Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

Out of my knowledge but in regards to CAMM and the CAMM-ER the dimensions both in height (as mentioned already) and width are different, Would this have any effect in allowing the CAMM-ER to slot straight into place where room has been made for the CAMM or would those vessels need further modification? Is there room within the launch cannister to cover the extra inch? Would the extra height cause no problems?

Could be there are no issues, On the other hand such a set up does limit how much the missile can grow compared to Mk41 VLS that gives more options.

In regards to CAMM-ER range, MBDA them selves are only stating 45+ km.

 

[ADMk2]

Where did you see the Sea Ceptor warhead size? I looked at the MBDA brochure and did not see info on the warhead, just the overall missile size/weight?

The area of potential concern from my POV would be if a Sea Ceptor-armed frigate was escorting other vessels, at which the Sea Ceptor could be used in an area air defence vs. self-defence capacity.

The potential for other RNZN vessels getting kitted out with Sea Ceptor to provide a self-defence capability, much like if they were fitted with SeaPhalanx and/or SeaRAM is worth exploring. The same could be said for the RAN's support and Minor Warfare vessels.

It is a possibility but RAN has shown very little interest in recent years in adopting multiple missile types.

The only time we have done so has been when older stock has been phased out (ala SM-1 -> SM-2).

As many have pointed out, most of the advantages of SeaCeptor with an active guidance system will be eliminated once ESSM Block II is introduced and given we are a part of the Global Supply Chain for ESSM and RAN being very happy with the missile performance even in it’s current state, I don’t see much opportunity for SeaCeptor in RAN service.

There are options for putting ESSM onto ships that don’t involved Mk 41 VL systems as seen with the Stanflex installations and canister launch options on US carriers, if they are deemed necessary.

 

[alexsa]

Where did you see the Sea Ceptor warhead size? I looked at the MBDA brochure and did not see info on the warhead, just the overall missile size/weight?

The area of potential concern from my POV would be if a Sea Ceptor-armed frigate was escorting other vessels, at which the Sea Ceptor could be used in an area air defence vs. self-defence capacity.

The potential for other RNZN vessels getting kitted out with Sea Ceptor to provide a self-defence capability, much like if they were fitted with SeaPhalanx and/or SeaRAM is worth exploring. The same could be said for the RAN's support and Minor Warfare vessels.

Most of the web is silent on the warhead except to note it is both direct hit and fragmentation. looking at ASRAM as an indication (albeit a tad lighter) this unit has a 10kg direct hit and fragmentation warhead.

 

[Todjaeger]

It is a possibility but RAN has shown very little interest in recent years in adopting multiple missile types.

The only time we have done so has been when older stock has been phased out (ala SM-1 -> SM-2).

As many have pointed out, most of the advantages of SeaCeptor with an active guidance system will be eliminated once ESSM Block II is introduced and given we are a part of the Global Supply Chain for ESSM and RAN being very happy with the missile performance even in it’s current state, I don’t see much opportunity for SeaCeptor in RAN service.

There are options for putting ESSM onto ships that don’t involved Mk 41 VL systems as seen with the Stanflex installations and canister launch options on US carriers, if they are deemed necessary.

My thinking regarding Sea Ceptor is as a VSHORAD/SHORAD system, in place of the RAN adopting something like the RIM-116 RAM. Of course much of that would depend on whether or not the Sea Ceptor launch system could be easily integrated with a potential vessel, and have the space/weight to take the launcher and missiles vs. the space/weight for either the RAM or SeaRAM launchers.

Also once Sea Ceptor reaches IOC with the RNZN, it is possible that its use could expand to other vessels within the RNZN. Aotearoa could potentially be fitted (as needed) with a small box launcher for a self-defence capability. Something similar could also be done for the LOSC vessel once it actually gets ordered, and/or the third OPV.

 

[alexsa]

My thinking regarding Sea Ceptor is as a VSHORAD/SHORAD system, in place of the RAN adopting something like the RIM-116 RAM. Of course much of that would depend on whether or not the Sea Ceptor launch system could be easily integrated with a potential vessel, and have the space/weight to take the launcher and missiles vs. the space/weight for either the RAM or SeaRAM launchers.

