Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

The point I was making they have removed the primary launcher from MK41 to the Brit CAMM, I’m not say one is better than the other but for a potential stop gap like what was being suggested. NZG is risk adverse it won’t stock pile incompatible weapons than what is currently used.

Do you see the RNZN next new build frigates using MK41 or stick with CAMM?

The current belief is that the future NZFFG will use the Mk-41 VLS and either the ExLS capsules for the Sea Ceptor that slot into the Mk-41 cells or standalone ExLS VLS which can be fitted anywhere on the superstar. The new CAMM(M)-ER is due out soon, and I believe it has been test flown. It is supposed to have to a range > 40 km.

The RNZN was supposed to start the FNZFFG project late last year, but since the ANZAC FFH replacement has been put back by about 5 years I would think that the replacement project start has been postponed.

It still doesn't resolve the issue of not enough frigates and that is something that the current government should be addressing instead of burying its head in the sand and wishing it away. In fact they have their heads firmly jammed up their collective arses about it, and they are just the latest in the long line of governments who have had their heads jammed up their collective arses.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

The current belief is that the future NZFFG will use the Mk-41 VLS and either the ExLS capsules for the Sea Ceptor that slot into the Mk-41 cells or standalone ExLS VLS which can be fitted anywhere on the superstar. The new CAMM(M)-ER is due out soon, and I believe it has been test flown. It is supposed to have to a range > 40 km.

I believe the ER was test launched in 2019

I don't know the results of said test... but then again I haven't looked into it.

I wonder does the mushroom farm the the ANZACS have are they able to use the ER or is that for the standard CAMM only...??? I haven't looked in to that either my guess is not considering the dimensions are different. If it was me designing it I would have the and insert on the tube for the smaller missile and if you want to upgrade you take out the insert... but that is just me...

 

[alexsa]

I believe the ER was test launched in 2019

I don't know the results of said test... but then again I haven't looked into it.

I wonder does the mushroom farm the the ANZACS have are they able to use the ER or is that for the standard CAMM only...??? I haven't looked in to that either my guess is not considering the dimensions are different. If it was me designing it I would have the and insert on the tube for the smaller missile and if you want to upgrade you take out the insert... but that is just me...

To be honest ...I have no idea on whether CAMM-ER will fit in the same cell as the CAMM ... you would hope that was the case. The flip side to this is ESSM BKII. It will be interesting to see how CAMM-ER and Block II the two compare noting vessels that can fire Block I should be able to shoot block II.

I do like the small foot print and cold shot of the CAMM but if ESSM Block II exceeds the performance of that missile it could be an interesting situation.

 

[ngatimozart]

To be honest ...I have no idea on whether CAMM-ER will fit in the same cell as the CAMM ... you would hope that was the case. The flip side to this is ESSM BKII. It will be interesting to see how CAMM-ER and Block II the two compare noting vessels that can fire Block I should be able to shoot block II.

I do like the small foot print and cold shot of the CAMM but if ESSM Block II exceeds the performance of that missile it could be an interesting situation.

The RCN will be able to give a valuable comparison because they are fitting both to their CSC ships. The Sea Ceptor is going to be their CIWS.

 

[t68]

The RCN will be able to give a valuable comparison because they are fitting both to their CSC ships. The Sea Ceptor is going to be their CIWS.

I was under the impression the Canadians were putting Sea Ceptor in ExLS and not the MBDA mushrooms

 

[chis73]

MBDA recently began marketing the naval variant of the CAMM-ER - as Albatros NG (i.e. next-gen Albatros), with an unnamed foreign launch customer already.

Albatros was roughly an Italian version of the Mk29 launcher & Sea Sparrow, using the Aspide missile. I think there was an updated version offered a while back (using Aspide 2000?), don't know if it was bought by any navies (maybe Brazil?).

As you can see in the launch video linked above, CAMM-ER is soft-launched from it's own custom VLS tube. At 4.2m long, CAMM-ER definitely won't fit into the ex-Sea Wolf VLS tubes that the RN & RNZN appear to be using for CAMM / Sea Ceptor, unless they adapt it and make the mushroom farm much much taller . As the CAMM-ER is substantially heavier than CAMM, it will need a more powerful compressed air system for launch as well I would think.

Albatros NG will offer similar performance to ESSM Blk 2, in a lighter missile (160kg vs 300kg). Unlike ESSM, Albatros NG seems too long to fit in the old Mk29 launcher that the original Albatros system used.

