NZDF General discussion thread

If it is not common for countries of NZ size to have a civilian type for transport roles then how common would it be for a country with no fast jets to have large aerial refueling aircraft?

I mean yes, they would be a useful asset to share with others but what purpose would they serve NZ? Top up a herc or P-8 from time to time?

If the expectation is as a force multiplier for Aus and/or others then there would need to be a solid agreement on availability (NATO like?). After all, it was pointed out earlier we wouldn't even let our national airline work with the ADF in Iraq 2, so what happens if the RAAF plans to have a shared capability available and NZ gets cold feet. We have not proven to be the most reliable of partners over the last 50 odd years.

I personally think a C-2 or A400M capability in addition to the A321 and C-130 would form a very well rounded and sized transport fleet. But I don't see that happening either.
 
A potential issue with this being the case, is that C-130's are used by other nations to fly into McMurdo, which suggests that NZ could have opted for more C-130's to meet any potential airlift to Antarctica needs. In fact, the first RNZAF C-130J flight into the area was in 2024. From my POV, with only five C-130J's having been purchased, that is going to cause the RNZAF and NZDF problems down the line. Once the new aircraft start to approach their 'normal' mid-life, their maintenance needs are going to climb and likely availability will drop.
I'm fairly sure that even with under wing tanks, a C-130J still can't do Christchurch -> On top McMurdo, socked in can't land -> Christchurch, the crew still have a point of no return go/no go decision. I asked earlier (September 2024, in the RNZAF thread here) and nobody said it was doable.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I'm fairly sure that even with under wing tanks, a C-130J still can't do Christchurch -> On top McMurdo, socked in can't land -> Christchurch, the crew still have a point of no return go/no go decision. I asked earlier (September 2024, in the RNZAF thread here) and nobody said it was doable.
You might be correct, this linked article does not specifically state which NZ airfield the C-130J took off from, or where they landed on the return flight. However, the article also did mention a team being based out of Harewood Terminal in Christchurch that is responsible for moving passengers and cargo on a variety of RNZAF and USAF flights to Antarctica.
 

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
I’m gunna suggest that NZs acquisition of the A321 is indicative of a historical mindset.

I think NZ needs a long range strategic lifter, and I think the A321 is an excellent aircraft, and for its narrow mission set (moving Pers and pallet cargo, with some VIP adjuncts), it’s a good pick.
However I think NZ missed a potential by revealing its governing attitude to defence.

They could’ve opted for a flight of KC30s.
It would’ve addressed strategic lifter, and added a useful multiplier to its inevitable allied Air Capability thru supplementing AAR.
It could’ve mitigated costs by linking into its closest neighbour with training, logistics, operational exercises.
But it didn’t.

Im gunna suggest it didn’t because:
Either it didn’t even think of it.
- because it has a ‘single’ state mindset but inevitably will need to aspire to contribute to joint capability.

Or it says that the KC30 is too expensive.
In which case NZ says it wants to contribute, but not by that much!
Which reflects NZGov historical precedence of defaulting capability requirements to its allies.

So whilst the A321s are an excellent aircraft and more capable than its predecessor, it represents a missed opportunity for NZ and ANZAC capability as a whole.
I agree the KC30 would be a great asset for NZ to have.

But I think the reasons for not doing so (at this point in time*1.) may be for different reasons:
* Too much of an aircraft for NZ's troop lift needs, usually only needing to move an Army company (not up to 270 at a time or only very infrequently).
* Runway MTOW limitations in the SW Pacific (compared to smaller narrow body's eg A321 etc).
* AAR capability would be underutilised, making aircrew operation qualification difficult to maintain (eg no NZ fast air jets to routinely practice with. Not sure a handful of P-8's would sustain qualifications (the new C-130J's don't have AAR receiving fitout - design provision used for satcom instead). Meaning NZ aircrews may not be as proficient as say their RAAF counterparts (who then may be unwilling to "risk" using NZ KC30's for their fast air ops)?
* Therefore from a NZ Treasury point of view the higher acquisition and operating costs could not be justified.
* Finally, if NZDF somehow were to persuade the bean counters and obtain KC30 then Treasury/NZG may say that's it (for strategic airlift) and further acquisitions of ramp capable aircraft (A400M, C2 etc) won't be supported.

