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.
