NZDF General discussion thread

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
swerve said:
One CAMM weighs about 100 kg, so 20 would only be 2 tons.

There's also a gas generator for cold launch, but I'd be surprised if that & any other bits & pieces weigh 500kg, though.

Quad-packed CAMM has been integrated into Mk 41 & was test fired some years ago. The Swedes have bought CAMM together with ExLS, & acording to LM the host version of ExLS slots into Mk 41. That appears to have been how CAMM was fitted into Mk41.
Click to expand...
The above is why I suspect topweight was such an issue for the RNZN's frigate configuration. The RAN first starting ANZAC-class frigates quad-packed with ESSM with the entry of HMAS Warramunga back in 2001, well before the ASMD upgrades which changed the RAN frigate's profile and required ballasting, etc.

By my calculations, the increased displacement due to quad-packing ESSM vs. eight cells loaded with a single RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is some 7,120 kg not including any extra displacement due to cannisters, etc. With the RNZN frigates having a Mk 15 Phalanx atop the hangar, they were already using up some 5,700 kg of topweight displacement so I suspect there were inadequate margins to add a further 7 tonnes topweight.

Had topweight not been such an issue, then I would think that NZ would have kept the Mk 41 VLS and just quad-packed Sea Ceptor rather than going to the expense of removing the Mk 41 VLS to install a different, smaller and lighter VLS system for Sea Ceptor. If cost was the primary driver, it would likely have cost less to just keep the VLS which was already installed and integrated.

It also might very well be/have been that the ballasting aboard the RAN frigates reduced the freeboard more than the RNZN felt was acceptable, but that would still have been a topweight issue
 
Nighthawk.NZ

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
ADMk2 said:
Not sure on the math there. Empty Mk.41 even at the lighter end is 12t, the GWS.35 empty is 8t and loaded with 20x CAMM is 20t. So the warload of 20x CAMM weighs 12t.
Click to expand...
8 cell CAMM launcher is about 8 tonne;
16 cells is about 16 tonne;
therefore 20 cell launcher is about 20 tonne.

1.9 tonne for a load of missiles, and as noted the other bits and bobs like gas generator etc. However they don't have the weight of an active illumination as each CAMM can independently engage a target.

5.7 tonne for Phalnanx system,
1 tonne for MASS and mini typhoon's...

Have no idea of the weight of mast, but the SMART-S Mk2 3D multi-beam naval search radar is around 1.4 tonne on its own not counting weight of cabling, processing & cooling cabinets etc...

Eibit/Elisra ESM, DLF Floating Decoys Sea Sentor, and other systems of any notable weight or size I can't find any weight specs...

Other things to note over the years the ANZAC's have had other machinery replaced,and we don't know if they were heavier, lighter or same weightas what was replaced.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Nighthawk.NZ said:
8 cell CAMM launcher is about 8 tonne;
16 cells is about 16 tonne;
therefore 20 cell launcher is about 20 tonne.
Click to expand...
If those numbers are right, then it looks as if the RNZN was utterly crazy. A tactical length Mk 41 module of 8 cells (what the ANZACs were built with) weighs 13.5 tons empty, & can hold 32 CAMM. Why spend money to remove the VLS that's already fitted & buy a new VLS that weighs almost 50% more & holds fewer missiles? It fails on every measure. Well, unless you get a very good price for the old VLS. Then it fails on most measures.

Are you sure that CAMM launchers weigh a ton per missile? They're simpler & shorter than Mk 41. They don't have the efflux management. And they're just about universally described as low cost and low weight.

It might make some sort of sense if the RNZN didn't trust that CAMM would be integrated into Mk 41 in its desired timescale. It was, so that wouldn't have been a problem, but that wasn't certain when the Kiwis ordered CAMM. But given the launcher weight you say, I'd have thought of that as another reason (along with launcher weight) to reject CAMM.
 
A

Aluminium Hail

Member
I too am confused by those weights. Firstly, I thought the 'mushroom farm' launchers came either as single launchers, or later, as a six cell pack that was originally developed for type 26.

The RNZN can't have an 8 or 6 cell variant because there are 20 cells in a 5x4 layout so they are presumably the single cell options like those fitted to type 23.

MBDA does have an 8 cell 'iLauncher' for land use but it includes all the extras like power generation, C2 etc.

I have no idea what any of these options might actually weigh though.
 
Nighthawk.NZ

Nighthawk.NZ

Well-Known Member
For the life of me I can not find the file where I got those numbers from... sorry... I was going off memory for that. And I have a feeling it was an estimate sitting in the middle of a range. Because I think the actual cell might around 700kg which is based off the GWS.26 as I believe that, that the 1tonne number also includes the 2 data link aerials, the command & control cabinets, and launch management cabinets and cabling giving to over all weight of the system. I don't know the set up of the RNZN, but the Type 23 has 2 C&C and 4 LM cabinets

If this system is heavier overall the benefits as removes other topside hardware. Sea Ceptor’s active missiles removes the need for extra heavy illuminators/launch directors and some associated cabling/structures; those removals offset part of the new launcher’s weight and vertical moment.