So suggest NZDF is actually thinking "strategically" (long term) for their strategic airlift i.e. acquire the A321 (box ticked for company troop transport/VIP) ... then when the Army finalises its future force structure it can make a case for larger ramp capability aircraft type. Well, that's what I b***** hope they are doing!

But back to your point of joint ANZAC capability. I agree and IMO we are not doing enough. I think attention needs to turn to better address RNZAF joint capability (with RAAF). I can accept the reality that currently the NZG priority #1 is sorting out the Army to be interoperable with the Australian Army (and even then the NZ Army is limited in its broad capabilities in comparison - how will this be addressed?), this takes us up to 2030 roughly. Secondly I can accept the reality is that the next NZG priority #2, from a funding perspective, is the RNZN (that takes us up to the mid-2030's).

*1. I would suggest that the 3rd priority (has to be, alas in terms of the aforementioned funding timelines) needs to then turn to Air capabilities including standing up fast air (primarily for maritime and airspace defence of NZ's Realm first before considering further expansion for Indo/Asia expeditionary), increased strategic/tactical airlift and theatre (helo) capabilities and increased manned/unmanned long-range air surveillance. All of this to allow true operational "concurrency", which will be critical in coming years. So from a realist funding perspective that's post 2035 (if we view it through the current lens of funding Army then Navy) ... except to say that small increments could start sooner (from post 2027 i.e. when the next defence assessment is due) because the advantage the RNZAF can bring to the table (to assist adding joint capability value with the RAAF) is that they already have certain interoperable capabilities that could be "easily" expanded upon alot quicker eg particularly P-8, C130J. RNZAF appears to be funded to have 1.5 aircrews for operational capabilities so expansion of personnel to support some early incremental expansion (C130, P8) should be achievable over a relatively short timeline.

In this era of the proliferation of uncrewed aerial craft production and the design of long range/armed UAV variants, plus with our immediate maritime regions under threat surely it is nearing the time to address the re-building of air and ground crew skillsets to operate fast air. Again with the priorities focused on Army and Navy fleet renewal we won't be able to afford "doing everything at once" (acquire F-35, now, as an example). But what we can afford is to acquire or lease some second hand type (for a relatively small pittance) to start qualifying a small number personnel (a cadre of future instructors for the post-2035 scenario - which may be a 6th Gen acquisition by then anyway). Training could be contracted in by the many private international companies specialising in this role. We currently have a Foreign Minister who is on excellent terms with his US Administration's Secretary of State counterpart, we have a Defence Minister who has managed to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to support defence initiatives and budget increases, we have a PM (and Finance Minister) who are well attuned to the connection of international trade and security (judging by their comments on these matters) and we have two Coalition support party's that are pro-defence. Has there been a better time in recent generations to bring things together? All we can do as "people" is to talk to our MP's and inform the next defence review call for feedback and just push it out there. I'm always (pleasantly) surprised when the MSM periodically brings back this topic when questioning the politicians. It's the missing link for a credible nation and provides a key enabler to "join-up" Govt planning going towards defending NZ's Maritime domain interests. And just as importantly it gives credibility to NZ's notions to work collaboratively with Australia. So why not?
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Been noticing that Kiwi defence and security analysts suggesting acquiring LRASM for the RNZAF P-8A's and Kongsberg NSM for the RNZN ANZAC FFH's. As this aligns with our allies and development/integration being carried out on these platforms.

USN P-8 and LRASM (AGM-158C-3) integration testing continues throughout 2025 and once it is operational, if the NZG can gain USG approval to acquire this capability I wonder how many years it would take considering both production timeframes and prioritisation for the USN and its closest allies needing this capability to counter threats that are literally on their doorstep (ASEAN and NATO)?
Yeah and I have been digging and can find no evidence of any program to integrate JSM onto the P-8A anyway, not even in Norway… Now that could change next week of course, but atm if you want to put a strike missile on your P-8A’s, it’s going to have to be a USN led program, which means Harpoon or LRASM.

One would hope that if NZ are going to do this seriously, than they don’t just settle for a quick and easy Harpoon installation, they do it properly and go with LRASM.

