No, Sea Ceptor can be used in the Mk-41. LM have already done it and when it is decided to go with tactical length Mk-41 VLS in the KiwiFFX, the Sea Ceptor is quite at home in that and you are the only who has said anything about Sea Ceptor being a temporary thing. In fact the replacement VLS could be the LM ExLS for all we know. Do you have a problem that we chose to go down an independent route rather than blindly follow Australia? The point is that the GOTD chose what they decided was best. Sea Ceptor offered something at the time (2014) that ESSM couldn't and still hasn't got with the much vaunted ESSM Blk II not even released to the fleet yet, which Sea Ceptor is. Also Sea Ceptor is variant of a set of three missiles and one day, heaven forbid, we might just chose to acquire a GBADS and Land Ceptor would fit the bill for the SHORAD, because of the commonality with Sea Ceptor.
And it may well be that ExLS and Mk41 VLS could be on a future RNZN Frigate. Quadpacked Sea Ceptor viz ExLS covering the LAAD end of the spectrum and the Mk41 cells for SM-6 covering anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare and sea-based terminal ballistic missile defence all in one solution plus ASROC.
They the RNZN, wanted a weight conscious, fast and more agile handling vessel.
From what I've read those issues are entirely political. A case of the head of the navy insisting on all the systems for the frigates be sourced from one supplier, Thales. So the government fired him and now, as you can see from the equipment list I posted earlier, Thales is conspicuously absent from that list. Here's the list of equipment the navy wanted:
No its not for me to say you should have gone down a certain route, I understand the reasoning behind the decision. I just find it illogical that you have changed to a different system and that the Anzac replacement may still have MK41, too me it just seems a waste of money changing systems if you are not planning to use it long term in future designs.
Mate, this post makes no sense. The selection of Sea Ceptor saved us money, it didn't cost us money. It's cheaper than ESSM, it's lighter than ESSM and you don't need an expensive sensor fit, like CEAFAR, to guide it.
And it does not require the expense, real estate, weight and cost of Mk41. VLS.
Clusters of the very compact 3 cell ExLS for LAAD via Sea Ceptor complementing the Mk41 cells for larger multi-role weapons like SM-6.
But we know already what are the relevant technical programmes that will be the mature and in use systems in a decade viz EASR & NGSSR, NIFC-CA & Combatss-21 and significantly for us on USN vessels ala FFG(X) whom we and the RAN will be operating alongside - which frankly is where we will need to focus on.
AFAIK money was not really the reason why the Mk 41 VLS was to be pulled from the Kiwi frigates during the upgrade. The main driving issue was topweight. A VLS array appropriate to hold and fire 20 Sea Ceptor missiles takes up less space/weight than the Mk 41 VLS. Now yes, the Mk 41 VLS could have been quad-packed with Sea Ceptor for a total of up to 32 missiles (which is a missile count I would have preferred) but as others have already pointed out here and elsewhere in the past, the ANZAC-class frigates have issues with displacement, and particularly topweight. The RAN was able to adopt one solution (which IIRC required ballasting in the hull and led to less freeboard) but the RNZN could not adopt that same solution without deleting the Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS.
Why would you build blocks in Lithuania and Estonia and assemble them in the UK, the Arrowhead 140 (if it wins) will have blocks built in various UK yards and assembled by Babcock in Rosyth, Rosyth knows what it's doing, this is how CVF was built and how the solid stores ships will also be assembled is the UK govt takes it head out of it's arse and confirms that these are naval vessels and should be built in the UK.
Having an NZ specific frigate would be very expensive, we have never had a bespoke specific to NZ frigate design before and I doubt the Navy or the Govt would be too keen on having the only examples of said frigate in operation.
To be somewhat pedantic, yes we have. The ANZACs are bespoke NZ frigates by means of cost cutting in their original build with differences in the fitout between the RNZN ships and the RAN ships. Since then the ships have further deviated via upgrades.
No way we should have a build or fit out done in the UK, US, Western Europe, Canada or Australia. It's just too expensive. That's why we are suggesting South Korea, maybe even Japan if the price is right.
I've always wonder why RNZN wouldn't add two pairs of Harpoon ASMs onto the ANZACs as part of the upgrade. This would give it quite a fair bit of Anti-surface capability which RNZN currently lacks.
No one is talking about going to OMT and asking for a Frigate designed from scratch for NZ. OMT produced an evolved design for SEA 5000 based off the F370 Iver, to be OZ built and iirc was to include dual hangers, greater emphasis on ASW than the original F370 Iver and substantially cheaper than the F100 and Type 26 designs. That may fit the bill.
The RNZN Anzac Class are now very different than other MEKO 200 hulls out there - the hull and COTS machinery is the basic bit. It is the CMS, sensors, radars, weapons fit out that are widely different, the bespoke part, the business end. Our post FSU Anzacs are closer to the Halifax Class in that regard than the RAN Anzacs. They seem comfortable with that.
I'd be weary of buying American. Their naval philosophy is at odds with ours. They like specialist vessels with large manning requirements designed to operate as part of a group, and they prioritize speed over endurance/range. Also their ships are very expensive and we'd be locked into using American weapons (no Sea Ceptor?). For comparison, an Arleigh Burke destroyer, built in the USA, costs over US$2 billion, whereas a Sejong the Great destroyer (basically an up-sized Arleigh Burke) built in SK costs US$935 million (FYI, I'm not suggesting those are the ships we're looking at
, just a price comparison to show the advantage of building in SK).A lot of NZers and NZ politicians are tree hugging hippies who think putting offensive weapons on ships is too aggressive for our peace loving nation.
Not sure why there is an assumption that NZ somehow made a bad decision going with the Lockheed Martin Canada solution to upgrade their ANZACs. I think it is a bit insulting to assume the RNZN didn't do its home work when this choice was made. I know the RCN is ecstatic with the performance of the CMS330/Smart-S combination, so there is no reason why the RNZN wouldn't be either. And while there is a good argument to be made that they should have stayed with ESSM for commonality, CAMM is an excellent system, so this is hardly a "bad" decision.
Having exactly the same systems is not necessary to achieve interoperability, The personal training standards and experience cycles are important and so is system communications. What also must be kept in mind is the NZ government's reluctance to spend money on defence, as to get the numbers we either get a simplified outcome, or reduced numbers of fully equipped units. What I was suggesting however was that any ship we replaced the ANZAC's with would unlikely to have been currently in service for a significant period of time as by the time we would be getting our replacements the design would be getting old. Something of the same era as the type 26 would be fine, but something designed over 10 years ago would be starting to look a little old by the time we put it into service in terms of hull design, machinery, noise reduction and crew requirements, etc.