Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Catalina

Member
The Minister of Defence and a senior NZDF officer traditionally attend the Shangri-La Dialogue as well as the NZDF defence attache to Singapore who is a Colonel equivalent.
Thank you MrConservative. With US Acting Defence Secretary Shanahan and the PRC Defense Minister Wei Fenghe both addressing the defence summit it will be a most interesting event.

Shanahan has previously said “China aims to steal its way to a China-controlled global technological infrastructure, including 5G” and “Huawei exemplifies the Chinese Communist Party’s systemic, organized and state-driven approach to achieve global leadership in advanced technology”.

Fenghe is famous for his quote at the Xiangshan Forum that "China will never give up an inch of its territory, whether the self-ruled island of Taiwan it claims as its own, or in the disputed waters of the South China Sea"
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Shephard News on Twitter

While on the subject of naval deliveries, Shephard media's Gordon Arthur states that Australia's first new AOR is scheduled for delivery to Australia in June 2020.

RNZN - Aotearoa

NZ, meanwhile, seems to be expecting the Aotearoa in 'early 2020', which has slipped back from 'late 2019' a year back.

Unless this goes the lamentable way of the Defence Capability Review, this 'race' should be comfortably won by NZ.

Now, onward to the Cricket World Cup!
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
Currently undergoing builder's sea trials. Handover to RAN is scheduled for August and *commissioning* for mid 2020 Stalwart is due to launch soon and sea trials in early 2020. Sources: APDR and others.

oldsig
Thanks for clarifying.
The Aotearoa schedule appears to be: builders sea trials in the last few months of 2019, delivery to NZ in Jan/Feb 2020, and commissioning shortly afterwards.

All of that assumes no significant issues before or during sea trials - given is is a new class of ship that may be optimistic. Working from a proven in-service design, Australia's risk of slip-ups is presumably much lower.
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
From Sea Wolf to Sea Ceptor – the Royal Navy’s defensive shield | Save the Royal Navy

Interesting article with background on the Sea Ceptor short-range missile system.

There is increasing speculation (but no hard evidence so far) that the Canadian T26 fit-out will include Sea Ceptor, despite Canada being a partner is ESSM development. If that happens, a Canadian T26 with the CMS330 and Sea Ceptor would have two major components in common with the post-upgrade NZ ANZACs. If NZ does select T26 as the ANZAC replacement in the mid-2020s, that could make for an interesting decision about which variant to buy.
 

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
40 deg south

Looking at your link to Aotearoa in the pdf spec sheet I count upwards of twenty TEUs if the six noted in the bow are double stacked plus the eight loaded amidships. Does this seem right or is this me seeing something incorrectly? The spec lists 12 TEUs.

Comments please?
 

40 deg south

Well-Known Member
40 deg south

Looking at your link to Aotearoa in the pdf spec sheet I count upwards of twenty TEUs if the six noted in the bow are double stacked plus the eight loaded amidships. Does this seem right or is this me seeing something incorrectly? The spec lists 12 TEUs.

Comments please?
Good question - no clear answer. Earlier info indicated a container capacity of 'up to 20 containers', and I think one media release even mentioned the ability to double-stack them. Some of the graphics appeared to show this, although the resolution was poor.

Everything released in the last year or so has referred only 12 containers.

Has provision for double-stacking proven too difficult? (and why?). Have they decided that the need for extra dry cargo capacity doesn't
justify whatever modifications are necessary? Or is the capacity still there but they don't mention it is as it's only intended in case of emergency?

My guess is that we won't find out until she reaches New Zealand next year. Unless there is some footage of a double-stacked load from sea trials.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
From Sea Wolf to Sea Ceptor – the Royal Navy’s defensive shield | Save the Royal Navy

Interesting article with background on the Sea Ceptor short-range missile system.