There are even some nifty little variants of LRASM that come with most of the capability of JASSM-ER (and also vice versa - JASSM-ER that comes with LRASM capability…) so NZ could get back into the long ranged land strike game with the same weapon, if they were, er, game…
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah and I have been digging and can find no evidence of any program to integrate JSM onto the P-8A anyway, not even in Norway… Now that could change next week of course, but atm if you want to put a strike missile on your P-8A’s, it’s going to have to be a USN led program, which means Harpoon or LRASM.

One would hope that if NZ are going to do this seriously, than they don’t just settle for a quick and easy Harpoon installation, they do it properly and go with LRASM.

There are even some nifty little variants of LRASM that come with most of the capability of JASSM-ER (and also vice versa - JASSM-ER that comes with LRASM capability…) so NZ could get back into the long ranged land strike game with the same weapon, if they were, er, game…
The only problem I have is our lack of platforms to make the option realy effective. Once the P8's are in their maintanance cycle it is likely that we will have only 2or 3 available and the frigates maybe one. Not much of a deterant as portrade by the goverment.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The only problem I have is our lack of platforms to make the option realy effective. Once the P8's are in their maintanance cycle it is likely that we will have only 2or 3 available and the frigates maybe one. Not much of a deterant as portrade by the goverment.
No, a single aircraft of any type short of a B-21A or larger isn’t going to deliver “much” strike. At best the RNZAF by itself might be able to sortie 2x P-8A aircraft on a single strike mission.

With the (latent) ability to employ up to 4x long range strike weapons (LRASM / JASSM-ER for simplicity sake) per aircraft though the ability extends to 8x stand-off precision strike weapons, not counting what RNZN or the New Zealand Army or allied capability might be able to contribute to the strike depending of course on a whole host of options, decisions, contingencies, geographical realities and so on.

But up to 8x standoff missiles might very well be sufficient to target a specific threat to NZ. Say a bomber detachment parked in a South Pacific Island, or a maritime taskforce of the sort we saw transit the Tasman sea in early 2025, or a mobile missile battery parked somewhere within range of NZ or one of her allies or deployed forces somewhere.

There might not be a great spread of capability but that capability as sparse as it may be, may still be enough to achieve effects that may well serve NZ’s interests AND it adds an undeniable factor that complicates an enemy’s plans. It may not quite be an A2/AD level of capability (though with some prudent additional investment in years to come, it might just be…) but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful.

I know some seem to think that if you can’t fire 50-100 standoff weapons on a strike mission, then it’s all but pointless even considering the idea, but we have seen and continue to see great operational results in conflicts today where half a dozen or so missiles / weapons achieve effects vastly out of proportion to the assumed level of capability.

A P-8A / LRASM - JASSM-ER combination is going to have a massive range ring - I would suggest somewhere in the vicinity of 3000 + kilometres. It’s mere presence in an Orbat is going to create planning headaches for any potential attacker and that may well be it’s greatest asset. The overall amount of capability may not be great, but the amount of capability that does exist will be potent if this idea goes ahead and can’t easily be ignored.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.
TBH we do not really know just how well an AShM or LACM like LRASM or JASSM (or any of the other variants of AGM-158) will really perform. This in part is due to measures designed into the missiles to make them have reduced signatures, beyond how much smaller a cruise missile signature normally is when compared with the launching aircraft. Further, given who/what the potential targets would likely be in the Indo-Pacific, we do not really know just how well the most advanced defensive systems will actually perform.

There is also the very real potential for joint, multi-national strikes launched at specific targets from multiple directions timed so that strike packages arrive at the target(s) at the same time. Imagine the havoc which could be wrought by having USAF, USN, USMC, RAAF and RNZAF aircraft all launching AGM-158C LRASM's at a hostile TF in the Pacific. Especially if beneath the water's surface, there was a USN or RAN sub with Mk 48's just waiting for the TF escorts to get distracted.

BTW this does not just apply to RNZAF aircraft, but would also apply to RNZN frigates if they get armed with something like NSM.

If NZ does start actually arming aircraft and warships with such missiles, even though the numbers will almost certainly never be very many, they can actually make a difference.
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
TBH we do not really know just how well an AShM or LACM like LRASM or JASSM (or any of the other variants of AGM-158) will really perform. This in part is due to measures designed into the missiles to make them have reduced signatures, beyond how much smaller a cruise missile signature normally is when compared with the launching aircraft. Further, given who/what the potential targets would likely be in the Indo-Pacific, we do not really know just how well the most advanced defensive systems will actually perform.