I'm disappointed that the RNZN seem to have followed the RN in using the bulky ex-Sea Wolf silos instead of MBDA's own launch tubes. The Sea Wolf tubes seem a very poor use of space (resulting in a low missile density), probably as the Sea Wolf cells were designed to cope with hot efflux. The RN Type 23 frigate gets 32 Sea Ceptor (same number of missiles as it had for Sea Wolf), the RNZN only 20 on the Anzac. Using MBDA cells the density could be much higher (nearly double I would think). The Sea Ceptor missiles (at 99kg each) don't create much of a weight problem. Perhaps the reason the ex-Sea Wolf tubes are being used is safety related (in case the missile fails to launch & somehow ignites in the tube), at least it can cope with the rocket exhaust gases. Either that or the RN were simply too cheap to remove them.

 

[ngatimozart]

I was under the impression the Canadians were putting Sea Ceptor in ExLS and not the MBDA mushrooms

They are. Nothing was said about putting them in mushrooms.

MBDA recently began marketing the naval variant of the CAMM-ER - as Albatros NG (i.e. next-gen Albatros), with an unnamed foreign launch customer already.

Albatros was roughly an Italian version of the Mk29 launcher & Sea Sparrow, using the Aspide missile. I think there was an updated version offered a while back (using Aspide 2000?), don't know if it was bought by any navies (maybe Brazil?).

As you can see in the launch video linked above, CAMM-ER is soft-launched from it's own custom VLS tube. At 4.2m long, CAMM-ER definitely won't fit into the ex-Sea Wolf VLS tubes that the RN & RNZN appear to be using for CAMM / Sea Ceptor, unless they adapt it and make the mushroom farm much much taller . As the CAMM-ER is substantially heavier than CAMM, it will need a more powerful compressed air system for launch as well I would think.

Albatros NG will offer similar performance to ESSM Blk 2, in a lighter missile (160kg vs 300kg). Unlike ESSM, Albatros NG seems too long to fit in the old Mk29 launcher that the original Albatros system used.

I'm disappointed that the RNZN seem to have followed the RN in using the bulky ex-Sea Wolf silos instead of MBDA's own launch tubes. The Sea Wolf tubes seem a very poor use of space (resulting in a low missile density), probably as the Sea Wolf cells were designed to cope with hot efflux. The RN Type 23 frigate gets 32 Sea Ceptor (same number of missiles as it had for Sea Wolf), the RNZN only 20 on the Anzac. Using MBDA cells the density could be much higher (nearly double I would think). The Sea Ceptor missiles (at 99kg each) don't create much of a weight problem. Perhaps the reason the ex-Sea Wolf tubes are being used is safety related (in case the missile fails to launch & somehow ignites in the tube), at least it can cope with the rocket exhaust gases. Either that or the RN were simply too cheap to remove them.

Yes I get the impression that the mushrooms are used as a cost cutting exercise. That would be the reason why the NZG went with them.

 

[t68]

They are. Nothing was said about putting them in mushrooms.

Sorry I must have misunderstood what you were saying about the lenght if ER would fit in the mushrooms

 

[StingrayOZ]

lbatros NG will offer similar performance to ESSM Blk 2, in a lighter missile (160kg vs 300kg). Unlike ESSM, Albatros NG seems too long to fit in the old Mk29 launcher that the original Albatros system used.

I'm a bit hesitant to put them in the same class. While expected range and features are similar, IMO they are different missiles. Several navies see them as complimentary rather than equivalent.

Its not clear how big the warhead is on CAMM - I've heard its slightly bigger than brimstone, so 6-10Kg? Which is reasonable against smaller, softer air targets, subsonic cruise missiles, fighter planes etc. ESSM is 40Kg. Sometimes you do want a larger warhead.

It does seem like a very odd combination, of the lightweight camm with the heavy sea wolf launcher. Why not just save more money and continue with the an American VLS and quad pack CAMM. All this modification for 4 extra CAMM, seems er, interesting.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm a bit hesitant to put them in the same class. While expected range and features are similar, IMO they are different missiles. Several navies see them as complimentary rather than equivalent.

Its not clear how big the warhead is on CAMM - I've heard its slightly bigger than brimstone, so 6-10Kg? Which is reasonable against smaller, softer air targets, subsonic cruise missiles, fighter planes etc. ESSM is 40Kg. Sometimes you do want a larger warhead.

It does seem like a very odd combination, of the lightweight camm with the heavy sea wolf launcher. Why not just save more money and continue with the an American VLS and quad pack CAMM. All this modification for 4 extra CAMM, seems er, interesting.