Also once Sea Ceptor reaches IOC with the RNZN, it is possible that its use could expand to other vessels within the RNZN. Aotearoa could potentially be fitted (as needed) with a small box launcher for a self-defence capability. Something similar could also be done for the LOSC vessel once it actually gets ordered, and/or the third OPV.

The problem I have with that is RAM can be carried in a Mk41 or in a SeaRAM system. The latter has more appeal give we have some of the infrastructure and it would be a great deal easier to fit on exiting vessels and provides good self defence. To be honest the LHD with 3 SeaRAM would make me happier that 3 Phalanx.

I just don’t see SeaCeptor having a place. To get the range you need the ER but then block II will provide that. At least the RAM option allows a layered defence form SM2/6, ESSM and then RAM (if we ever replaced Phalanx with Sea RAM)

If we were ever to add millennium guns to that it would be quite a potent mix

 

[MrConservative]

Also once Sea Ceptor reaches IOC with the RNZN, it is possible that its use could expand to other vessels within the RNZN. Aotearoa could potentially be fitted (as needed) with a small box launcher for a self-defence capability. Something similar could also be done for the LOSC vessel once it actually gets ordered, and/or the third OPV.

This has been considered as part of the background thinking as is ease of integration onto other future vessels. As has been pointed out in the past CAMM(M) does not need a traditional VLS that caters for hot launch. MBDA's CAMM(M) lightweight launch canisters can be boxed in containers.

 

[swerve]

The ER version is supposed to have a booster stage and be about 1 m longer than the 'regular' CAMM. In fact the CAMM-ER is ~2 ft longer than the ESSM, though with a smaller diameter and about 120 kg lighter. One thing which is unclear to me is how large a warhead Sea Ceptor has. The ESSM has a ~39 kg blast-frag warhead which should be sufficient to take out an aircraft of missile it hits, and make a mess of any smallcraft. The RIM-116 RAM is comparable in size and weight to Sea Ceptor, but has an ~11 kg warhead with considerably shorter range (~9 km vs. 25+ for Sea Ceptor).

CAMM-ER is 4.2 metres, i.e. 54 cm (21.3") longer than ESSM. Neither the pictures put out by MBDA nor their descriptions of it mention a booster. It's a metre longer than the basic CAMM, & has a fatter mid-section. They both use the same soft launch system, & as far as I can see the same seeker & warhead. The warhead is described as 'directed fragmentation', which sounds clever.

RAM is just under 75% of the weight of CAMM, & doesn't have the boost given by the soft launch.

 

[Todjaeger]

The problem I have with that is RAM can be carried in a Mk41 or in a SeaRAM system. The latter has more appeal give we have some of the infrastructure and it would be a great deal easier to fit on exiting vessels and provides good self defence. To be honest the LHD with 3 SeaRAM would make me happier that 3 Phalanx.

I just don’t see SeaCeptor having a place. To get the range you need the ER but then block II will provide that. At least the RAM option allows a layered defence form SM2/6, ESSM and then RAM (if we ever replaced Phalanx with Sea RAM)

If we were ever to add millennium guns to that it would be quite a potent mix

The SeaRAM looks interesting and of potential appeal for vessels which do not have their own dedicated radars and fire control systems, although the SeaRAM version only contains 11 missiles per launcher.

For vessels which can have a launcher just 'plug in' to the on board fire control, then it would really depend on the space and weight requirements for a Sea Ceptor's box launcher. Unfortunately I have only heard it described in some rough terms and nothing definitive other than it is smaller and lighter than the Mk 41 VLS currently fitted aboard the RNZN's frigates.

My preference long-term would be for the RNZN and RAN to be able to provide a layered air defence, with members of the Standard missile family covering the outer layer, ESSM/ESSM Block II and perhaps CAMM-ER covering the middle layer, then Sea Ceptor covering the inner layer (perhaps assisted by 76 mm or 127 mm guns) and then 35 mm Millennium Guns covering close-in.