There is also the very real potential for joint, multi-national strikes launched at specific targets from multiple directions timed so that strike packages arrive at the target(s) at the same time. Imagine the havoc which could be wrought by having USAF, USN, USMC, RAAF and RNZAF aircraft all launching AGM-158C LRASM's at a hostile TF in the Pacific. Especially if beneath the water's surface, there was a USN or RAN sub with Mk 48's just waiting for the TF escorts to get distracted.

BTW this does not just apply to RNZAF aircraft, but would also apply to RNZN frigates if they get armed with something like NSM.

If NZ does start actually arming aircraft and warships with such missiles, even though the numbers will almost certainly never be very many, they can actually make a difference.
Absolutely and while it’s a different environment completely, JASSM missile variants have performed flawlessly in strikes in both Syria and Iran, along with the US’s notably stringent testing regime, I feel confident in suggesting their most current missile systems (that we know of) are “up to the job”.

Of course nothing is perfect, and there is nothing like combat to expose flaws in capability, but I seriously doubt these weapons in particular aren’t capable in their designated roles, if not world leading…
 

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
The main problem with the low numbers is that with only a small number of missiles launched, modern countermeasures and defences are very likely to be able to defeat any attack that is not simultaneous and multi directional enough to overwhelm the defences of your target.
Overwhelming defences is certainly one way of achieving a tactical goal, but it isn’t the only one. Slipping in under the radar (literally) and sneakily attacking is also a proven and demonstrably effective technique. I’d suggest this is clearly the intent behind the low observable, passive seeker equipped JASSM series and variants…

In which case if effective, relatively few missiles may be required to achieve significant tactical effects…
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Overwhelming defences is certainly one way of achieving a tactical goal, but it isn’t the only one. Slipping in under the radar (literally) and sneakily attacking is also a proven and demonstrably effective technique. I’d suggest this is clearly the intent behind the low observable, passive seeker equipped JASSM series and variants…

In which case if effective, relatively few missiles may be required to achieve significant tactical effects…
Come to think of it, the RNZAF could also start fielding Rapid Dragon pallets for their C-130J's, assuming both the US and the successive Kiwi gov'ts agree. A set of Rapid Dragon pallets for a Kiwi C-130J could enable an airlifter to launch a dozen AGM-158 missiles, and the potential reach of the aircraft and missiles would be quite long.

OTOH this might be too much offensive capability for some in gov't to accept.
 

downunderblue

Well-Known Member
Come to think of it, the RNZAF could also start fielding Rapid Dragon pallets for their C-130J's, assuming both the US and the successive Kiwi gov'ts agree. A set of Rapid Dragon pallets for a Kiwi C-130J could enable an airlifter to launch a dozen AGM-158 missiles, and the potential reach of the aircraft and missiles would be quite long.

OTOH this might be too much offensive capability for some in gov't to accept.
I checked this some time back, and the whole Rapid Dragon program seems to have gone quiet and is still (I assume having not found much lately on the internet) in testing with between LM and the USAF Research Laboratory.

I could easily be wrong but there doesnt seem to be any rush to get it into production.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
I checked this some time back, and the whole Rapid Dragon program seems to have gone quiet and is still (I assume having not found much lately on the internet) in testing with between LM and the USAF Research Laboratory.

I could easily be wrong but there doesnt seem to be any rush to get it into production.
I could be mistaken, but I suspect that Rapid Dragon is already in low rate production for use by/with US SOCOM. It has apparently been used on three continents by at least two US commands, though I do not know if these events were during an operation or testing.

It does seem that the US is continuing development of palletized effects systems for use by other capabilities beyond delivering ordnance, including ISR packages. Given that USSOCOM (or at least the USAF component) is involved with these palletized systems, as well as the potential for intelligence gathering pallets, it is not surprising that not much news has been out recently. Not to mention the US might be trying to avoid spooking Russia and/or the PRC with a strategic bomber force that could jump from ~120 to ~700 aircraft
 

Catalina

Active Member
The money is way better spent strengthening our Navy because Poseidons and land based missile systems cant defend themselves.

The most elemental lesson of war is that in war the enemy gets a vote - and so any land based system - which is what aircraft are, have bases which are vulnerable to covert ops, drones, and missile strikes.

