NZDF General discussion thread

[chis73]

I have been trying to find reports of successful 70 km intercepts for Sea Ceptor or other members of the CAMM family, so far without any real luck. TBH the only place I have seen a 70 km reach for Sea Ceptor was here, in forum comments on DT.

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

 

[Todjaeger]

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

Thanks for that. Now I have even more questions, of course...

One of the first is HTH I managed to never see that on the CAMM wiki page before I have read that info several dozen times at least over the last several years. Not sure if someone ended up doing a page edit and added or removed it, or perhaps I could not see it because my brain was not capable of processing it. Whatever...

However, having looked at the links it does raise a fewer further questions, as well as a thought or two (yes, yes, I know, I know, me thinking is always dangerous...).

From the link, it seems like the CAMM traveled 60 km in trials, which is potentially quite different from the launched missile having a range of 60 km. As suggested, if a missile was fired along a ballistic trajectory, it could easily continue to travel for some time after powered flight ended due to fuel exhaustion Being able to ensure that a missile launched on such a trajectory accomplished anything actually useful is another matter entirely. My own personal take is that such info along with claimed ranges is akin to the effective and maximum ranges sometimes listed for guns. Sure, a WWII-era M1 Garand chambered in .30-06 might be able to fire an M2 ball round out to ~3,100 m the actual, effective range of such a rifle and cartridge combination would still normally only be out to ~450 m for things to be accurately engaged.

Other thoughts, starting with a question. I would be interested in find out what, if any, differences there are between CAMM missiles intended for use/launch by GBAD, and the Sea Ceptor naval versions of CAMM. Firstly noting that the trials back in 2015 appear to have been launches from land-based platforms and not from aboard a ship, was the missile which traveled 60 km the same design as the ones now used for Sea Ceptor? Are the CAMM missiles effectively interchangeable, so that a CAMM cannister could be loaded into a land-based launcher or a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm? If they are indeed interchangeable, that could simplify logistical support since two services could be resupplied via the same pipeline.

Going off that, would it be worth the NZ Army looking at adopting Sky Sabre to provide the NZDF with a air defence capability apart from/beyond what only the two frigates can now provide? If the missiles already now in inventory could also be used from land-based platforms, it would seem a relatively safe and easy path towards the NZDF having an air defence capability again.

Lastly, my thoughts on loading Sea Ceptor into Mk 41 VLS... honestly my thoughts are that it really depends on what the situation is. If the plan from the outset was to just use Sea Ceptor, that IMO would be both a bad idea and a wasteful one. OTOH, if the idea is more that NZ can fill Mk 41 VLS with Sea Ceptor and will do so if that is really the best options available, then the situation is different. An empty VLS cell in/during a conflict can be very problematic. Having something like Sea Ceptor available in the inventory could see some loaded simply because that is what is available or can be easily brought to port to replenish a RNZN frigate so that it at least has something it could launch from what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

Comparing missile ranges is quite problematic since we just do not have access to actual range results tested to identical standards. Having said that, I do tend to give some credence to manufacturer's published ranges, at least for many US/NATO/allied munitions, simply because the published information usually has a caveat that the range is in excess of NN, so the actual performance could be greater than claimed.

Lastly I also tend to lump missile performance claims together, so if MBDA is claiming a range of 25+ km for Sea Ceptor, and a 40+ km range for CAMM-ER, I am inclined to go along with MBDA that CAMM-ER is longer-legged, because the data used to compare the two versions is coming from the same source and likely of the same quality and to the same standard.

EDIT: Egads, I had twice used lastly...

 

[Stampede]

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

Warships will ideally operate within a layer defence umbrella.
Support from aviation assets and a couple or tiers of SAM defence.
So the question is what will New Zealand’s ANZAC replacements look like and how does that fit within the broader NZ defence force shopping list.

Will they be frigate sized combatants and how many will be purchased?

Answer that and you go a some way to making commentary about the whole defence force, because without a major increase in coin there will be significant trade offs.

Go frigates then three should be the minimum and justice should be given to ensuring they are fitted out properly from the get go to be proper warships.

For NZ this will be a big commitment !

Any compromises and then some serious consideration must be given to other capacities.

Good numbers of OPVs?
Something else?
What about Army and Airforce.