CAMM trunks are shallower than a strike-length Mk-41 trunks, reducing below-deck rework.

Another thing would be saving on the maintenance of a hot launch system vs cold launch system as well as old vs new as it wasn't all just about top weight it was also money...

However looking at it.. I agree that it don't seem to add up... I could have read the chart wrong... my bad... :-/
 
Last edited:
S

swerve

Super Moderator
The ANZACs were built with tactical length Mk41 AFAIK, but that's still quite a lot longer than CAMM launchers, so fitting the mushroom farm should have been fairly straightforward.
 
S

SeaplanePaul

New Member
A dramatically worsening geostratetic move immediately north of New Zealand.

On 14/11/24 Vanuatu's proCommunist Chinese government kicked out all NZ and Australian police and defence personal from all government offices, breaking decades of side by side collaboration between NiVan and ANZAC personnel. This follows immediately on the heels of Vanautu refusing to sign with Australia the A$500 Nakamal Security Agreement, which the Australian Prime Minister flew on 9/9/25 all the way to sign, as from the shadows Communist China suddenly gifted Vanuatu a record $86m no strings attached grant on 6/11/25.

With the daily in person workplace link between New Zealand and Australia defence persona/police and their NiVanuatu colleagues being severed, the incessant pressure of the dreaded Communist Chinese Intelligence agents operating out of the Port Vila embassy to further isolate and charm, corrupt, and control isolated Vanuatu politicians grows geometrically stronger.
 
Catalina

Catalina

Active Member
Why is the NZ Army using Christians as targets in its training scenarios?

“Why is the NZ Army training to destroy Christians with traditional values? Internal exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists.”

NZ Army exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists. ”Why are NZ Defence Force (NZDF) training materials depicting “Christian extremists” as the opposing forces to be destroyed on a map? A map clearly modelled on New Zealand’s South Island including Murchison, Nelson, St Arnaud, and Rainbow Ski Field. The attached video goes into further detail.

While we have a race based political party demanding self governance, and another Islamic terrorist attack in our ally Australia, why is the NZ Army being tasked to train to kill Christians?
 
Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Catalina said:
Why is the NZ Army using Christians as targets in its training scenarios?

“Why is the NZ Army training to destroy Christians with traditional values? Internal exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists.”

NZ Army exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists. ”Why are NZ Defence Force (NZDF) training materials depicting “Christian extremists” as the opposing forces to be destroyed on a map? A map clearly modelled on New Zealand’s South Island including Murchison, Nelson, St Arnaud, and Rainbow Ski Field. The attached video goes into further detail.

While we have a race based political party demanding self governance, and another Islamic terrorist attack in our ally Australia, why is the NZ Army being tasked to train to kill Christians?
Click to expand...
Apart from questions regarding the motives of the people involved in raising the issue as a possible problem and the subsequent reporting (when I check media bias reports on the Daily Telegraph the accuracy comes back as Mixed) I have to question whether the apparent premise itself is correct. Is the NZDF's training focus actually on neutralizing a particular religious denomination, or is the focus on neutralizing extremists?

For those that might have forgotten, less than seven years ago there was a series of attacks in NZ by a political extremist that targeted a mosque and Islamic centre. Given the number of instances where extremists seem to blend their respective religious and political beliefs, either in favour of theirs or in opposition to others, it could very easily be that the NZDF are really just attempting to be ready if/when some extremist-driven incident starts to kick off at some point in the future.

Unfort the topic itself is problematic as many of the issues or at least the drivers of issues tend to be more socio-political-religious, rather than anything really defence. Having beliefs themselves is one thing, but to engage in violence as a result of beliefs is different, and often times precursor activities in preparation for a future planned event is also an issue (think surveillance activities, preplanning, stockpiling of material, etc.)
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
And it would appear that the groups who apparently put this together are themselves at the farther end of society.

All militaries train against all sorts of scenarios - cherry picking one will always be likely to be able to be used to claim some sort of “bias”.

And there are extremists in all the major religions, including Buddhist’s and, yes, Christians.

And I am a Christian, just not (I hope) an extreme one - at either end of the political spectrum.
 
G

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
Catalina said:
Why is the NZ Army using Christians as targets in its training scenarios?

“Why is the NZ Army training to destroy Christians with traditional values? Internal exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists.”

NZ Army exercise documents reveal how soldiers are being conditioned to frame Christians as violent extremists. ”Why are NZ Defence Force (NZDF) training materials depicting “Christian extremists” as the opposing forces to be destroyed on a map? A map clearly modelled on New Zealand’s South Island including Murchison, Nelson, St Arnaud, and Rainbow Ski Field. The attached video goes into further detail.

While we have a race based political party demanding self governance, and another Islamic terrorist attack in our ally Australia, why is the NZ Army being tasked to train to kill Christians?
Click to expand...
Did you look at the link? Go to the COVID tab...you'll take about 30 seconds to see it is not what I'd call a 'main stream' source!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top