The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems capable of being quad packed. That's 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, plus 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles of the SeaRAM SAM-based CIWS, plus 8 anti-ship missiles.

The above load out provides a 157 missile battery per frigate, a game changing step up from the 20 missiles our ANZACs currently carry. Upgraded Mogami's give us seemless integration with our Australia ally and provide more than 7 times the defensive missiles our ANZACs have. We have already purchased 200 Sea Ceptors so we already stoked with almost enough missiles for two frigates - already paid for. Working in a pair two frigates have over 300 missiles to protect each other and overwhelm the Communist Chinese.

Purchase 4 upgraded Mogami class frigates and then the PLAN would be hard pressed to overwhelm us in the South Pacific.

Any aircraft you put at any NZ or South Pacific bases would be gone burger in China's first strikes.
 
Last edited:

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The money is way better spent strengthening our Navy because Poseidons and land based missile systems cant defend themselves.

The most elemental lesson of war is that in war the enemy gets a vote - and so any land based system - which is what aircraft are, have bases which are vulnerable to covert ops, drones, and missile strikes.

The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems capable of being quad packed. That's 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, plus 21 RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles of the SeaRAM SAM-based CIWS, plus 8 anti-ship missiles.

The above load out provides a 157 missile battery per frigate, a game changing step up from the 20 missiles our ANZACs currently carry. Upgraded Mogami's give us seemless integration with our Australia ally and provide more than 7 times the defensive missiles our ANZACs have. We have already purchased 200 Sea Ceptors so we already stoked with almost enough missiles for two frigates - already paid for. Working in a pair two frigates have over 300 missiles to protect each other and overwhelm the Communist Chinese.

Purchase 4 upgraded Mogami class frigates and then the PLAN would be hard pressed to overwhelm us in the South Pacific.

Any aircraft you put at any NZ or South Pacific bases would be gone burger in China's first strikes.
IMO a bit inaccurate of an assessment. Naval vessels need bases too, which could be subject to attack. Same goes for ordnance storage bunkers and fuel depots/tank farms. The reality is that in an actual war, anything and everything can become a target as well as get hit.

Something which the assessment overlooks is what sort of capabilities platforms like the P-8 Poseidon as well as properly kitted FFG's bring to the 'table' as it were.

A platform like the P-8 Poseidon, if also armed with LWT's and AShM like the AGM-158C LRASM provide range of useful capabilities, able to perform volume sea/surface searches to provide significant greater SA. They can have the ability to sanitize an area reducing, eliminating or driving off hostile subs from an area or SLOC. They can also provide an anti-shipping and/or strike capability at range, within a timeframe that non-aerial platforms just cannot provide unless they were already on station. They have the potential for 'reach' but not persistance.

Now a properly kitted FFG can provide a number of the same capabilities, and in some respects potentially to a 'better' degree, but it cannot respond from base with the same sort of response time. It can do so with persistence, being able to stay on station for days or even weeks potentially.

Something else worth noting also is that both types of platforms have different types of threats that they are effectively immune to, whilst also having completely different vulnerabilities. A SAM or AAM fired at a P-8 from within the NEZ of the launching platform could be a major problem. OTOH though, a P-8 crew is likely going give SFA about sub-launched HWT's, which could easily ruin a Mogami-class frigate crew's day.

As for the proposed missile load out, I would certainly hope that NZ never plans a loadout like that. Such a loadout strikes me as a maximum expense for minimum return type loadout. Ignoring the need to actually integrate Sea Ceptor into the CMS used aboard Mogami-class frigates and the potential risks and costs involved in that type of integration work, let us actually consider the roles and capabilities of the missiles. RIM-116 RAM is a VSHRAD/CIWS-based missile with a max range of ~9 km IIRC and features RF/IR homing. Meanwhile Sea Ceptor, the naval variant of CAMM, not the CAMM-ER or the CAMM-MR, is a VSHRAD/short-range air defence missile effective out to ~25 km with terminal ARH. A range of ~25 km is fairly good for longer-ranged self-defence engagement of hostile leakers, but that is really far too short for a vessel to provide an effective area air defence capability. Further, if SeaRAM were to be fitted, that is an 11-cell missile launcher with some independent detection and targeting capability, it is not the 21-cell missile launcher fitted to warships like the German K130 Braunschweig-class corvettes. In short, one is suggesting that a Kiwi FFG be armed with 139 air defence missiles but only ones useful for short-ranged or very short-ranged engagement. The would make the RNZN rather hard pressed to defend/escort other vessels due to the missile engagement range limitations. I also suspect that the threats of inbound missiles leaking through would also increase, simply because an engaging ship would have less time and opportunity to intercept inbound missiles if only short-ranged missiles were loaded. This is why most vessels tasked with area air defence have missile loads which cover multiple range bands. This can enable a defending vessel to attempt to intercept an inbound missile, have the interception fail, and still have the time/range to take additional volleys.