If you read what I wrote earlier, ESSM Blk II wasn't, and still isn't, operational when the Frigate Systems Upgrade decision made. So what's the point of having VLS cells and no missiles in them for god knows how long? That's one and probably the main reason Sea Ceptor was selected. It would be available when the first ship came out of the refit. The other reason would have been cost.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Yeh, but if the idea was to put CAMM on to an Anzac, wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to quad pack them into the original VLS. Then its basically a software upgrade to be able to fire them? the ExLS inserts drops into the existing VLS. No cutting, No welding.

I can understand the want of CAMM. I like CAMM, I think a lot of navies should look at it, in addition to ESSM, or on ships where ESSM isn't appropriate or needed. I am not saying NZ should get BLK II that is a different argument. But you don't need the seawolf launcher to launch CAMM.

DSEI 2013: MBDA & Lockheed Martin make first CAMM launch from an MK 41 - ADS Advance

But then you could have a mix of both or just the single type if what you wanted. The cutting and welding a new VLS system can't be cheap either. Lower risk, greater speed, more flexibility. I would imagine fitting the ExLS insert and the software upgrade could have been done in NZ.

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeh, but if the idea was to put CAMM on to an Anzac, wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to quad pack them into the original VLS. Then its basically a software upgrade to be able to fire them? the ExLS inserts drops into the existing VLS. No cutting, No welding.

I can understand the want of CAMM. I like CAMM, I think a lot of navies should look at it, in addition to ESSM, or on ships where ESSM isn't appropriate or needed. I am not saying NZ should get BLK II that is a different argument. But you don't need the seawolf launcher to launch CAMM.

DSEI 2013: MBDA & Lockheed Martin make first CAMM launch from an MK 41 - ADS Advance

But then you could have a mix of both or just the single type if what you wanted. The cutting and welding a new VLS system can't be cheap either. Lower risk, greater speed, more flexibility. I would imagine fitting the ExLS insert and the software upgrade could have been done in NZ.

That's far to logical. I don't think that the ExLS was available when the contracts were signed. Also the project was delayed for various reasons, mostly political around funding.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Yeh, but if the idea was to put CAMM on to an Anzac, wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to quad pack them into the original VLS. Then its basically a software upgrade to be able to fire them? the ExLS inserts drops into the existing VLS. No cutting, No welding.

I can understand the want of CAMM. I like CAMM, I think a lot of navies should look at it, in addition to ESSM, or on ships where ESSM isn't appropriate or needed. I am not saying NZ should get BLK II that is a different argument. But you don't need the seawolf launcher to launch CAMM.

DSEI 2013: MBDA & Lockheed Martin make first CAMM launch from an MK 41 - ADS Advance

But then you could have a mix of both or just the single type if what you wanted. The cutting and welding a new VLS system can't be cheap either. Lower risk, greater speed, more flexibility. I would imagine fitting the ExLS insert and the software upgrade could have been done in NZ.

I assumed the benefit was top weight reduction leading to better sea keeping given the location. I think I picked that impression of comments made here by people more learned than myself.

 

[t68]

I assumed the benefit was top weight reduction leading to better sea keeping given the location. I think I picked that impression of comments made here by people more learned than myself.

That's what I was lead to believe also it was weight considerations, i think it was NG whom brought it up with the difference between the two. with the Kiwi ships be faster as well because of the reduced weight

 

[ADMk2]

They have only bought Sea Ceptor. That's one weapons system. They are acquiring the Mk-54 LWT to replace their MK-46 LWT. Unlike the RAN which is operating 2 completely different types of LWT. The ESSM Blk II hasn't even been fielded yet, whereas Sea Ceptor is already in service. So I think that you are stretching things somewhat far based on a single sample.

For now, but MU-90 doesn’t have a big future in ADF, we are investing in (and perhaps joining development) of the Mk-54 Mod 2 weapon and consolidating on that...

 

[swerve]

Yeh, but if the idea was to put CAMM on to an Anzac, wouldn't it have been a lot cheaper to quad pack them into the original VLS. Then its basically a software upgrade to be able to fire them? the ExLS inserts drops into the existing VLS. No cutting, No welding.

I can understand the want of CAMM. I like CAMM, I think a lot of navies should look at it, in addition to ESSM, or on ships where ESSM isn't appropriate or needed. I am not saying NZ should get BLK II that is a different argument. But you don't need the seawolf launcher to launch CAMM.

DSEI 2013: MBDA & Lockheed Martin make first CAMM launch from an MK 41 - ADS Advance

But then you could have a mix of both or just the single type if what you wanted. The cutting and welding a new VLS system can't be cheap either. Lower risk, greater speed, more flexibility. I would imagine fitting the ExLS insert and the software upgrade could have been done in NZ.