Looking at you P-8s

Realistically NZ has so many defence shortfalls it’s hard to know what to do.

Suggest the starting point is to have a conversation about defence!

Are we serious or not?

Cheers S

 

[Rob c]

Realistically NZ has so many defence shortfalls it’s hard to know what to do.

Suggest the starting point is to have a conversation about defence!

Are we serious or not?

Totally agree, The amount that the defence force has been run down in the last 35 years by successive governments is colossal. As has been said before the average GDP has halved from was was spent in the 1980's. this means defence was deprived of in excess of $140B in that period, to undo the damage this has done will not be cheap. The big question the pollies have to answer is what value do they place on our freedom and sovereignty as until they really take this to heart we will only get a bits and peace's approach at the lowest cost that they think looks politically acceptably good to them.
Because there has been little debate on the question of defence the general public are at this stage very ill informed and have little idea on what is required due to the lack of informed information which I believe has been a deliberate political agenda. In other words they have been treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and feed on sh-t.

 

[spoz]

Plus, you get a much bigger warhead with ESSM, which is also quad packed. CAMM is fine for what it is; what it is not is an ESSM replacement.

 

[swerve]

...
Other thoughts, starting with a question. I would be interested in find out what, if any, differences there are between CAMM missiles intended for use/launch by GBAD, and the Sea Ceptor naval versions of CAMM. Firstly noting that the trials back in 2015 appear to have been launches from land-based platforms and not from aboard a ship, was the missile which traveled 60 km the same design as the ones now used for Sea Ceptor? Are the CAMM missiles effectively interchangeable, so that a CAMM cannister could be loaded into a land-based launcher or a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm? If they are indeed interchangeable, that could simplify logistical support since two services could be resupplied via the same pipeline.

Everything I've read suggests that the missiles are identical. Same for CAMM-ER: the naval & land-based systems seem to use exactly the same missile.

Lastly, my thoughts on loading Sea Ceptor into Mk 41 VLS... honestly my thoughts are that it really depends on what the situation is. If the plan from the outset was to just use Sea Ceptor, that IMO would be both a bad idea and a wasteful one. OTOH, if the idea is more that NZ can fill Mk 41 VLS with Sea Ceptor and will do so if that is really the best options available, then the situation is different. An empty VLS cell in/during a conflict can be very problematic. Having something like Sea Ceptor available in the inventory could see some loaded simply because that is what is available or can be easily brought to port to replenish a RNZN frigate so that it at least has something it could launch from what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

The RN decided to add separate CAMM launchers to the Type 45 destroyers, give its Aster 15 boosters back to MBDA, & buy Aster 30s to replace them. Where it's fitting Mk41 to new ships it's doing so as well as, not instead of, dedicated CAMM launchers. I think it can put the CAMM launchers in places where Mk41 won't fit, & full Mk41s might bring top weight problems.

Comparing missile ranges is quite problematic since we just do not have access to actual range results tested to identical standards. Having said that, I do tend to give some credence to manufacturer's published ranges, at least for many US/NATO/allied munitions, simply because the published information usually has a caveat that the range is in excess of NN, so the actual performance could be greater than claimed.

Lastly I also tend to lump missile performance claims together, so if MBDA is claiming a range of 25+ km for Sea Ceptor, and a 40+ km range for CAMM-ER, I am inclined to go along with MBDA that CAMM-ER is longer-legged, because the data used to compare the two versions is coming from the same source and likely of the same quality and to the same standard.

Absolutely! The same is probably true of the comparisons between VL Mica & VL Mica NG, & the under development new version of Aster 15. The numbers all come from MBDA. How they compare with the different versions of IRIS-T SL, though . . . .

 

[Todjaeger]

The RN decided to add separate CAMM launchers to the Type 45 destroyers, give its Aster 15 boosters back to MBDA, & buy Aster 30s to replace them. Where it's fitting Mk41 to new ships it's doing so as well as, not instead of, dedicated CAMM launchers. I think it can put the CAMM launchers in places where Mk41 won't fit, & full Mk41s might bring top weight problems.

The scenario I had in mind was more about a Kiwi frigate with a Mk 41 VLS about to sail from a port visit during a time of hostilities and the choice was either depart with some Mk 41 VLS cells empty because their "usual" VLS cell loadout was unavailable during the port call, or put in some quad-packed Sea Ceptor missiles, JIC.