There is increasing speculation (but no hard evidence so far) that the Canadian T26 fit-out will include Sea Ceptor, despite Canada being a partner is ESSM development. If that happens, a Canadian T26 with the CMS330 and Sea Ceptor would have two major components in common with the post-upgrade NZ ANZACs. If NZ does select T26 as the ANZAC replacement in the mid-2020s, that could make for an interesting decision about which variant to buy.
Nice article and interesting to note that it mentioned that the missile flew 40 km.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
The article suggests that if quad packed into its 24 mk 41 cells the type 26 there could potentially be a load out of 144 missiles , 24 times 4 is 96 ?
,The extended range version of the Camm missile may be a later consideration for New Zealands Anzacs ,is there any consideration on following the U.K s implementation of Camm for the army known as Sky Sabre by New Zealand for logistical savings ?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
The article suggests that if quad packed into its 24 mk 41 cells the type 26 there could potentially be a load out of 144 missiles , 24 times 4 is 96 ?
,The extended range version of the Camm missile may be a later consideration for New Zealands Anzacs ,is there any consideration on following the U.K s implementation of Camm for the army known as Sky Sabre by New Zealand for logistical savings ?
Personally I rather doubt that the RNZN FFH's would be fitted with an -ER version of Sea Ceptor, unless it was a fairly simple/straightforward software-only update and available within the next decade. IIRC the RNZN will not be back up to a two frigate navy until ~2022, which means that the RNZN will most likely be loathe to have further hardware changes or upgrades done which would take vessels out of service for any length of time in the near future. A Sea Ceptor-ER missile could be a possibility aboard the Future Frigate, but I strongly suspect by the time it is operational, it would either be too recently after the current upgrades, or too close to the projected decommissioning to be considered worthwhile.

As for Army adopting CAMM, I just do not see that happening. At present the Mistral MANPADS have been taken out of service and put into storage to save money. I just cannot see Army introducing a more complex air defence capability when they could not justify funding to retain MANPADS. Also, there would not be any logistical savings, since the capability would be an addition to Army, and not a replacement of a comparable and existing Army capability.
 

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Mate, time to change the reading glasses. the article say's 60 km, not 40km.
I am not sure the maximum range is a particularly useful indicator of a missile's capability anyway. Most anti-air missiles expend all their fuel in a few seconds after which they essentially become highly manoeuvrable bullets. Every twist and turn they make burns off more momentum. You might be able to lob a missile on a ballistic trajectory and achieve an impressive range but you would be unlikely to actually hit anything.
 

Xthenaki

Active Member
Diversifying somewhat what are your thoughts on using the THALE LMM - Naval version on our larger Protector fleet vessels.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Mate, time to change the reading glasses. the article say's 60 km, not 40km.
I stand corrected. Yep just had been to see the eye mechanic and need to change the glasses. Probably due to my ill spent youth avoiding the elephant trackers and the queen bee from the Waafry :D
 

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I am not sure the maximum range is a particularly useful indicator of a missile's capability anyway. Most anti-air missiles expend all their fuel in a few seconds after which they essentially become highly manoeuvrable bullets. Every twist and turn they make burns off more momentum. You might be able to lob a missile on a ballistic trajectory and achieve an impressive range but you would be unlikely to actually hit anything.
Very true, but as the flight time is very short the amount of maneuvering would also be limited. The big deciding factor in the effective range of a missile is the altitude of the target and a high altitude target will give the missile between 2 and 3 times the range of a sea level target due to the greatly reduce drag at altitude. I assume that in the case of the sea ceptor that as they quote the range at greater than 25 km that this is the range at low altitude and that the high altitude range could be 2 to 3 times greater. I did read an unconfirmed article that gave a successful intercept at 78 km for a CAMM missile (whether it was the navy , army or airforce version ) was not stated and again unconfirmed article mentioning a sea ceptor intercept at 50km.
The other point i would mention is that the 60 km stated would have been a test and they would not be wasting time and money by simply lobbing off an expensive missile just to find out its ballistic range as this could easily be calculated without the expense of firing a live round.
What Can The Royal Navy's New Sea Ceptor Missiles Do?
This article also states that it was effective at 60 km.
 
Last edited:

Flexson

Active Member
The article suggests that if quad packed into its 24 mk 41 cells the type 26 there could potentially be a load out of 144 missiles , 24 times 4 is 96 ?
,The extended range version of the Camm missile may be a later consideration for New Zealands Anzacs ,is there any consideration on following the U.K s implementation of Camm for the army known as Sky Sabre by New Zealand for logistical savings ?
Quad packed into 24 Mk41 cells and single packed into the 2 x 24 mushroom cell silos = 144 missiles.
 
Top