Seems a direct transtion more or less. planning to convert Aster 15 stocks to CAMM-ER for at least the RN and possibly others. Looking at MBDA web page they are no longer offering ASTER 15 only 30.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
APDR October 2015 Issue
Very full and interesting edition just arrived in Norms inbox.
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter Oct 2015 issue (free ,E copy simple registration process).Good coverage of RNZN , heads up page 27 Tanker contract,Page 50-52 very good coverage on Anzac upgrade, Sea Ceptor ( Launcher hold 20 missiles per ship).Finally update on Littoral operations support ship page 70-74 and 3rd OPV is discussed( likely) Page 89. I know a lot in the Navy would like a bigger weapon out front 76 mm Gun =bigger build, air weapons magazine etc , not discussed here.Lots of Australian coverage.Bumper issue ! enjoy.
Very full and interesting edition just arrived in Norms inbox.
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter Oct 2015 issue (free ,E copy simple registration process).Good coverage of RNZN , heads up page 27 Tanker contract,Page 50-52 very good coverage on Anzac upgrade, Sea Ceptor ( Launcher hold 20 missiles per ship).Finally update on Littoral operations support ship page 70-74 and 3rd OPV is discussed( likely) Page 89. I know a lot in the Navy would like a bigger weapon out front 76 mm Gun =bigger build, air weapons magazine etc , not discussed here.Lots of Australian coverage.Bumper issue ! enjoy.
For land-based AD, but they're still offering Aster 15 for ships.
Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Had a quick look, appears to be some interesting content that I will read later. Thanks for the link.Very full and interesting edition just arrived in Norms inbox.
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter Oct 2015 issue (free ,E copy simple registration process).Good coverage of RNZN , heads up page 27 Tanker contract,Page 50-52 very good coverage on Anzac upgrade, Sea Ceptor ( Launcher hold 20 missiles per ship).Finally update on Littoral operations support ship page 70-74 and 3rd OPV is discussed( likely) Page 89. I know a lot in the Navy would like a bigger weapon out front 76 mm Gun =bigger build, air weapons magazine etc , not discussed here.Lots of Australian coverage.Bumper issue ! enjoy.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Very full and interesting edition just arrived in Norms inbox.
Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter Oct 2015 issue (free ,E copy simple registration process).Good coverage of RNZN , heads up page 27 Tanker contract,Page 50-52 very good coverage on Anzac upgrade, Sea Ceptor ( Launcher hold 20 missiles per ship).Finally update on Littoral operations support ship page 70-74 and 3rd OPV is discussed( likely) Page 89. I know a lot in the Navy would like a bigger weapon out front 76 mm Gun =bigger build, air weapons magazine etc , not discussed here.Lots of Australian coverage.Bumper issue ! enjoy.
Thanks Norm.
Just logging into their site now!
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Tankers
There is a long and very enthusiastic write-up from a reporter embarked on the Spanish AOR Cantabria, which is competing with Daewoo for the Australian fleet tanker requirement. Navantia will certainly be hoping the article is widely read within ADF!
There is an editing screw-up in the opening para, but it states two responses were received in August 2015 to the SEA 1654 - the RAN tanker replacement project. It states the next stage is issue of a Request for Tender. If this is correct, it appears the Aussie project has fallen behind NZ, which issued tender docs in March 2015 with a June closing.
The article has a brief supplement advising that NZ has narrowed the selection to two Korean yards, but doesn't appear to give any new info.
LOSC
The article on the Littoral Operations Support Capability gives a good overview of the subject, and contains detailed extracts from the scenarios presented in the RFI document. Glad that I wasn't the only one who found them interesting.
The article states that the RFI envisages a contract signing in December 2016. Working backwards, that would mean tenders closing around June 2016 (leaving a minimum of six months to evaluate them and negotiate with the front-runner(s)), so the tender would need to go out no late than March 2016. Someone in the NZMOD isn't going to be getting a very long Christmas holiday this year!
Now, on to the ANZAC article...
There is a long and very enthusiastic write-up from a reporter embarked on the Spanish AOR Cantabria, which is competing with Daewoo for the Australian fleet tanker requirement. Navantia will certainly be hoping the article is widely read within ADF!
There is an editing screw-up in the opening para, but it states two responses were received in August 2015 to the SEA 1654 - the RAN tanker replacement project. It states the next stage is issue of a Request for Tender. If this is correct, it appears the Aussie project has fallen behind NZ, which issued tender docs in March 2015 with a June closing.
The article has a brief supplement advising that NZ has narrowed the selection to two Korean yards, but doesn't appear to give any new info.
LOSC
The article on the Littoral Operations Support Capability gives a good overview of the subject, and contains detailed extracts from the scenarios presented in the RFI document. Glad that I wasn't the only one who found them interesting.
The article states that the RFI envisages a contract signing in December 2016. Working backwards, that would mean tenders closing around June 2016 (leaving a minimum of six months to evaluate them and negotiate with the front-runner(s)), so the tender would need to go out no late than March 2016. Someone in the NZMOD isn't going to be getting a very long Christmas holiday this year!