Me being me, 4 smaller, shorter-legged air defence missiles are better than what would otherwise be an empty cell, at least during wartime.

Now if the option existed for additional missile cells specifically for Sea Ceptor (and/or other CAMM versions) to be added on an ad hoc basis, so that what might nominally be a frigate with a 32-cell Mk 41 VLS could instead also have perhaps 12 cells for Sea Ceptor, that is a bit of a different story. Assuming such an arrangement could be managed with no topweight, missile launch clearance, CMS integration or other sorts of issues, the only arguments against such an arrangement would be cost and possibly an increased logistics support burden. As long as short-sighted bean counters are not left to make such decisions, then it should be fine.

As a side note, someone should tell MBDA and the MoD to have a chat with the Danes about developing a missile module. For something which looks relatively small, compact and of low displacement, this might provide a path to up the missile count on an as-needed basis for warships, as well as increase the self-defence capabilities of other British vessels that might have to transit threatened waters.

 

[swerve]

That all makes perfect sense.

 

[kiwi in exile]

I like that we have had pages of discussion about arming the p8s with LRASMs and no one has mentioned fast jets, aunty Helen and the f16s, etc.

 

[Rob c]

I like that we have had pages of discussion about arming the p8s with LRASMs and no one has mentioned fast jets, aunty Helen and the f16s, etc.

Have done so many times in the past so not needed now.

 

[Todjaeger]

Quoted and responded to here from a post in the RNZN thread, because the topic and response covers more than just the RNZN

Glad to hear you think 4 frigates is a dammed good idea. We differ on my belief that we don't need to restore a land based continental style military for our maritime nation, I believe we need to overcome decades of gross over spending on the army for oversesa feel good peace keeping purposes, and reprioritize funding towards our Navy to over time create an integrated power projecting naval and marine force that can cover the expanse of the Realm of New Zealand and support our allies in the turbulent seas of our world.

Don't 'restore' for old wars, 'reprioritize' for future wars. I would roll our army into a marine force under the Navy and likewise our Air Force into a Fleet Air Arm under Naval Control. This counters ADMk2's comments about a joint force. Integrated Forces beat joint forces. We are 5 million people and should stop trying to fund a trapped army, and a toothless Air Force.

We should instead prioritize our funding into a single integrated Naval Force. Todjaeger speaks about the lack of cohesion of previous defence policies. An integrated maritime force focused on defending New Zealand and our Pacific region through the protection of sovereignty and sea lines of communication achieves this cohesion. Look at the supreme versatility for example of frigates...

Frigates are multi-domain combat units they fight below, on, and above the sea.

The Improved Mogami frigates our Navy is considering purchasing can reposition 3,000nm in a week and each bring to the fight 157 missiles plus those on the helicopter, (another 8?). They pack more of a punch, where and when is required than any land trapped formation can. In a maritime theater, which is what New Zealand and the South Pacific is, naval combat units literally leave land formations for dead.

The Improved Mogami Class only require 90 sailors. They will be produced both by Japan and our only military ally, Australia. Refits and servicing will be able to done just across the ditch. The threat to NZ, as in all wars, is maritime.

Improved Mogami's are a hell of bag for the buck and if we have to take money from the army for it, go for it. Hundreds of soldiers driving around in New Zealand in flash new vehicles isn't what our nation needs. Its sailors on the sea in ships that integrate perfectly with our Australian ally.

Four Improved Mogami class frigates dramatically increases the flexible defence of New Zealand and our region.

A few points that I feel really need to be raised and considered.

One of the first is that NZ is unfortunately (and IMO unsurprisingly for those who have been observing for some time) in the position where more resources are really needed, across essentially the entirety of defence. That is very problematic for a number of reasons beyond 'just' the problems associated with getting gov't to fund/resource Vote Defence better. Even if Vote Defence did away with the Capital Charge and all the other, non-core Defence charges and expenses which reduces the the defence budget for kit, capabilities and personnel, AND if the %GDP were increased to a Vote Defence budget of 5% GDP, could NZ actually manage to absorb so much additional coin and have any real increases in capabilities. I tend to suspect the answer to this hypothetical would be, "no," at least in the short-term. One problem with trying to accomplish anything with major injections of funding is that the NZDF still has problems in terms of personnel and experienced personnel in particular. If somehow NZ were to receive four Mogami-class frigates tomorrow, the RNZN would not be able to do all that much with them due to a lack of personnel.

