NZDF General discussion thread

[chis73]

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.

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

 

[Todjaeger]

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

Thanks for that. Now I have even more questions, of course...

One of the first is HTH I managed to never see that on the CAMM wiki page before I have read that info several dozen times at least over the last several years. Not sure if someone ended up doing a page edit and added or removed it, or perhaps I could not see it because my brain was not capable of processing it. Whatever...

However, having looked at the links it does raise a fewer further questions, as well as a thought or two (yes, yes, I know, I know, me thinking is always dangerous...).

From the link, it seems like the CAMM traveled 60 km in trials, which is potentially quite different from the launched missile having a range of 60 km. As suggested, if a missile was fired along a ballistic trajectory, it could easily continue to travel for some time after powered flight ended due to fuel exhaustion Being able to ensure that a missile launched on such a trajectory accomplished anything actually useful is another matter entirely. My own personal take is that such info along with claimed ranges is akin to the effective and maximum ranges sometimes listed for guns. Sure, a WWII-era M1 Garand chambered in .30-06 might be able to fire an M2 ball round out to ~3,100 m the actual, effective range of such a rifle and cartridge combination would still normally only be out to ~450 m for things to be accurately engaged.

Other thoughts, starting with a question. I would be interested in find out what, if any, differences there are between CAMM missiles intended for use/launch by GBAD, and the Sea Ceptor naval versions of CAMM. Firstly noting that the trials back in 2015 appear to have been launches from land-based platforms and not from aboard a ship, was the missile which traveled 60 km the same design as the ones now used for Sea Ceptor? Are the CAMM missiles effectively interchangeable, so that a CAMM cannister could be loaded into a land-based launcher or a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm? If they are indeed interchangeable, that could simplify logistical support since two services could be resupplied via the same pipeline.

Going off that, would it be worth the NZ Army looking at adopting Sky Sabre to provide the NZDF with a air defence capability apart from/beyond what only the two frigates can now provide? If the missiles already now in inventory could also be used from land-based platforms, it would seem a relatively safe and easy path towards the NZDF having an air defence capability again.

Lastly, my thoughts on loading Sea Ceptor into Mk 41 VLS... honestly my thoughts are that it really depends on what the situation is. If the plan from the outset was to just use Sea Ceptor, that IMO would be both a bad idea and a wasteful one. OTOH, if the idea is more that NZ can fill Mk 41 VLS with Sea Ceptor and will do so if that is really the best options available, then the situation is different. An empty VLS cell in/during a conflict can be very problematic. Having something like Sea Ceptor available in the inventory could see some loaded simply because that is what is available or can be easily brought to port to replenish a RNZN frigate so that it at least has something it could launch from what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

Comparing missile ranges is quite problematic since we just do not have access to actual range results tested to identical standards. Having said that, I do tend to give some credence to manufacturer's published ranges, at least for many US/NATO/allied munitions, simply because the published information usually has a caveat that the range is in excess of NN, so the actual performance could be greater than claimed.

Lastly I also tend to lump missile performance claims together, so if MBDA is claiming a range of 25+ km for Sea Ceptor, and a 40+ km range for CAMM-ER, I am inclined to go along with MBDA that CAMM-ER is longer-legged, because the data used to compare the two versions is coming from the same source and likely of the same quality and to the same standard.

EDIT: Egads, I had twice used lastly...

 

[Stampede]

Here you go Tod - it was rumoured to be 60km, reported in Janes in 2015. Currently ref 47 on the CAMM wikipedia page (link). I assume that this range would probably be due to a ballastic trajectory (lets say 45deg) against a stationary or non-manoeuvring target (ie. constant bearing and speed) - with the missile essentially gliding it's way to the target. Better to stick with the 25km figure as more realistic I think.

I agree that putting CAMM/Sea Ceptor in a MK41 VLS probably isn't the greatest idea. Might as well just use ESSM and get greater range. You may want to use some cells for ASROC-type missiles as well, if not for other things (decoys, land attack weapons)

Warships will ideally operate within a layer defence umbrella.
Support from aviation assets and a couple or tiers of SAM defence.
So the question is what will New Zealand’s ANZAC replacements look like and how does that fit within the broader NZ defence force shopping list.