Now yes, it is possible that CAMM-ER and/or CAMM-MR could end up getting acquired by NZ, but then these systems would also then need to be integrated into whatever CMS is fitted, as well as making sure that the hardware can appropriately carry and launch the missiles. However, I would like to point out that it would probably make much more sense to adopt whatever munitions have already been integrated with the frigate, rather than NZ spend the coin trying to adopt and fit their own bespoke choice, which NZ would still need to select and acquire.
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I am of the opinion that what is needed is for NZ to return to a balanced defence force, puting all your eggs in one basket leaves gaps that any aggressor will take advantage of. The problem with the all naval aproach is that the limited number of ships will likely be at the wrong place at the wrong time and it takes time to repossition them.
The sea ceptor is quoted as having a range of in excess of 25 KM and reports of successful intercepts out to 70Km, the reason I see for this is that the +25Km is the low level range which as a rule of thumb is one third of the max range of any missile due to the air density and as motor burn times are relitively short and a missile can spend time coasting at high speed from the initial energy supply..
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The sea ceptor is quoted as having a range of in excess of 25 KM and reports of successful intercepts out to 70Km, the reason I see for this is that the +25Km is the low level range which as a rule of thumb is one third of the max range of any missile due to the air density and as motor burn times are relitively short and a missile can spend time coasting at high speed from the initial energy supply..
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.

This lack of clarity is an issue for me, since it leaves us pretty much in the dark about the what, the where, etc. Did it happen? If it happened, was it actually a Sea Ceptor missile or was it something else like CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR? With a range claimed by the manufacturer as being in excess of 25 km, I am very leery of claims which I cannot confirm, that nearly triple that range. Particularly when there are two (at least two) other variants of the missile either in development or production, both of which are larger, which have greater ranges that still manage to bracket 70 km.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
The upgraded Mogami-class frigates have 32-cell Mark 41 Vertical Launch Systems capable of being quad packed. That's 128 Sea Ceptor missiles, .......
Stuffing a 32 cell battery of Mk41 with CAMM would be a terrible waste. The shortest, lightest, Mk41 can take much bigger, longer range, missiles, some of them quad-packed. If all you're going to put in them is CAMM, why buy Mk41? You're spending a lot of money on capabilities you don't need, such as the ability to fire hot-launched missiles, & putting a lot of weight on your ships you don't need.

So, either get your ships without Mk41, & put in smaller, lighter, cheaper launchers just for CAMM - or buy bigger missiles with longer ranges which need the big, heavy expensive Mk41.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
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.

This lack of clarity is an issue for me, since it leaves us pretty much in the dark about the what, the where, etc. Did it happen? If it happened, was it actually a Sea Ceptor missile or was it something else like CAMM-ER or CAMM-MR? With a range claimed by the manufacturer as being in excess of 25 km, I am very leery of claims which I cannot confirm, that nearly triple that range. Particularly when there are two (at least two) other variants of the missile either in development or production, both of which are larger, which have greater ranges that still manage to bracket 70 km.
I think the problem here is that how one defines "range" can make a big difference to the number one gets. Maximum distance the missile can fly is very much greater than the distance at which it can hit a difficult target, e.g. crossing at high altitude, & changing direction. The officially stated "more than 25 km" for CAMM appears to relate to an effective range against a range of targets, & the maximum theoretical intercept range would be far more - but I have no idea how far.

Likewise, we don't know how the ranges of other missiles are defined. This makes comparisons very difficult. We can say that Aster 30 has a longer range than CAMM-ER with a very high degree of certainty, but Aster 15 & CAMM, or ESSM & CAMM-ER? We don't know how different their effective ranges against particular targets are.
 
Top