However, if the footprint and/or weight required to fit Sea Ceptor is significantly more than for RAM or SeaRAM, then using RAM to cover the inner layer would likely be best.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The SeaRAM looks interesting and of potential appeal for vessels which do not have their own dedicated radars and fire control systems, although the SeaRAM version only contains 11 missiles per launcher.

For vessels which can have a launcher just 'plug in' to the on board fire control, then it would really depend on the space and weight requirements for a Sea Ceptor's box launcher. Unfortunately I have only heard it described in some rough terms and nothing definitive other than it is smaller and lighter than the Mk 41 VLS currently fitted aboard the RNZN's frigates.

My preference long-term would be for the RNZN and RAN to be able to provide a layered air defence, with members of the Standard missile family covering the outer layer, ESSM/ESSM Block II and perhaps CAMM-ER covering the middle layer, then Sea Ceptor covering the inner layer (perhaps assisted by 76 mm or 127 mm guns) and then 35 mm Millennium Guns covering close-in.

However, if the footprint and/or weight required to fit Sea Ceptor is significantly more than for RAM or SeaRAM, then using RAM to cover the inner layer would likely be best.

I think you really have to look at each system as the whole system it was designed for.

ESSM until recently needed external radar illumination. SeaRAM was a stand alone system. SeaRAM fits below ESSM in the pecking order, and is the common inner lay in many US defence ship systems. Or if the ships didn't have illumination channels free or if the radar was out.

Ideally you would have SM3, then SM6 and SM2, then ESSM blk2, then Sea ram, then your CIWS gun systems (~30-20mm).

The European aster and CAMM can fill the same sort of mix.

ESSM seems to be a closer match to Aster 15 than CAMM. CAMM original is closer to SeaRAM in weight. But they aren't exact mirrors of each other in capabilities.

I don't really understand why NZ is choosing to ditch american gear. ESSM Blk2 would seem to be a low risk and very capable addition.With Australia disposing of more ANZACs in the near future, I would have thought it would be an ideal time for NZ to lock step with Australia and get the chance to operate 3 or 4 well kitted frigates.

 

[alexsa]

The SeaRAM looks interesting and of potential appeal for vessels which do not have their own dedicated radars and fire control systems, although the SeaRAM version only contains 11 missiles per launcher.

For vessels which can have a launcher just 'plug in' to the on board fire control, then it would really depend on the space and weight requirements for a Sea Ceptor's box launcher. Unfortunately I have only heard it described in some rough terms and nothing definitive other than it is smaller and lighter than the Mk 41 VLS currently fitted aboard the RNZN's frigates.

My preference long-term would be for the RNZN and RAN to be able to provide a layered air defence, with members of the Standard missile family covering the outer layer, ESSM/ESSM Block II and perhaps CAMM-ER covering the middle layer, then Sea Ceptor covering the inner layer (perhaps assisted by 76 mm or 127 mm guns) and then 35 mm Millennium Guns covering close-in.

However, if the footprint and/or weight required to fit Sea Ceptor is significantly more than for RAM or SeaRAM, then using RAM to cover the inner layer would likely be best.

SeaRAM can be reloaded if extra rounds are carried and 11 is a marked improvement over 8 Sea Sparrow the ANZAC's used to carry (albeit at just over half the range).

 

[ngatimozart]

The December issue of Navy Today is out and CDRE Gilmore, Maritime Component Commander states that they are bring the IPVs back on line. He notes the gap between the FFH and hydrographic resource, so it appears that with Manawanui decommissioning early 2018, there are exciting developments regarding the LOSC and that it'll be a lot sooner than expected by people. IIRC one of the OPVs has the Multi-Beam Echo Sounder from Tui fitted, so it could undertake the droggie side of Manawanui's taskings. I also get the impression that the IPV's will be deployed to the Islands again, like they did for the recent six month deployment to Fiji. The Fijians were impressed with the deployment and lots of learnings occurred on both sides.