Will they be frigate sized combatants and how many will be purchased?

Answer that and you go a some way to making commentary about the whole defence force, because without a major increase in coin there will be significant trade offs.

Go frigates then three should be the minimum and justice should be given to ensuring they are fitted out properly from the get go to be proper warships.

For NZ this will be a big commitment !

Any compromises and then some serious consideration must be given to other capacities.

Good numbers of OPVs?
Something else?
What about Army and Airforce.

Looking at you P-8s

Realistically NZ has so many defence shortfalls it’s hard to know what to do.

Suggest the starting point is to have a conversation about defence!

Are we serious or not?

Cheers S

 

[Rob c]

Realistically NZ has so many defence shortfalls it’s hard to know what to do.

Suggest the starting point is to have a conversation about defence!

Are we serious or not?

Totally agree, The amount that the defence force has been run down in the last 35 years by successive governments is colossal. As has been said before the average GDP has halved from was was spent in the 1980's. this means defence was deprived of in excess of $140B in that period, to undo the damage this has done will not be cheap. The big question the pollies have to answer is what value do they place on our freedom and sovereignty as until they really take this to heart we will only get a bits and peace's approach at the lowest cost that they think looks politically acceptably good to them.
Because there has been little debate on the question of defence the general public are at this stage very ill informed and have little idea on what is required due to the lack of informed information which I believe has been a deliberate political agenda. In other words they have been treated like mushrooms, kept in the dark and feed on sh-t.

 

[spoz]

Plus, you get a much bigger warhead with ESSM, which is also quad packed. CAMM is fine for what it is; what it is not is an ESSM replacement.

 

[swerve]

...
Other thoughts, starting with a question. I would be interested in find out what, if any, differences there are between CAMM missiles intended for use/launch by GBAD, and the Sea Ceptor naval versions of CAMM. Firstly noting that the trials back in 2015 appear to have been launches from land-based platforms and not from aboard a ship, was the missile which traveled 60 km the same design as the ones now used for Sea Ceptor? Are the CAMM missiles effectively interchangeable, so that a CAMM cannister could be loaded into a land-based launcher or a Sea Ceptor mushroom farm? If they are indeed interchangeable, that could simplify logistical support since two services could be resupplied via the same pipeline.

Everything I've read suggests that the missiles are identical. Same for CAMM-ER: the naval & land-based systems seem to use exactly the same missile.

Lastly, my thoughts on loading Sea Ceptor into Mk 41 VLS... honestly my thoughts are that it really depends on what the situation is. If the plan from the outset was to just use Sea Ceptor, that IMO would be both a bad idea and a wasteful one. OTOH, if the idea is more that NZ can fill Mk 41 VLS with Sea Ceptor and will do so if that is really the best options available, then the situation is different. An empty VLS cell in/during a conflict can be very problematic. Having something like Sea Ceptor available in the inventory could see some loaded simply because that is what is available or can be easily brought to port to replenish a RNZN frigate so that it at least has something it could launch from what would otherwise be an empty VLS cell.

The RN decided to add separate CAMM launchers to the Type 45 destroyers, give its Aster 15 boosters back to MBDA, & buy Aster 30s to replace them. Where it's fitting Mk41 to new ships it's doing so as well as, not instead of, dedicated CAMM launchers. I think it can put the CAMM launchers in places where Mk41 won't fit, & full Mk41s might bring top weight problems.

Comparing missile ranges is quite problematic since we just do not have access to actual range results tested to identical standards. Having said that, I do tend to give some credence to manufacturer's published ranges, at least for many US/NATO/allied munitions, simply because the published information usually has a caveat that the range is in excess of NN, so the actual performance could be greater than claimed.

Lastly I also tend to lump missile performance claims together, so if MBDA is claiming a range of 25+ km for Sea Ceptor, and a 40+ km range for CAMM-ER, I am inclined to go along with MBDA that CAMM-ER is longer-legged, because the data used to compare the two versions is coming from the same source and likely of the same quality and to the same standard.

Absolutely! The same is probably true of the comparisons between VL Mica & VL Mica NG, & the under development new version of Aster 15. The numbers all come from MBDA. How they compare with the different versions of IRIS-T SL, though . . . .