Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would suggest that by the time a decision on replacing the ANZAC comes along the Chinese will be deploying regularly to the South Pacific and there will be a much stronger case for a top end ASW frigate such as the Type 26.
I would also anticipate a need for a stronger area air defence capability as well, beyond what Sea Ceptor is supposed to provide. If the CAMM-ER comes out with a Sea Ceptor version, that might meet the minimum level of capability.

I would expect that in order for RNZN vessels to be effective they would need to be able to operate with a degree of independence from a task force, as well as provide from short to long-range air defence as task force escort.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sea Ceptor is just the missile selected by the RN for Type 26 - there's nothing to stop a prospective buyer from specifying alternatives and I'm sure that will be done. ESSM block 2. SM6, plus a number of alternatives are all on the table.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sea Ceptor is just the missile selected by the RN for Type 26 - there's nothing to stop a prospective buyer from specifying alternatives and I'm sure that will be done. ESSM block 2. SM6, plus a number of alternatives are all on the table.
Precisely. Though the Sea Ceptor is the SR missile selected for the RNZN over the long haul there is nothing to stop them only acquiring strike length Mk41 VLS cells for a LR standard missile variant (and other VLS hosted weapons) for example as well as lighter weight reduced footprint launcher such as ExLS specifically for Sea Ceptor in the future Anzac replacement. ExLS and Sea Ceptor offers considerable flexibility with respect to the usage of "real estate" on a warship.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Precisely. Though the Sea Ceptor is the SR missile selected for the RNZN over the long haul there is nothing to stop them only acquiring strike length Mk41 VLS cells for a LR standard missile variant (and other VLS hosted weapons) for example as well as lighter weight reduced footprint launcher such as ExLS specifically for Sea Ceptor in the future Anzac replacement. ExLS and Sea Ceptor offers considerable flexibility with respect to the usage of "real estate" on a warship.
I would argue that there is plenty which could and potentially would stop the RNZN from getting SM-2/3/6 or Aster 30 or their follow-on designs in the Future Frigate, a future Labour gov't comes to mind, as do the Greens, or even some flavours of National gov't...

Also I would tend to consider Sea Ceptor, with a claimed range of ~25 km, to be right on the cusp between being 'just' a short-ranged missile, and being able to engage at medium range. Not certain exactly how high above ground/sea level the air/surface search radar aboard a Kiwi frigate is or will be, but a range of 25 km would put it close to the edge of the horizon.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Also I would tend to consider Sea Ceptor, with a claimed range of ~25 km, to be right on the cusp between being 'just' a short-ranged missile, and being able to engage at medium range. Not certain exactly how high above ground/sea level the air/surface search radar aboard a Kiwi frigate is or will be, but a range of 25 km would put it close to the edge of the horizon.
One has to be very careful when using quoted missile ranges as they are very dependant on the altitude of the target. the sea level range can be as little a third the high level range due to the air density. In the case of the sea ceptor I have read unconfirmed reports of successful intercepts at around the 50 Km range and one in excess of 70 km. As the range is stated as in excess of 25 km, this could be the sea level range and the maximum range may be 2 to 3 times this figure depending on altitude.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
One has to be very careful when using quoted missile ranges as they are very dependant on the altitude of the target. the sea level range can be as little a third the high level range due to the air density. In the case of the sea ceptor I have read unconfirmed reports of successful intercepts at around the 50 Km range and one in excess of 70 km. As the range is stated as in excess of 25 km, this could be the sea level range and the maximum range may be 2 to 3 times this figure depending on altitude.
Are you certain the missile you read about was Sea Ceptor, and not CAMM-ER? The CAMM-ER being an extended range development of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), and CAMM served as the base for Sea Ceptor.

Given that Sea Ceptor was designed and developed as a replacement for the Sea Wolf point defence missile, which itself had a max range and altitude of of approximately 5,000 m and 3,000 m respectively, then I have to question whether or not it was actually a Sea Ceptor doing an intercept at 10x the range.

I have included data sheets the manufacturer MDBA put out for both their Sea Ceptor and CAMM-ER products, with listed ranges of 25+ and 40+ km respectively.
 