Now, on to the ANZAC article...
Last edited:
Lots of naval stuff in the latest ADPR, probably because the latest Seapower conference is coming up in Sydney in the next couple of weeks. Keep an eye on the RAN Media Youtube page.
To me some of the NZ articles in the latest APDR fail the sniff test. I know it's a trade rag, but I get the impression the spin from the NZ MoD is being swallowed a little too uncritically.
Take the 3rd OPV article. No mention of the recent statement at the Defence Select Committee that the Otago class OPVs will probably be unsuitable to go further south than 48 deg south within a couple of years. If that is the case, why would we want the 3rd OPV to be another Otago class or an Australian "Corvette"? And could BAE at Williamstown actually build one - haven't they just laid off much of their workforce?
I am feeling some bad vibes regarding the Endeavour replacement. My feeling is that too much emphasis is being placed on the Antarctic resupply mission, to the detriment of what the ship really needs to be used for - which is resupply in the Pacific (where the port infrastructure is weak - even many of the merchant vessels that ply the Pacific trade routes handle break-bulk loads - not just containers). The Antarctic mission to my mind isn't a naval responsibility at all, and would be more appropriately placed in civilian hands. Nevermind that a future support ship can't even get to McMurdo without the one-and-only operational USCG polar icebreaker (38 years old, replacement probably at least 10 years away if they started building today, and they haven't) being on-hand to create a channel for it. I wonder if the role is being oversold - like Canterbury was with the Southern Ocean Patrol capability. We should be joining SEA1654 for a 3rd (or 4th?) ship.
Same with the statement that Sea-Ceptor will be as good as Sea Sparrow (well, maybe the old obsolescent one, but I doubt it is anywhere near ESSM in capability). There was some useful US Congressional testimony on their future surface fleet requirements a few months back (video & pdf linked here). Here's what one analyst thought about missile defence, and this is from a guy considered a bit radical for wanting more ESSM instead of SM-6:
Sea Ceptor is more in the RAM class (almost identical in weight). ESSM is 3 times as heavy.
To me some of the NZ articles in the latest APDR fail the sniff test. I know it's a trade rag, but I get the impression the spin from the NZ MoD is being swallowed a little too uncritically.
Take the 3rd OPV article. No mention of the recent statement at the Defence Select Committee that the Otago class OPVs will probably be unsuitable to go further south than 48 deg south within a couple of years. If that is the case, why would we want the 3rd OPV to be another Otago class or an Australian "Corvette"? And could BAE at Williamstown actually build one - haven't they just laid off much of their workforce?
I am feeling some bad vibes regarding the Endeavour replacement. My feeling is that too much emphasis is being placed on the Antarctic resupply mission, to the detriment of what the ship really needs to be used for - which is resupply in the Pacific (where the port infrastructure is weak - even many of the merchant vessels that ply the Pacific trade routes handle break-bulk loads - not just containers). The Antarctic mission to my mind isn't a naval responsibility at all, and would be more appropriately placed in civilian hands. Nevermind that a future support ship can't even get to McMurdo without the one-and-only operational USCG polar icebreaker (38 years old, replacement probably at least 10 years away if they started building today, and they haven't) being on-hand to create a channel for it. I wonder if the role is being oversold - like Canterbury was with the Southern Ocean Patrol capability. We should be joining SEA1654 for a 3rd (or 4th?) ship.
Same with the statement that Sea-Ceptor will be as good as Sea Sparrow (well, maybe the old obsolescent one, but I doubt it is anywhere near ESSM in capability). There was some useful US Congressional testimony on their future surface fleet requirements a few months back (video & pdf linked here). Here's what one analyst thought about missile defence, and this is from a guy considered a bit radical for wanting more ESSM instead of SM-6:
Nice discussion on the same topic here at the Midrats podcast (1 hr)
Sea Ceptor is more in the RAM class (almost identical in weight). ESSM is 3 times as heavy.
Last edited:
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Sea Ceptor and RAM may be similar size but Sea Ceptor has a advertised range of >25km, vs RAMs 9km. And Janes is reporting that "trials are understood to have shown a capability to travel 60 km"
UK orders next-generation air defence system from MBDA - IHS Jane's 360
So I wouldn't really put them in the same class.
Regarding CAMM vs ESSM: I think this has been discussed here before. I like the advantages mentioned in the APDR article and elsewhere (Cost, size, weight, easily intergrated). While ESSM is better in other respects, I think RNZN made a good choice here. And CAMM ER offers a growth pathway for further down the track.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The Janes article IMO a bit confusing, as the FLAADS(L) is supposed to be using the CAMM-ER, which is a different missile from the 'regular' CAMM, yet the Janes article just mentions it being CAMM, not the CAMM-ER.
IMO the CAMM is a better, more capable air defence missile than a RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, especially since a greater missile loadout can be carried for a given amount of space and weight/displacement.
However (IMO of course) it is not as capable as the larger ESSM, which has a significantly greater range (50+ km). The CAMM-ER, which is a little smaller and lighter than ESSM, is never the less in approximately the same class, having a 45+ km range expected.
