|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 18, 2012 13:33:34 GMT 12
tvnz.co.nz/national-news/navy-frigate-tests-missile-off-hawaii-4974207/video?vid=4974117The New Zealand Navy frigate, Te Kaha, has test fired a missile worth almost a million dollars off the coast of Hawaii for the first time. Currently stationed around 280 kilometres from Honolulu, the frigate is part of the New Zealand contingent participating in the bi-annual Rim of the Pacific Exercise (RIMPAC) international maritime warfare exercise. RIMPAC is hosted by the United States Navy's Pacific Command, in conjunction with the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and Hawaii National Guard forces. In a rare chance, the HMNZS Te Kaha tested the ship's most powerful weapon - a missile worth around $800,000 - in a special US navy firing range. "For us obviously this is a pretty big deal, certainly from the ship's perspective. "The idea is to test the missile firing and systems aboard the ship but more importantly the people involved in firing the missile," said Te Kaha Commander Jon Beadsmore. In the three hour long test process, a remote control target is released around 60 kilometres away. Te Kaha uses radar to track the target, then fires a sea sparrow homing missile to intercept it. Advertisement The US invites allied military forces from the Pacific Rim nations to participate in RIMPAC. Most of the 22 RIMPAC nations will participate, with this year's exercise to involve combatants from the US, Canada, Japan, and Australia. Over the next week all manner of missiles and torpedoes will be test fired. Te Kaha's turn on the range was called resounding a success. "The missile was fired, gathered nicely into the control beam of the controlling radar, and proceeded towards the target," Beadsmore said.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jul 18, 2012 15:14:13 GMT 12
But did it hit the target?? The words used suggest it may have missed!  |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 18, 2012 15:38:00 GMT 12
Didn't say I hope so at $800K of taxpayers money. Its a semi active missile so it uses the ships fire control radar to initially beam ride to target ,then use its built in radar for the final bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 18, 2012 18:48:17 GMT 12
Jeez how did they manage to get that past the bean counters?
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Jul 18, 2012 22:47:02 GMT 12
Naval version of the missile carried by F-4s; the UK based the Skyflash on the technology, which was a better weapon than the Sparrow. It's an elderly weapon, been around for awhile.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Jul 19, 2012 0:12:43 GMT 12
Jeez how did they manage to get that past the bean counters? Sent a couple of guys out to pick it up, gave it a clean down and hopefully returned it to the supplier for credit! |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 20, 2012 21:57:41 GMT 12
Naval version of the missile carried by F-4s; the UK based the Skyflash on the technology, which was a better weapon than the Sparrow. It's an elderly weapon, been around for awhile. The RNZN version is the RIM7P seasparrow which uses the same guidance section as the latest version the evolved seasparrow RIM162A which has a more powerful rear end rocket . Sky flash is few generations earier British AIM7E version which were used in Vietnam. As part of the self defence upgrade will look into replacing the seasparrow with either ESSM evolved seasparrow as with the Ozzie navy or look at full active fire forget Seaceptor missle which is to be introduced in the Royal Navy. www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-7.html |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 21, 2012 21:09:33 GMT 12
And most Navy's replaced it with the ESSM 10 + years ago
|
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 22, 2012 14:42:19 GMT 12
ESSM can be quad packed into Mk 41VLS cells, raising capacity to 32 missiles for each unit with only minor mods to the launcher.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 22, 2012 21:28:04 GMT 12
ESSM can be quad packed into Mk 41VLS cells, raising capacity to 32 missiles for each unit with only minor mods to the launcher. It's is bit more than that. Upgrade current baseline launcher mod 5 upgrade to mod 7. Upgrade the x band mk73 CWI continous wave illuminator from mod 1 to mod 3. Extra fire control channel plus radar etc. www.natoseasparrow.org/Consortium%20Products%20Handbook%20Rev%20-1.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 22, 2012 21:52:47 GMT 12