 

[ASSAIL]

The December issue of Navy Today is out and CDRE Gilmore, Maritime Component Commander states that they are bring the IPVs back on line. He notes the gap between the FFH and hydrographic resource, so it appears that with Manawanui decommissioning early 2018, there are exciting developments regarding the LOSC and that it'll be a lot sooner than expected by people. IIRC one of the OPVs has the Multi-Beam Echo Sounder from Tui fitted, so it could undertake the droggie side of Manawanui's taskings. I also get the impression that the IPV's will be deployed to the Islands again, like they did for the recent six month deployment to Fiji. The Fijians were impressed with the deployment and lots of learnings occurred on both sides.

About time to. These are ideal for NZ to fulfill its sovereignty obligations in its Island domain and for cooperative ops with other Pacific nations.
I honestly thought/presumed that this is what they were built for.

 

[Lucasnz]

With regards to CAMM Asia Pacific Defence Reporter in June 2014 advised that the Mk41 VLS system was been removed and that the CAMM selection was based on cost, capability and convenience. Given Defence Capital projects consider the whole of life costs it is probably not surprising that at the time CAMM was selected. Assuming the MOD's explanations for the cost blow out on the ANZAC upgrade are to be accepted (and its not political grandstanding) a potentially different outcome may have arisen and the Australian upgrade path may have been followed. That however is not a dead cert as the NZ ANZAC's are now fundmentally different from an engineering prespective from the RAN, and therefore have different considerations in relation to Weight and Stability.

The move from a mil spec LOSC to an off the shelf commerical Hydrographic / Diving vessel is of interest but in the latest version of Line of Defence defence appears to be revising the scope of the LOSC project for the view towards a dedicated vessel long term. CN has made it clear that the capability is required. CN also commented on the operation of all four IPV by saying:

In addition, Navy intends to operate all four Inshore Patrol Vessels in order to maximise resource and border protection response options, contribute to sea training and prepare for our forthcoming new and enhanced capabilities.

Personnally I think the Fijian deployment combined with the spare personnel from Endeavour have provided the opportunity for Defence to argue its case to the new Government (could be wrong). The long term capabilities based on the interview with CN refer to a fleet of 9 to 10 ships (tonnage in excess of 55,000) vs the 11 ships currently in operation (including Endeavour) and increasing personnel numbers. If I were to speculate that force would allow for this sort of mix at 10 vessels:

• 2-3 FFG
• 4-3 OPV
• 1 POLAR class vessel
• 1 LOSC
• 1 AOR
• 1 LSL or like

In my view the only way such a force structure would be acheivable is by dispensing with the IPV if full or part (i.e. a mixed IPV / OPV capability). If we go down the 10 ship route then the inshore and border protection should transfer to civilian agencies (i.e. customs) with those agencies provided with increased maritime patrol resources. Couple of other interesting comments in the article around training, which IMHO highlights some of the weakness in the current force structure, as the RNZN transitions, some of which cannot be avoided and cyber / intelliegence capabilties.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Reading the interview with the CN in Line of Defence it is very interesting to note his comments about a commercial dive support vessel and the LOSC.

Hopefully this comes to pass as the LOSC plan as originally released in the RFP showed a very well thought out multi purpose vessel. It will be interesting to see how long it takes to get a replacement for Manawanui. With so many offshore oil and gas support vessels sitting idle I cant see it taking too long other than for the actual expenditure of $$$$$$.

 

[chis73]

CN also commented on the operation of all four IPV by saying:

I suspect the only reason the RNZN are planning to operate all four IPVs is because they don't have anything better - faute de mieux as the French say. It is likely that the RNZN will have only 8 ships operable over the next two years (and four of those are the unsuitable IPVs) - no tanker, no diving ship, and at best - one frigate. It sounds from the interview in LoD that the Southern Ocean OPV is coming later - they are now talking 2025. The comment about the increase in tonnage is just trying to put a positive spin on what is a dreadful situation.

Hopefully the purchase of a commercial offshore supply vessel leaves some money in the kitty for a couple of Damen 1600 MRAVs (wonder how much they cost? - not that much surely). What's the point of modular payloads if you only have one ship to put them on?

Glad the frigate upgrade is going ahead at last. I found Brownlee's comments in particular appalling.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The MRAV 1600 are a tad light for deep water use are they not? Wouldnt a pair of MRAV 3500 be more approprite for RNZN service? As multipurpose platforms they could be tasked for a variety of military and other government department requirements.

