range of greater than 40 KMs, a length of 4.2 m, and weight of 160 Kg, and a diameter of 160 mm. It's not clear if it would fit in the current "mushroom" launchers.
The mushroom part of the launcher is just a protective cap, The launchers on Type 23 were made for Sea Wolf, & CAMM is longer & slimmer, so needed a taller launcher, & the easiest & cheapest way to do that was fit a taller, slimmer tube in the space, sticking up a bit, & put a cap on it. The alternative would be to rearrange things below the launchers, which would require much more work.

Type 23 launching Sea Wolf


Type 23 CAMM launchers - caps on



Caps off



Longer tubes for CAMM-ER would leave another metre of tube sticking up. I don't know whether that would be acceptable.


The Pakistani Babur-class (Turkish MilGem, built in Istanbul & Karachi) have their own mushroom-type launchers for CAMM-ER, but there must be more below deck than on Type 23. These were planned before build, so the space below deck could be set aside in advance.


This is what those 2x3 bits look like close up -
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This may be expensive. I have seen on some CAMM youtube coverage that it is designed to be reasonbly adaptable in terms of fire control system. Which given its design goal of being launched from a range of land/air/sea based systems you would hope a design feature. Hopefully, in the name of ANZAC interoperability we dont switch to ESSM after acquiring CAMM (if we go Mogami).

aparently we have 250 CAMMs
If (big IF) NZ does decide to order a version of the Mogami-class frigate to replace the current frigates, deciding to go with the ESSM might not be a bad decision TBH.

Japan is already an ESSM user so the missile should likely already be integrated with the CMS which is something that someone would need to pay for and do if a number of other missile families were to be used instead. We already know the ESSM can be quad-packed into Mk 41 VLS cells, and that ESSM Block 2 with a dual semi-active & active radar homing has been successfully tested fired back in 2018 and reached IOC in 2021.

From what I have been able to find on the Albatross NG/naval CAMM-ER, it does seem like it is similar to the Sea Ceptor which makes sense given they are part of the same overall missile family. However, given what some of the missile differences are, it seems like some of the systems which can use the Sea Ceptor might not be adequate for the Albatross which is ~31% longer and 61% greater displacement. That is not even getting into any potential CMS integration issues. In other words, even though NZ went with the Sea Ceptor to replace the aged RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, one should not automatically assume that the medium-range version of CAMM would be selected.

What could be very interesting is if someone were to develop a modular Sea Ceptor launcher, possibly something using the cube concept of the Danes or else something like a SeaRAM launcher.
 

Gooey

Well-Known Member
I have thoroughly enjoyed this recent thread. Particularly, for the CAMM et al updates.

However; as fascinating as discussions of RAM v Sea Ceptor v ESSM v SM-2 are, I can't help but feel that they are missing the point when discussing these system-of-systems. A bit like J-10C v Rafaie without knowing the wider context within Pakistan v India. These maritime SAMs are just the sexy bit of defending what are ultimately disposable, war fighting, frigates that are part of the NZ national security infrastructure ... be it that in our case, all 2 of our ANZACs are the only current national war fighting capability.

A wee bit like MR-60R numbers, where 5 seems to have a peace time depth, does our current RNZN combat capability need expansion over the next 10 to 15 years? I'd suggest, yes it does along the following lines:
- 6 FFG with 3 Tier 1 ASW Hunters and 3 Tier II GP Mogamis (ROM $20b NZD?), starting replacements ASAP before the current ANZAC OSD
- 12 MR-60R
- auxiliaries
- additional P-8A
- long term planning now for recruiting, CONOPS, logistics (with RAN), training (with RAN) and national infrastructure

From this will naturally flow what sticks to fit to our new war canoes.

Interestingly, I've just enjoyed reading V. Orange's biography on Sir Kieth Park. In the early 50's when Park returned to NZ, working part time as a UK salesman, he tried to convince NZ that Hunter and Shackleton aircraft were a cheaper way of conducting maritime operations than a 'large' cruiser/frigate navy. Of course his war time experience fell on deaf ears through a combination of personalities and bureaucracy.

WIth the demise of fast air, I'd suspect that this concept is a bridge too far for NZ politicians, MoD, and the pacifist lovies, but it would be rather interesting to throw in 24 F-35A and trainers to the above ROM and see how much %GDP it'd require?
 
Last edited:
Top