In addition, NZ does not 'need' any one specific defence service. Rather, all three are really required because they can provide different capabilities having different strengths and weaknesses.

Should a sitting NZ gov't attempt to divert the lion's share of Vote Defence to focus on one specific service, when all three have become so emaciated, might enable that one force to get back to being closer to what it had been without requiring Vote Defence being increased as significantly. However, trying to achieve such a concentration of resources in a single service would leave the NZDF even more vulnerable to threats which the resourced service would be ill-suited to protect against or respond to.

Recognition also has to be made that all of the services are vulnerable to a variety of threats, with some threats actually existing for all the services in common despite assertions made otherwise. The NZDF maintains bases for Army, the RNZAF and the RNZN. All of these bases exist to support their respective services as well as the NZDF and NZ as a whole. All of these bases could become targets in the event of hostilities. Further, the NZDF is also reliant upon non-defence facilities, infrastructure and capabilities in order to function. These would also be potential targets, with damage and/or destruction of such facilities negatively impacting the NZDF and NZ generally. Imagine for instance, if a 'major fire' were to suddenly break out at Marsden Point. More RNZN frigates would be ineffective in preventing many deliberate actions which could cause this, unless the RNZN kept a vessel in Bream Bay or the vicinity more or less all the time. However, if Army and/or the RNZAF were involved, some of the potential threats to a site like Marsden Point could be at least somewhat mitigated. I am deliberately trying to avoid mentioning some of the scenarios in mind, simply because I do not want to give bad actors any more ideas. However, the RNZN is not really well positioned as a service to be able to respond to threats that might become from sources already in or very near to NZ, or to threats that might be able to approach NZ rapidly and with little detection.

 

[kiwi in exile]

Plus, you get a much bigger warhead with ESSM, which is also quad packed. CAMM is fine for what it is; what it is not is an ESSM replacement.

Yea its not a replacement, its a cheaper shorter range alternative that has pros/cons vs ESSM which have allready been hashed out. CAMM was a Sea Sparrow replacment. Its also what we have (200 or so apparently).
If this is really about how NZ uses any future VLS it doesnt yet have (we are waiting for this govt to make decision about big ticket spending), I'd imagine that the ability to pack ASMs is key. Quad packed SAMs will be important in any future scenario- the more the better. But our lack of any current credibly ranged offensive weapon is . CAMMs in a Mk41 wouldn't look so silly if stacked next to LRASMs

 

[Todjaeger]

Yea its not a replacement, its a cheaper shorter range alternative that has pros/cons vs ESSM which have allready been hashed out. CAMM was a Sea Sparrow replacment. Its also what we have (200 or so apparently).
If this is really about how NZ uses any future VLS it doesnt yet have (we are waiting for this govt to make decision about big ticket spending), I'd imagine that the ability to pack ASMs is key. Quad packed SAMs will be important in any future scenario- the more the better. But our lack of any current credibly ranged offensive weapon is . CAMMs in a Mk41 wouldn't look so silly if stacked next to LRASMs

Current AShM's are launched from angled quad-launchers, not VLS cells. IIRC one of the Harpoon versions did have a VL variant developed and test-fired (Block III?) but it was never adopted. VLS cell loadouts are the province of air defence and strike LACM's. I also believe that a VL variant of NSM is currently in development, to provide another loadout option for the Mk 41 VLS, but has yet to be fielded whilst the angled quads are in service.

Also, historically most ship's AShM loadouts feature eight to 16 AShM. Even a modest Mk 41 VLS arrangement of 32 cells would be more likely than not to have half or less the cell count used for AShM assuming no angled launchers were fitted.

 

[swerve]

Yea its not a replacement, its a cheaper shorter range alternative that has pros/cons vs ESSM which have allready been hashed out. CAMM was a Sea Sparrow replacment. Its also what we have (200 or so apparently).....

A Sea Sparrow replacement which got more missiles with longer range in the same space without top weight issues, as I recall. I think that last may have been significant.