But which version of Mk 41 did the ANZACs have? Originally, it was fitted for Sea Sparrow only, & I suspect it may have been the self defence length variant, which seems to have been discontinued. Is there an ExLS insert to fit that? If not, paying for one, plus any maintenance of the efflux control parts of the launcher, would add to the cost, & the Kiwis may also have got some money for the Mk 41s taken off the ships.

This is speculation on my part, but I think they're possible factors in the decision. Without knowing the answers, I'd be reluctant to come to any conclusions.

 

[ngatimozart]

But which version of Mk 41 did the ANZACs have? Originally, it was fitted for Sea Sparrow only, & I suspect it may have been the self defence length variant, which seems to have been discontinued. Is there an ExLS insert to fit that? If not, paying for one, plus any maintenance of the efflux control parts of the launcher, would add to the cost, & the Kiwis may also have got some money for the Mk 41s taken off the ships.

This is speculation on my part, but I think they're possible factors in the decision. Without knowing the answers, I'd be reluctant to come to any conclusions.

The Mk-41 VLS was the 8 cell self defence version, that's been discontinued since about 2014. I am given to understand that ExLS pods were not available when the original project contracts were signed.

 

[alexsa]

The Mk-41 VLS was the 8 cell self defence version, that's been discontinued since about 2014. I am given to understand that ExLS pods were not available when the original project contracts were signed.

That all makes sense given the timing and lets face it ... hind sight is a wonderful thing.

For some reason I thought it was the tactical length version which was also fitted to the FFG. Mind you I cannot find any definitive advice on the version fitted to the ANZAC. Given the were definitely built FFBNW the shorter self defence version would make sense.

Australia’s Hazard(ous) Frigate Upgrades: Done at Last (defenseindustrydaily.com)

 

[StingrayOZ]

I guess I am curious about the reasoning and technical limitations. I'm not trying to change a decision. I think this information may be interesting if Australia ever tries to further upgrade the Anzacs. While I think the RAN is very happy with ESSM, and will upgrade to Blk II, CAMM can fit in as an inner layer more akin to seaRAM (which IMO is a much more equivalent missile). Even just adding 4-8 CAMM may be useful in this application (depending on what Bk II is actually capable of).

The Self defence version is still 5.3m long, while a CAMM is only 3.2m. Images of the setup seems to show it may fit. The ExLs isn't any bigger than the Self Defence Mk41 afaik. But perhaps this is misleading as ESSM is only 3.6m long and SD mk41 are designed to basically just fire that.



I guess I am seeing if top weight is an issue, sea keeping, if timing was a factor, or if it just wasn't heading in the direction NZ was going.

I find the project interesting, as ditching mk 41, ESSM, the combat system, then going to Canada other than the closer and original build nation Australia has all sorts of political statements in it. Putting in seawolf launchers limit future missile selection. Was that a deliberate choice or just a choice to solve issues around top weight and physical dimentions.

The Self defence Mk41 is basically discontinued because the ExLS standalone VLS is superior.

 

[ngatimozart]

I guess I am curious about the reasoning and technical limitations. I'm not trying to change a decision. I think this information may be interesting if Australia ever tries to further upgrade the Anzacs. While I think the RAN is very happy with ESSM, and will upgrade to Blk II, CAMM can fit in as an inner layer more akin to seaRAM (which IMO is a much more equivalent missile). Even just adding 4-8 CAMM may be useful in this application (depending on what Bk II is actually capable of).

The Self defence version is still 5.3m long, while a CAMM is only 3.2m. Images of the setup seems to show it may fit. The ExLs isn't any bigger than the Self Defence Mk41 afaik. But perhaps this is misleading as ESSM is only 3.6m long and SD mk41 are designed to basically just fire that.

View attachment 48057

I guess I am seeing if top weight is an issue, sea keeping, if timing was a factor, or if it just wasn't heading in the direction NZ was going.

I find the project interesting, as ditching mk 41, ESSM, the combat system, then going to Canada other than the closer and original build nation Australia has all sorts of political statements in it. Putting in seawolf launchers limit future missile selection. Was that a deliberate choice or just a choice to solve issues around top weight and physical dimentions.

The Self defence Mk41 is basically discontinued because the ExLS standalone VLS is superior.

Where did you get the illustration from? Looks interesting.

I would with reasonable certainty that there was no political implications in it at all, because the selection and approval of Sea Ceptor and the replacement of the Mk-41 VLS was approved under the John Key /Bill English National Governments prior to the 2017 election win by the Ardern Labour led Coalition Government. The decision would have been weighted by suitability, availability, and cost. I think that you are being somewhat overly sensitive about any perceived potential anti Australian political sentiments originating out of NZ.