ESSM can be quad packed into Mk 41VLS cells, raising capacity to 32 missiles for each unit with only minor mods to the launcher. It's is bit more than that. Upgrade current baseline launcher mod 5 upgrade to mod 7. Upgrade the x band mk73 CWI continous wave illuminator from mod 1 to mod 3. Extra fire control channel plus radar etc. www.natoseasparrow.org/Consortium%20Products%20Handbook%20Rev%20-1.pdfNot a big issue though. The RAN's update to the ESSM was not a large or complex project , at least compared to the current ANZAC upgrade as commenced with HMAS Perth, or the integration of SM-2 plus ESSM on the Adelaide class. The RNZN wouldn't need to do much (any?) integration or design work of its own. |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 23, 2012 15:04:40 GMT 12
Maybe a little bit of an exageration... The first live firing of one was less than 10 years ago and there's still plenty of 'old' Sea Sparrow's around! Maybe but Sea Sparrow is often a last ditch weapons system on those ships (1st world Navy's ) that retain it. Not the primary weapons system I'd hate to send a RNZN ANZAC into harms way with just 8 , but on missiles... when a relatively simple upgrade gives it 32 better ones |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 23, 2012 15:11:13 GMT 12
But in the end are the NZG going to cough up the money for 32 (or 64 for both frigates) new missiles at possibly NZ$1 million plus per missile? Although I have been given to understand they and Treasury now are beginning to understand the economic principles of margin capability, so hopefully this is an encouraging development in that they are now developing a "long view" in terms of defence capability and procurement.
|
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 23, 2012 15:43:23 GMT 12
64 million is just insurance against the cost of a ANZAC should a real shooting war kick off.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 23, 2012 17:53:12 GMT 12
Maybe a little bit of an exageration... The first live firing of one was less than 10 years ago and there's still plenty of 'old' Sea Sparrow's around! Maybe but Sea Sparrow is often a last ditch weapons system on those ships (1st world Navy's ) that retain it. Not the primary weapons system I'd hate to send a RNZN ANZAC into harms way with just 8 , but on missiles... when a relatively simple upgrade gives it 32 better ones I'm sure CIWS phalanx is the last line on defence plus soft kill decoys such as chaff and nukla. Sea sparrow is good for NZ standards probably the only real air defence. Think the army uses a man portable or IR guided missle only has range of 4km at Mach 2 which is only good against helicopters transport aircraft but bugger all else , air force air defence after the loss of the air combat wing probably only consists of sticking a C9 in the air. Can't see any justification getting any capability like SM-2MR when only need to provide basic point defence capability . |
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jul 24, 2012 15:05:42 GMT 12
not talking about SM-2MR, rather ESSM
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 24, 2012 15:44:11 GMT 12
I haven't a clue of what most of you are talking about, and haven't really got any interest in it all, but I'd love to know how a missile which in the body of text is quoted as costing around $800,000 become a "million dollar missile" in the title. Where did the other "around" $200,000 go??
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 24, 2012 16:26:02 GMT 12
I haven't a clue of what most of you are talking about, and haven't really got any interest in it all, but I'd love to know how a missile which in the body of text is quoted as costing around $800,000 become a "million dollar missile" in the title. Where did the other "around" $200,000 go?? Back in the day when I was in the light blue uniform we heard that for 75 Sqn to live fire a Sidewinder the decision had to be made by Cabinet because they then cost something like NZ$1 million. That was when Muldoon was PM. I'm no techie and I'd like to know where the cost goes but everybody gets their cut because we'd probably have to buy them through the US FMS. So the USAF would get a fee for facilitating the purchase, plus the legal costs notifying the US Congress and dealing with the State Department as well to get approval. Greasing the wheels. |
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Jul 24, 2012 16:51:12 GMT 12
Where did the other "around" $200,000 go?? GST and ACC Levies? ;D ;D Wikipedia gives the unit cost of a RIM-7 as $165,400 USD, so theres a bit of a difference between that and the figure given in the text too |
|
|
|
Post by raymond on Jul 24, 2012 20:01:58 GMT 12
Where did the other "around" $200,000 go?? GST and ACC Levies? ;D ;D Wikipedia gives the unit cost of a RIM-7 as $165,400 USD, so theres a bit of a difference between that and the figure given in the text too Dont they get the GST back as its been exported? |
|
