They will have all the infrastructure on the air frame to do so, and according to the DCP2019 will be kept up to date with latest tech... we will only need to acquire the missiles for and when required... (which is BTW "yes" usually to late)Maybe even arm the P8s properly.
By arming the P8s with stand off weapons, both AsuW and ASW, would mean this Govt has to acknowledge there is a threat or possible threat , sadly i can see them doing this , more so based on the Defmin interview yesterday " nothing to see here"Maybe even arm the P8s properly.
I like the VLS setup offered to Greece. 36 x Sea Ceptor (via twitter):As said, the Type 31 in RN configuration would be underarmed for the RNZN's main fighting ships. But its base ship, the Arrowhead 140, is sold as configurable to a customer's specifications, & as the Polish version shows, has plenty of space & weight to fit more of everything than Type 31 has.
The CAMM ER maritime launching system (MLS) is based on the compact design developments by MBDA UK for the Royal Navy’s Type 26 and Type 31 frigates. The CAMM ER MLS solution is functionally identical to the single cells MLS for Type 23 frigates, characterized by a basic but cost effective solution, which sees the single missile launch canister with the same upper chimney assembly of the CAMM, maintaining the same bolting mechanism to the ship through a simple shock mount, without a dedicated launcher system and ancillaries with related weight, power and space requirements. The solution selected for the new UK Type 26 and Type 31 frigates’ MLS is based on a multiple of new six-cell (2×3) modules characterized by a reduced footprint allowing for more missiles to be accommodated in the same space of the Type 23 solution. The Albatros NG MLS is based on the same six-cell baseline solution, except for longer canisters due to the CAMM ER extended length. The modules are spaced to allow canisters inspection.
Indeed providing a “minimum credible defence” never seemed an acceptable stance and even less now and looking to the future.I agree but i think it needs to be more specific than that and right upfront in how its presented.
1. Protect nz access to sea lanes and ports and the ships that rely on them (more than tokenistic 2 frigates and 4 P-8's) (given supply chain disruptions now is the easiest time to explain the significance of this)
2. Protect nz sovereign territory (P-8's to acf or frigate abm- unsure what but at least spurs the question of what)
3. Protect new zealanders living abroad - no more Thai 2008 hercules breakdowns again (larger pool of military transport aircraft)
4. Civil assistance/hadr
5. Assist allies and global order in times of crisus or war.
Something like this. As it starts to lay out redlines in terms of minimum capability rather than hiding behind vagaries that we have had before.
The reasons given for the lack of hull mounted sonar on the Constellation class were improved sea keeping and a quieter hull. A number of changes made to the FREMM design were for improved sea keeping. The USN wants a ship that can go anywhere, in any weather. Another plus for NZ suitability.Talking hypothetically about the Constellation class (and I agree it ticks many boxes), is the lack of hull mounted sonar an issue?
I know it was fitted to the original FREMM design but does anyone know if it is practical (engineering redesign and cost wise) to fit one to the Constellation class if it wasn't designed for it?
I believe 200 is the accommodation size on board. The normal crew size will probably be less than that. For example, the base design ASW FREMM operates with a crew of 133 (+14 for one helo).Also constellation is near enough a 200 person crew isnt it?
The Constellation class doesn't have any CW illuminators, so it can't guide semi-active missiles, but it is fully compatible with active guided missiles such as SM-2 Blk IIIC and SM-6.The Constellation is AEGIS 10, SPY 6, CEC, 32 cell Mk41 VLS with ESSM II and most likely Standard missiles.
That's interesting. Thanks. I knew the Type 23 solution was chosen because it was easy & cheap, but it's always looked a bit wasteful of space. Nice to see it confirmed that it's been slimmed down for new ships.I like the VLS setup offered to Greece. 36 x Sea Ceptor (via twitter):
It's worth noting that the CAMM ER uses the same launcher as CAMM, just longer canisters for the longer missiles:
I was under the impression the sonar to be fitted was the AN/SQS-62. This is a lightweight towed array intended for the LCS initially. (LCS not being the quietest sub hunter out there). I think this is more evidence that the combination of SSN's, escorts and aviation provide ASW protection to a task group. A towed array and active VDS is a good piece of kit but the original fit on the FREMM is better in my view.The reasons given for the lack of hull mounted sonar on the Constellation class were improved sea keeping and a quieter hull. A number of changes made to the FREMM design were for improved sea keeping. The USN wants a ship that can go anywhere, in any weather. Another plus for NZ suitability.
It's worth noting that the USN has said the primary mission of the Constellation class is ASW, so they obviously don't think the hull mounted sonar is a significant loss. The towed sonar being fitted ( CAPTAS 4 derivative ) is arguably one of the best sonars in the world.
No, the USN made a late decision to switch to the CAPTAS 4 due to it's technical maturity and ease of integration.I was under the impression the sonar to be fitted was the AN/SQS-62. This is a lightweight towed array intended for the LCS initially. (LCS not being the quietest sub hunter out there). I think this is more evidence that the combination of SSN's, escorts and aviation provide ASW protection to a task group. A towed array and active VDS is a good piece of kit but the original fit on the FREMM is better in my view.
AN/SQS-62 Variable Depth Sonar | Raytheon Missiles & Defense (raytheonmissilesanddefense.com)
The Navy assessed CAPTAS-4 as a low risk VDS option for FFG-62 due to its proven performance, overall technical readiness level, low risk integration with the SQQ-89 ASW combat system, ability to integrate with the frigate platform design and ability to meet the in-yard need date for FFG-62
A smart decision in my opinion. Certainly a very capable unit. I still wonder about the claims of a quieter hull with the sonar dome removed.No, the USN made a late decision to switch to the CAPTAS 4 due to it's technical maturity and ease of integration.
A senior Navy officer is seeking to dispel notions the changes to the LCS program and the frigate program were connected.breakingdefense.com
Some sort of national Integrated Air and Missile Defence System, I'd assume is very low priority for NZ b/c our base level is so low.Due to NZ's relative isolation and lack of air threats, since the second world war there hasn't been a need for Defence to operate its own radar systems, but I'm wondering does anyone think there could there be scenarios where Defence could be operating similar systems or electronic defence systems nowadays as global/regional stability is facing increasing challenges (perhaps to protect key infrastructure)?
Here's the recording of the hearing if anyone wants to comment on it (I haven't fully watched it yet but briefly noticed the DefMin is talking about a new Govt defence assessment, whatever that entails).Nothing to worry about ladies & gents, as Minister Henare fronts the FAD&T Select Committee on Thursday, in Wellington. I imagine with the new mid-winter, long weekend approaching, questions were short, very functionary, and all over by lunch-time.
Read and weep when we compare what we achieved, did and had compared to nowadays! Granted nowadays as well as our Frigates being better equipped we are served with superior civilian technologies courtesy of Airways NZ (and more extensive harbour/coastal monitoring), but presumably these are more vulnerable to jamming - ideally Defence needs technologies that are more resilient so we are not blinded, meaning both fixed systems as well as deployable systems? As the DefMin notes in FAD&T hearing we are now in challenging times, and with supply chains being vulnerable perhaps now is the time to start doing more including self-reliance and increasing personnel intakes and developing new skillsets and R&D etc?It'd be interesting to see what we did in WWII? In the Australian War Memorial, I saw a illustration of their radar system which was huge.