As for why CAMM has a greater range than the similarly sized RIM-116 RAM, I suspect it is because CAMM is ~25 kg heavier (~25% heavier) and 40 cm longer (again, ~15%). That is still quite short from the weight for CAMM-ER, which I suspect that there will not be an realistic 'upgrade path' from CAMM, to CAMM-ER.
Not unlike the upgrade required to go from the Sea Sparrow, to ESSM. Perhaps the biggest difference is that I believe CAMM(M)/Sea Ceptor does not require a full-sized VLS and can instead be launched from modular box launchers. A CAMM-ER would require something along the lines of a Mk41 VLS, to accommodate the greater size and weight.
To my knowledge, CAMM-ER is a design being pushed by Italy. The UK has not exercised that variant (haven't seen anything beyond paper concept myself or hearsay) for FLAADS(L).
If there's evidence to the contrary, i'd be keen to see it, but AFAIK it's regular CAMM for the Rapier replacement.
Probably smaller and lighter than a Mk41 if the same launching principle is applied to CAMM-ER, CAMM is fired from the canister using compressed air (i think) and then the motor ignites once it clears the ship.
Advantage being that you don't have extreme temperatures or gas exhaust to deal with which is what enables a smaller/lighter design for launcher. That being said it can be quad packed into Mk41.
Topweight basically - the ESSM reworks for the RAN involved plugging in a larger and more capable radar set with TI's plus the weight of the MK41 cells and the missiles themselves. To get that to work, the RAN had to ballast their ships which is why post conversion the Kiwi ones are quicker.
The NZ conversions were all about recouping margins of stability and making the ship handle better in heavy seas, along with saving money on equipment costs. They're getting a tolerably capable light weight radar set and a local area defence missile without many major engineering changes and for what they want, that's sensible.
The RAN are getting a more capable ship for more money and more work but I don't think the Kiwis have done badly at all with their plans.
The NZ conversions were all about recouping margins of stability and making the ship handle better in heavy seas, along with saving money on equipment costs. They're getting a tolerably capable light weight radar set and a local area defence missile without many major engineering changes and for what they want, that's sensible.
The RAN are getting a more capable ship for more money and more work but I don't think the Kiwis have done badly at all with their plans.
In NZ's context though, Te Kaha and Te Mana are both already fitted with the Mk41, leaving CAAM-ER a potential upgrade path. I guess that assumes two things, that the new radar will be up to the job, and that the Mk41 isnt coming out and being replaced with dedicated CAAM launchers (i'm assuming not, but perhaps the topweight issue trumps keeping the Mk41?)
Htbrst, I'm pretty sure the intention is to remove the Mk 41. I tend to agree with Todjaeger, I wouldn't expect an upgrade from CAMM to CAMM-ER to be easy (or cheap). The upgrade from Sea Sparrow to ESSM should have been easy, and we didn't choose to do that.
Some interesting Sea Ceptor news from Janes that I saw on another forum. The UK will now fit Sea Ceptor to the old Sea Wolf launch tubes on the Type 23s.
All go for Sea Ceptor [DSEI15, D4] - IHS Jane's 360
So, we will be using this missile with a different radar, a different combat system, and now even different launch tubes than the major user & main developer. Oh joy!
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I have a question that i hope someone can answer. Why would we remove the mk 41 vls system and use the CAMM specific one? Are there adantages? I was presuming we would quad pack the missiles into the current vls.
The tube modification is a mod specific to the Type 23, the tubes are already in place and it would appear to be cheaper to modify the existing Sea Wolf infrastructure than to refit new launcher tubes.
The Type 26 will have proper canisters designed for CAMM.
@Gracie.
You can quad pack them in a Mk41, but as has been written about earlier by Stovie, top weight is an important consideration. The cold launch method used by CAMM gives the option of a lighter missile launching system.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
The latest issue of Asia Pacific Defence Reporter (highlighted a few days ago by Norm) has apiece on the kiwi ANZAC upgrade, including numerous quotes from the project manager.
He confirms that the Mk41s are definitely being removed, and being replaced with 20 stand-alone launch tubes specifically for Sea Ceptor. This is claimed to save weight and space, with the new launch tubes only penetrating a single deck vs. the three decks for a Mk41.
He also claims the Sea Ceptor will have a 'similar' range to ESSM, which seems a bit ambitious to say the least.
Other points include:
- a new mast with improved maintenance and radar cross-section
- confirms a 2-3 knot increase in top speed from the new MTU diesels
- Lockheed martin combat management system as developed for the RCN Halifax class
kiwi in exile
Active Member
All the new systems are listed in the new issue of Aust Pacific Defence Reporter. Free to sign up and read online. There will be a link a few posts back.
Sure its all been listed here before too.
Weight & space have been mentioned. The removed Mk 41s should have a resale value, so some of the cost will be recouped. The new launchers should be cheaper (smaller, simpler) than new Mk 41, so that recovered cost could be a significant fraction of their price.
Smart-S Mk 2.