Attachments

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I would argue that there is plenty which could and potentially would stop the RNZN from getting SM-2/3/6 or Aster 30 or their follow-on designs in the Future Frigate, a future Labour gov't comes to mind, as do the Greens, or even some flavours of National gov't...
On post 5861 above you spoke of the necessity for the next frigate to to have a "stronger area air defence capability as well, beyond what Sea Ceptor is supposed to provide." On the post above you now run a line that potentially the lefty types might not like it. They may or may not and I am none the wiser where these two statement converge into arguendum. The electoral math particularly with respect to long term polling trends even under an MMP system is against a pure Labour-Greens hard left government achieving power, which would downgrade or cancel frigate project in whole or in part - does not look promising particularly within the suggested timeframe. The Greens-Labour bloc have been relatively static within a 38 to 43% band since 2007 and pretty much require a third party such as NZ First, who are more hawkish or neo-realist to the Greens/Labour on Defence and National Security posture and act as present a handbrake to their traditional liberal middle class virtue signalling tendencies. The current opposition and former Govt have maintained a 44-49% polling band since 2007.

However, if a future RNZN frigate was to have for example Mk41 VLS which considering the numerous design options out there as well as new generation MFR systems that are emerging over the next decade, it would be abjectly sensible for any NZ government to "future proof" the future frigate (which will be scheduled to arrive around 12-15 years from now) to have the option of been able to acquiring for example SM-6 which would give the "stronger area air defence capability" you desired as well as the potential for other options such as anti-surface warfare and sea-based terminal ballistic missile defence in one solution. By the time the RFI is released at least 5 years away and the strategic outlook considerations will be more certain.

Also I would tend to consider Sea Ceptor, with a claimed range of ~25 km, to be right on the cusp between being 'just' a short-ranged missile, and being able to engage at medium range.
It is not likely it will be just Sea Ceptor providing the future ships defensive screen and that a CIWS even like the present Phalanx wont be part of providing the 1,300km² engagement envelope that even the upgraded Anzacs will have.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
Precisely. Though the Sea Ceptor is the SR missile selected for the RNZN over the long haul there is nothing to stop them only acquiring strike length Mk41 VLS cells for a LR standard missile variant (and other VLS hosted weapons) for example as well as lighter weight reduced footprint launcher such as ExLS specifically for Sea Ceptor in the future Anzac replacement. ExLS and Sea Ceptor offers considerable flexibility with respect to the usage of "real estate" on a warship.

Sea Ceptor plus ESSM block 2 would be my thinking - getting anything with a longer reach would presume they'd have off board sensors to cue those longer range missiles and I just don't see any point - they'd either be working as part of a coalition in which case, CEC and Link will be more dangerous weapons than anything in the silos, or they'll be in a low intensity environment vs lower tier opposition where Sea Ceptor will be over kill.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Sea Ceptor plus ESSM block 2 would be my thinking - getting anything with a longer reach would presume they'd have off board sensors to cue those longer range missiles and I just don't see any point - they'd either be working as part of a coalition in which case, CEC and Link will be more dangerous weapons than anything in the silos, or they'll be in a low intensity environment vs lower tier opposition where Sea Ceptor will be over kill.
Agree that CEC and LInk would be absolutely necessary. But there is an inconsistency in that somehow there is no point in NZ having an ability to protect its own self interests which is a position I flatly disagree with. That fact that we would be in a coalition at times and should not preclude the RNZN having equanimity with other coalition members in the capability of our surface combatants to protect its own interests.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
On post 5861 above you spoke of the necessity for the next frigate to to have a "stronger area air defence capability as well, beyond what Sea Ceptor is supposed to provide." On the post above you now run a line that potentially the lefty types might not like it. They may or may not and I am none the wiser where these two statement converge into arguendum. The electoral math particularly with respect to long term polling trends even under an MMP system is against a pure Labour-Greens hard left government achieving power, which would downgrade or cancel frigate project in whole or in part - does not look promising particularly within the suggested timeframe. The Greens-Labour bloc have been relatively static within a 38 to 43% band since 2007 and pretty much require a third party such as NZ First, who are more hawkish or neo-realist to the Greens/Labour on Defence and National Security posture and act as present a handbrake to their traditional liberal middle class virtue signalling tendencies. The current opposition and former Govt have maintained a 44-49% polling band since 2007.