With their large enclosed deck and heli pads they would offer additional sealift and small sea basing capability during HADR events leaving the Cantebury to undertake other tasks especially when she may be unavailable.

Whatever is chosen as a Manawanui replacement it is very likely to be significantly larger than the current 900 ton vessel. 2018 hopefully will see this vessel in RNZN service.

 

[chis73]

The MRAV 1600 are a tad light for deep water use are they not? Wouldnt a pair of MRAV 3500 be more approprite for RNZN service? As multipurpose platforms they could be tasked for a variety of military and other government department requirements.

With their large enclosed deck and heli pads they would offer additional sealift and small sea basing capability during HADR events leaving the Cantebury to undertake other tasks especially when she may be unavailable.

Whatever is chosen as a Manawanui replacement it is very likely to be significantly larger than the current 900 ton vessel. 2018 hopefully will see this vessel in RNZN service.

I'm not convinced on the MRAV 3600 - those RHIBs look too close to the waterline and a little to far forward for my liking.

As for the MRAV 1600 not being suitable for deep water - that may be so. But hydrography and diving operations aren't really deep-water sports. At 1600t dwt (add another couple of hundred tonnes for full load displacement), the MRAV 1600 would be plenty big enough for coastal work (which is all I expect them to do). The RN used to have HMS Roebuck (and before that the 4 Bulldog class vessels), the French have their 4-5 La Perouse class vessels (including Thetis & Arago), Canada has the 12 Kingston class - all of which are smaller than the MRAV 1600. I feel a helicopter pad is a luxury that can be sacrificed with these vessels - the Seasprite is rarely used on even the Otago class OPVs. Ability to occasionally operate a Scan Eagle UAV or similar would be sufficient. The only changes to the MRAV 1600 I would consider would be a pair of retractable stabilizer fins (with no rudder and a short, beamy, shallow-draught hull you may need help with roll reduction during transits to/from your operating area), and perhaps a Typhoon 25mm mount up front (to at least give it the semblance of a warship). Degaussing would be a luxury, next on the list if there is money available.

These vessels would be to make up the numbers (hopefully, cheaply) and to do the unglamorous stuff. Their ability to stay at sea for a couple of weeks would be a great improvement over the IPVs, although like Manawanui & Resolution, they will be slow. and take a long time to get anywhere.

 

[ngatimozart]

We are not sure what the options for the Manawanui replacement are. Will the basis of the LOSC still be pertinent? We have a new govt in charge now and they have a different political philosophy and priority set to that of the previous govt. All we really know at the moment is that $148 million has been redirected from the LOSC budget to the FFH upgrade budget and what the CN and MCC have stated. Anything else is pure uninformed speculation.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

We are not sure what the options for the Manawanui replacement are. Will the basis of the LOSC still be pertinent? We have a new govt in charge now and they have a different political philosophy and priority set to that of the previous govt. All we really know at the moment is that $148 million has been redirected from the LOSC budget to the FFH upgrade budget and what the CN and MCC have stated. Anything else is pure uninformed speculation.

Just a note about the MRAV 3600.
The size of the vessel is on par with what was HMNZS Monowai. Crew is roughly half the older vessel. A 1600 and a 3600 built at the Damen yard in Vietnam shouldnt break the bank.
I agree a 25mm up front and a couple of mini typhoons either side would give self protection.
A single ship is not sufficient and maybe this fact has been communicated by the senior staff to government. The 1600 to cover dive ops and the 3600 to be the multi purpose LOSC. At 1600 tons she would be 50% heavier and longer than Manwanui. It will be refreshing to the DT discussion once something happens on this and other defence acquisitions.

 

[ngatimozart]

In who's terms is a single ship not sufficient? The RNZN is not as lavishly funded as the RCN RAN or RN so it doesn't have the choice of multiple ships for the littoral warfare role. There was always only going to be one hull acquired for the littoral warfare role. It also comes down to the ability to crew the ship and the RNZN is not awash with suitably qualified and experienced personnel.