|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 24, 2012 20:31:44 GMT 12
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 . Only need point defence..... against what? One of the reasons for developing ESSM was to provide effective defence against modern antiship missile, something the original seasparrow and CWIS are increasingly marginal at doing. With no long range antiship missiles for either the ANZACs or Seasprites, the ANZACs will need to get pretty close to any adversary to strike, putting it well and truely in harm's way. As for only 8 seasparrows.... Put another way, what use to the RNZN are ANZACs with no significant offensive or defensive capabilities? |
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 24, 2012 21:17:41 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 I'm not sure about the Wikipedia figure. I suspect the actual cost is a lot higher. And yes Dave I reckon NZDF should be able to claim the GST back - well I'd like to read their argument supporting their case when they submitted the claim  $120K is a serious amount of money to NZDF. |
|
|
|
Post by nige on Jul 24, 2012 22:26:23 GMT 12
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 . Only need point defence..... against what? One of the reasons for developing ESSM was to provide effective defence against modern antiship missile, something the original seasparrow and CWIS are increasingly marginal at doing. With no long range antiship missiles for either the ANZACs or Seasprites, the ANZACs will need to get pretty close to any adversary to strike, putting it well and truely in harm's way. As for only 8 seasparrows.... Put another way, what use to the RNZN are ANZACs with no significant offensive or defensive capabilities? Meo's offline so I'll jump in From what I can see, meo meant ESSM as a point defence system (there was obviously some confusion between SM-2 and ESSM between 3 of you guys, but Callum has clarified etc). Look we know Seasparrow is now reaching end of life and needs replacing with ESSM , the NZDF has been lobbying NZG since the early 2000's (Labour originally pencilled the ESSM upgrade in for the later half of the 2000's according to their early LTDP's, but they overspent the NZG coffers by the time they were turfed out and the ESSM upgrade was hence postponed). The incoming National Govt of 2008 conducted their Defence review, released late 2010, which re-assessed where Defence is to go and they, at the time, had penciled the self defence (ESSM etc) upgrade to commence around 2013. Whether that date has changed I don't know but recent indications were to upgrade the ANZAC's by or about the time the JATF stands up circa 2015. The NZG has indicated they accept the need to upgrade the ANZAC Frigate's self defence and combat systems to better fit into the contemporary environment. (Although Labour are still bitching it's not important - oh the joys of being in Opposition)! The offensive strike (ANZAC's and Seasprites) are a seperate subject. It's not clear what the public plans are here but I do agree this area needs assessing and addressing. Whilst Maverik's have their place for anti-FIAC taskings, they wouldn't be of use in higher threat intensity situations. The ANZAC's currently aren't fitted with Harpoon and like the intended P-3K2 stand-off weapon upgrade, a common solution needs to be found. Alas unlike in Australia these plans aren't made public, so we just have to wait until info is released in the future. Finally, I'm not suprised the RNZN ANZAC upgrades are drawn out affairs. The ADF has found out the hard way, via their various upgrades, that the RAN ANZAC's are too top heavy (so much so CIWS cannot be fitted). I'd imagine RNZN are pondering over the ADF upgrade paths v alternative technologies (wonder if that's why meo mentioned that the lighter CAMM(M) Sea Ceptor is also an option as I would have though RNZN would had have automatically slot into the RAN upgrade path of ESSM etc)? |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 25, 2012 8:01:59 GMT 12
Finally, I'm not suprised the RNZN ANZAC upgrades are drawn out affairs. The ADF has found out the hard way, via their various upgrades, that the RAN ANZAC's are too top heavy (so much so CIWS cannot be fitted). I'd imagine RNZN are pondering over the ADF upgrade paths v alternative technologies (wonder if that's why meo mentioned that the lighter CAMM(M) Sea Ceptor is also an option as I would have though RNZN would had have automatically slot into the RAN upgrade path of ESSM etc)? I see that a little differently. RAN concerns that the ANZACs are a little top heavy date back to the early days of the program, prior to the Harpoon and ESSM upgrades. But those concerns appear to have been effectively addressed by the stability enhancement modifications being made as part of the latest upgrade. www.navy.gov.au/Anti-Ship_Missile_Defence_trials_head_to_seaTrue, the RAN has never routinely fitted CIWS to the ANZACs. But this has a number of sources. The RAN uses its CIWS on a pool system, fitting them to ships on an as and when required basis only. Also, CIWS itself is viewed as no longer the best or an effective option for anti ship missile defence. That's why ESSM was integrated with the FFG-7 (Adelaide) class. The USN seems to agree, with their new Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers lacking CIWS, instead relying on ESSM. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm |
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on Jul 25, 2012 13:41:47 GMT 12
One option I would like to see explored in the ANZAC upgrade is a mix of ESSM and perhaps the VL RAM Block2 (currently in development/testing), perhaps using the new extensible launch system (ExLS). Use ESSM as an area missile (much like the FFG-7 class used the Standard 1) to ward off longer range threats (like the odd nosy MPA), and the lighter RAM as the close-range point defence missile. Let's say, a mix of 16 of each. That would save a bit of top weight (especially as the VL system is mounted high on the ANZAC class). Keep the CIWS - it's still very handy as an anti-surface weapon. Don't worry about a phased array radar - 2 fire-control directors (rather than the current 1) should be enough for our threat environment for the remaining life of the ANZAC class. It's a low-end patrol/escort frigate after all. www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2012/01/raytheon-ram2-test.htmldefense-update.com/products/e/exls_16082010.htmlChis73 |
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 25, 2012 16:19:23 GMT 12
Finally, I'm not suprised the RNZN ANZAC upgrades are drawn out affairs. The ADF has found out the hard way, via their various upgrades, that the RAN ANZAC's are too top heavy (so much so CIWS cannot be fitted). I'd imagine RNZN are pondering over the ADF upgrade paths v alternative technologies (wonder if that's why meo mentioned that the lighter CAMM(M) Sea Ceptor is also an option as I would have though RNZN would had have automatically slot into the RAN upgrade path of ESSM etc)? I see that a little differently. RAN concerns that the Anzac's are a little top heavy date back to the early days of the program, prior to the Harpoon and ESSM upgrades. But those concerns appear to have been effectively addressed by the stability enhancement modifications being made as part of the latest upgrade. www.navy.gov.au/Anti-Ship_Missile_Defence_trials_head_to_seaTrue, the RAN has never routinely fitted CIWS to the ANZACs. But this has a number of sources. The RAN uses its CIWS on a pool system, fitting them to ships on an as and when required basis only. Also, CIWS itself is viewed as no longer the best or an effective option for anti ship missile defence. That's why ESSM was integrated with the FFG-7 (Adelaide) class. The USN seems to agree, with their new Flight IIA Arleigh Burke destroyers lacking CIWS, instead relying on ESSM. www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/ddg-51-flt2a.htm I know the initial flight 2a arleigh Burke's (the ones with hangars)the ciws is missing as essm was suppose fill that role but the latest Arleigh Burke's such as DDG111 USS Sprunance have one ciws fitted down aft and space for mount forward. The latest type 45 and future Hobart class destroyers both have CIWS fitted. As for the Aussie ANZACs they sit a lot lower in the water and are little slower . I see on HMAS Perth the quarter deck is fully enclosed to increase the reserve buoyancy and increase stability margin. As for offensive capabilities upgrading the MK45 5inch 54 gun to MK 45 mod 4 5inch 62 cal would extended range of shells to 36km and allow the use of extended range munitions. This would be a cheaper option opposed to politically sensitive harpoon missles.  www.baesystems.com/cs/groups/public/documents/document/mdaw/mdqx/~edisp/baes_027613.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 25, 2012 20:43:57 GMT 12
Might upgrading the RNZN's ANZAC's to the RAN's new configuration actually be "cheaper" than a more limited upgrade: no design or integration risk, very low production risk, and a longer extension to the ships' combat relevance?
Add to that the NZDF gaining hands on experience in phased array radar technology.
|
|
|
|
Post by ngatimozart on Jul 25, 2012 21:28:09 GMT 12
Thats quite an interesting proposition Phil and very insightfull. I would think that on the face of it that would be what the RNZN would prefer to happen. However, unfortunately it is Min Def, Treasury and pollies who make the decisions. I certainly can see the logic in your suggestion.
|
|
|
|
Post by meo4 on Jul 26, 2012 16:57:56 GMT 12
Might upgrading the RNZN's ANZAC's to the RAN's new configuration actually be "cheaper" than a more limited upgrade: no design or integration risk, very low production risk, and a longer extension to the ships' combat relevance? Add to that the NZDF gaining hands on experience in phased array radar technology.  If was to upgrade to ESSM as well as upgrading combat management system. Would be better to replace 2D search radar AN/SPS 49 with something like Thales SMART MK2 3D S BAND Multibeam radar as fitted to HDMS Absalon, get 2 ESSM compatible fire control directors (Eg CEROS 200) fed from two MK73 mod 3 x band continous wave illuminators (or the Aussie built CEA CWI) giving two channels of fire. www.thalesgroup.com/smart-s/ www.thalesgroup.com/Countries/Netherlands/Documents/Datasheet_SMART-S_Mk2/www.cea.com.au/!Global/Directory.php?Location=ProductsServices:ContinuousWaveIlluminators:SSCWI www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/512-15691.aspx#startofcomments |
|
$120K is a serious amount of money to NZDF.