However, if a future RNZN frigate was to have for example Mk41 VLS which considering the numerous design options out there as well as new generation MFR systems that are emerging over the next decade, it would be abjectly sensible for any NZ government to "future proof" the future frigate (which will be scheduled to arrive around 12-15 years from now) to have the option of been able to acquiring for example SM-6 which would give the "stronger area air defence capability" you desired as well as the potential for other options such as anti-surface warfare and sea-based terminal ballistic missile defence in one solution. By the time the RFI is released at least 5 years away and the strategic outlook considerations will be more certain.

It is not likely it will be just Sea Ceptor providing the future ships defensive screen and that a CIWS even like the present Phalanx wont be part of providing the 1,300km² engagement envelope that even the upgraded Anzacs will have.
From my outsider's perspective, the concern has less to do with the political orientation of the NZG decision influencers and more to do with their values or what they consider important, though I acknowledge that often times one does start to resemble the other.

In this regard, I have concerns based on both past/current defence acquisition history, the degree of importance and methodology in establishing VfM for future major fleet acquisitions, and the scope of operational environments a future surface combatant would be honestly considered for. It is this last bit, where the ongoing tendency on the part of the Kiw public as well as gov't, is to be ignorant of or as we have mentioned many times over the years, is to demonstrate "sea blindness."

What I would like to see is an increased awareness among the general NZ population of the intersection between Defence and Trade and how they can impact their everyday daily life. A prime example would be that NZ is a net importer of oil with over half the crude oil coming from the Mideast, or that on average there are 15 - 20 tanker movements each month that bring crude oil, feedstocks and petroleum products to NZ.

Therefore I am attempting to spark a conversation which can hopefully be sustained and make a transition from just being within defence circles to the Kiwi population at large, which can see the parallels between emergency/contingency and defence planning and get people to ditch the all too common attitude of, "this could never happen to me," while also causing people to recognize that far off events can absolutely have a direct impact on their lives.

As an example of far off events, consider the following scenario:

The last several years have been a proliferation on AShM, to the point that there have been several successful launches in the Mideast carried out by non-state actors which targeted vessels in the Med off the coast of Lebanon (and sank an Egyptian freighter IIRC) as well as USN warships off the coast of Yemen. What would be the impact on both the international fuel commodities market and international shipping, if a loaded tanker departing or in transit past Aden was struck by AShM? I would imagine that such an incident would roil both the commodities market and shipping, causing significant spikes in the cost of shipping, as well as in the cost of fuel. Such spikes in cost, as well as the potential perception of threats, could also trigger hoarding and/or shortages of fuel in terms of international availability. If there were such market impacts internationally, those impacts would also reach the domestic Kiwi market, causing price increases, shortages, hoarding and/or all the above to take place within NZ. Now if the tanker which was hit was bound for Whangarei (location of the only refinery in NZ) then I suspect the impact upon NZ would be felt that much sooner and sharply. That is just a single, unlikely yet very possible example of a threat to NZ's SLOC which I suspect that most Kiwis would not even consider.

If we can get the public to consider what they regularly use of consume, where it comes from, and how it gets to them, then we might also get there to be more recognition of the Value for Money for assets which protect the source of goods consumed and routes taken to bring those goods to NZ.

However if that message cannot be conveyed to the public, then the decisions could rest solely in the hands of policy makers whose ignorance and/or ideological perspectives limit them from looking past the 12 n mile home waters limit, or perhaps the 200 n miles EEZ limit.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
In this regard, I have concerns based on both past/current defence acquisition history, the degree of importance and methodology in establishing VfM for future major fleet acquisitions, and the scope of operational environments a future surface combatant would be honestly considered for. It is this last bit, where the ongoing tendency on the part of the Kiwi public as well as gov't, is to be ignorant of or as we have mentioned many times over the years, is to demonstrate "sea blindness."
I would suggest that though that is a reasonable view to take over the last 20 years, there have been some sensible decisions in recent time particularly following the DWP released and 2010 and acted on since 2012. I agree that not enough, emphasis at times has been paid towards defence, in fact the 2000's tantamounts to being a lost decade.

What I would like to see is an increased awareness among the general NZ population of the intersection between Defence and Trade and how they can impact their everyday daily life. A prime example would be that NZ is a net importer of oil with over half the crude oil coming from the Mideast, or that on average there are 15 - 20 tanker movements each month that bring crude oil, feedstocks and petroleum products to NZ.

Therefore I am attempting to spark a conversation which can hopefully be sustained and make a transition from just being within defence circles to the Kiwi population at large, which can see the parallels between emergency/contingency and defence planning and get people to ditch the all too common attitude of, "this could never happen to me," while also causing people to recognize that far off events can absolutely have a direct impact on their lives.
I take the view that their is a silent majority amongst the voting public who instinctively do get the importance of defence. However the real issue is that our MSM is uninformed and when there is debate or discussion on those seldom occasions their is always self selection from a very small group of go to 'luvvies' with 1011 or 6012 postcodes who seldom include actual defence specialists or conservative public intellectuals. Thus the public do not hear much debate on the topic as it is either conducted superficially with a tone of distained superiority or not at all.

The scenarios you outlined are relevant and the fuel security and SLOC issue is something that affects both NZ even more than Australia and one could easily transfer Jim Molans concerns on that across to NZ and duplicate the negative effect, especially in light of the economic vandalism undertaken by the current government to kill off the oil and gas industry and the supporting industries such as heavy engineering for their eco-theological goal of 100% renewables by 2050. Faith based politics never ends well.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I would suggest that though that is a reasonable view to take over the last 20 years, there have been some sensible decisions in recent time particularly following the DWP released and 2010 and acted on since 2012. I agree that not enough, emphasis at times has been paid towards defence, in fact the 2000's tantamounts to being a lost decade.
I will agree that there have been some sensible decisions made, but IMO they have been too few, and too far between.

As it still stands, a decision has yet to be announced (and possibly made) regarding the FAMC. IIRC the results of the Air Transport Review was due to be released in 2015 which was to provide some direction to the programmes seeking to replace RNZAF airlift capabilities and here it is, three years later with fewer options available due to production having ceased for some designs, but no decisions made and therefore no replacement in the pipeline.

Granted that is a RNZAF capability, not a RNZN capability, but it does show how defence decisions in NZ can get put off, postponed, or deferred. If that is permitted to go on too long, then NZ could be forced to select assets that are not fit for purpose, have a reasonable cost, or a combination thereof, simply because alternatives are not available.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This should also be on the RNZAF thread but the delay on airlift meant the best choice (C-17) was lost and a bad choice ( A400M) has become apparent.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
This should also be on the RNZAF thread but the delay on airlift meant the best choice (C-17) was lost and a bad choice ( A400M) has become apparent.
I mentioned it not so much to discuss that specific case, but really to illustrate how easy is can be for decision makers to defer decisions, or request that studies be conducted, as deadlines to action approach or are passed.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
I will agree that there have been some sensible decisions made, but IMO they have been too few, and too far between.

As it still stands, a decision has yet to be announced (and possibly made) regarding the FAMC. IIRC the results of the Air Transport Review was due to be released in 2015 which was to provide some direction to the programmes seeking to replace RNZAF airlift capabilities and here it is, three years later with fewer options available due to production having ceased for some designs, but no decisions made and therefore no replacement in the pipeline.
That is true with respect to the RNZAF but Bill English myopically saw that having a 20% GDP debt ratio, structural surpluses, rock star economy status, trumped shelling out for two C-17s which might have put a small dent in that and in itself undid months of MoD and NZDF work. Bill English was more interested in counting up the money than spending it. Coleman also is to blame in that he did not press home that it was very much an issue of timing. The latest delay is simply political theatre in that the current new minister has to look as though he is reviewing everything. But this is OT and we should be discussing RNZN.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
This should also be on the RNZAF thread but the delay on airlift meant the best choice (C-17) was lost and a bad choice ( A400M) has become apparent.
I'd rather not because this topic has been thrashed over there even 3 years ago when the Govt was too busy slapping themselves on the back having the rock star economy. Same govt who last March had all the information to make a decision on the P-8 and could have made a decision with in weeks and then lost the election whilst having a rock star economy.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
That is true with respect to the RNZAF but Bill English myopically saw that having a 20% GDP debt ratio, structural surpluses, rock star economy status, trumped shelling out for two C-17s which might have put a small dent in that and in itself undid months of MoD and NZDF work. Bill English was more interested in counting up the money than spending it. Coleman also is to blame in that he did not press home that it was very much an issue of timing. The latest delay is simply political theatre in that the current new minister has to look as though he is reviewing everything. But this is OT and we should be discussing RNZN.
Wasn't Big Gerry the one who took the C-17s to Cabinet and failed? I thought that it started after Colemans time.
 

MrConservative

Super Moderator
Staff member
Wasn't Big Gerry the one who took the C-17s to Cabinet and failed? I thought that it started after Colemans time.
All that time in the lead up until Gerry took over in late 2014 the whitetail numbers were falling it was Coleman in charge and did not press it knowing that the A400M alternative was starting to look dodgy. Gerry took it to Cabinet when he realised the clock was ticking but the annual budget appropriations had been done for the next year and they (Key, English and Joyce who were really in charge) took the risk that the remaining 5 whitetails by April 3015 were not going to go all at once and the A400M might come good. Also they did not do what OZ did and secure options to 2 more in late 2014 which they picked up by March 2015. I still for the life of me wonder why on earth Qatar which is smaller than the Marlborough District Council in land area needs 8 C-17s other than its Gulf rival also have them.

Back to to RNZN matters ....
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Are you certain the missile you read about was Sea Ceptor, and not CAMM-ER? The CAMM-ER being an extended range development of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), and CAMM served as the base for Sea Ceptor.

Given that Sea Ceptor was designed and developed as a replacement for the Sea Wolf point defence missile, which itself had a max range and altitude of of approximately 5,000 m and 3,000 m respectively, then I have to question whether or not it was actually a Sea Ceptor doing an intercept at 10x the range.

I have included data sheets the manufacturer MDBA put out for both their Sea Ceptor and CAMM-ER products, with listed ranges of 25+ and 40+ km respectively.
Are you certain the missile you read about was Sea Ceptor, and not CAMM-ER? The CAMM-ER being an extended range development of the Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM), and CAMM served as the base for Sea Ceptor.

Given that Sea Ceptor was designed and developed as a replacement for the Sea Wolf point defence missile, which itself had a max range and altitude of of approximately 5,000 m and 3,000 m respectively, then I have to question whether or not it was actually a Sea Ceptor doing an intercept at 10x the range.

I have included data sheets the manufacturer MDBA put out for both their Sea Ceptor and CAMM-ER products, with listed ranges of 25+ and 40+ km respectively.
Some of the info was quoted as the sea ceptor, some may have referred to the CAMM air launched version which would have a longer range. the info was from testing which had occurred, sometime around 2014 or 2015 so was definitely not the ER. If the range of the sea ceptor is 25 km at sea level then this could easily give a range of 50 km at high altitude.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Some of the info was quoted as the sea ceptor, some may have referred to the CAMM air launched version which would have a longer range. the info was from testing which had occurred, sometime around 2014 or 2015 so was definitely not the ER. If the range of the sea ceptor is 25 km at sea level then this could easily give a range of 50 km at high altitude.
If the testing was done around 2014 or 2015, then that indeed could have been CAMM-ER. I have uploaded a CAMM-ER datasheet from MDBA which was archived from 2 April, 2015, meaning that MDBA had made the information public at least as early as that date. The range listed on that datasheet was >45 km, which would tie in with testing done in 2014 or 2015.

In terms of effective missile ranges, I would tend to go with what the manufacturer or operator tends to publish, with the understanding that there could be exceptions and/or circumstances where they could be greater than what is claimed.

While Sea Ceptor might be able to reach out, under the correct set of circumstances, to hit an aerial target 50 km out, I would expect that the system controlling the launch would have inhibitors or restrictions placed on it to prevent wasteful launches and that in most cases, something 50 km out would be stopped because the circumstances would not be correct for a successful hit.
 

Attachments

Top