|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Jun 23, 2019 23:53:25 GMT 12
Any idea why they removed the 2nd MK41 VLS module? Is it to ensure no future government ever decides to buy some longer range missiles? From my understanding, it was due to top heavy weight issues, as well as some rearrangement under the silo's. There are some out there that think it was a bad idea... and to be honest I am in two frames of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jun 24, 2019 13:09:44 GMT 12
Any idea why they removed the 2nd MK41 VLS module? Is it to ensure no future government ever decides to buy some longer range missiles? From my understanding, it was due to top heavy weight issues, as well as some rearrangement under the silo's. There are some out there that think it was a bad idea... and to be honest I am in two frames of mind. Agree and if a future govt decided to put anti ship missiles on them, they could always use box launchers like the RAN have with their Harpoon SSM on their ANZAC frigates. However that would create weight and stability issues. I think the VLS on our frigates is the ExLS which is lighter than the Mk-41 VLS removed. |
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Jun 25, 2019 21:36:38 GMT 12
From my understanding, it was due to top heavy weight issues, as well as some rearrangement under the silo's. There are some out there that think it was a bad idea... and to be honest I am in two frames of mind. Agree and if a future govt decided to put anti ship missiles on them, they could always use box launchers like the RAN have with their Harpoon SSM on their ANZAC frigates. However that would create weight and stability issues. I think the VLS on our frigates is the ExLS which is lighter than the Mk-41 VLS removed. It's not the ExLS, it's the same bespoke "mushroom farm" launchers as used on the Type 23s. They are arranged in a 4 x 5 pattern giving 20 cells total. There is a picture of them in the Feb issue of Navy Today linked earlier in the thread. Also, the Mk41 launcher fitted to the ANZACs is the self defence version which is only capable of launching SeaSparrow and ESSM Blk 1 missiles and is obsolete. Lockheed Martin no longer market or manufacture this version as it's incapable of launching ESSM Blk 2. Below is a size comparison of the three Mk41 versions: self defence, tactical (ESSM, ASROC and SM2) and strike (all missiles) -  |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jun 25, 2019 22:39:13 GMT 12
Thanks. Then its the MBDA Sylver launcher if its the "mushroom" one. ExLS comes in single cell and triple cell units from memory.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 26, 2019 8:13:26 GMT 12
Also, the Mk41 launcher fitted to the ANZACs is the self defence version which is only capable of launching SeaSparrow and ESSM Blk 1 missiles and is obsolete. Lockheed Martin no longer market or manufacture this version as it's incapable of launching ESSM Blk 2. Below is a size comparison of the three Mk41 versions: self defence, tactical (ESSM, ASROC and SM2) and strike (all missiles) - I'm fairly sure that isn't correct. When the VLS was specified for the Anzac there was only one version, the one now known as 'Strike Length' |
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Jun 26, 2019 9:08:21 GMT 12
Also, the Mk41 launcher fitted to the ANZACs is the self defence version which is only capable of launching SeaSparrow and ESSM Blk 1 missiles and is obsolete. Lockheed Martin no longer market or manufacture this version as it's incapable of launching ESSM Blk 2. Below is a size comparison of the three Mk41 versions: self defence, tactical (ESSM, ASROC and SM2) and strike (all missiles) - I'm fairly sure that isn't correct. When the VLS was specified for the Anzac there was only one version, the one now known as 'Strike Length' My info comes from two ex-RAN sailors, but I'm happy to be corrected. This module diagram shows only two decks of penetration, but I'm not sure if it's accurate. As I say, happy to be corrected. .jpg) |
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 87
|
Post by chis73 on Jun 26, 2019 9:40:41 GMT 12
Thanks. Then its the MBDA Sylver launcher if its the "mushroom" one. ExLS comes in single cell and triple cell units from memory. No, it's not Sylver either. It is your typical British Engineering (TM) "bodge job". It is a modification of the old Sea Wolf VLS launcher on the Type 23 frigate. As the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) missile is longer and thinner than the Sea Wolf, it unfortunately sticks out of the existing launch tube a little. With the protective caps (or whatever they are) on, it looks like a field of mushrooms. Personally, I would have thought RNZN would have got the ExLS version - guess they were too risk-adverse and went for the safe-option already in service with the RN. beegeetee - I'm pretty sure you are right about the Mk41 VLS on the ANZAC - it was, as far as I am aware, the smallest version - that can only take Sea Sparrow or ESSM, but not Standard missiles or anything larger. Didn't know that it couldn't take ESSM Blk 2 though - I thought that the change between Blk 1 & Blk 2 was only in the substitution of an active seeker (like CAMM) for the semi-active radar-homing one. ESSM is already a larger missile than Sea Sparrow (substantially heavier and 10 inch diameter vs 8 inch from memory). I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Mk 41 VLS took up 3 decks on the ANZAC. Its a pity someone couldn't have fitted the old Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher on the upgraded ANZAC in addition to Sea Ceptor. Only half the weight of the Mk 41, though only 8 missiles with manual reloads & limited firing arcs - but with modern anti-ship missiles, you really need the range of ESSM to do a reasonable job of protecting other ships (which is what a frigate is for). |
|
|
|
Post by beegeetee on Jun 26, 2019 10:36:52 GMT 12
Thanks. Then its the MBDA Sylver launcher if its the "mushroom" one. ExLS comes in single cell and triple cell units from memory. - I'm pretty sure you are right about the Mk41 VLS on the ANZAC - it was, as far as I am aware, the smallest version - that can only take Sea Sparrow or ESSM, but not Standard missiles or anything larger. Didn't know that it couldn't take ESSM Blk 2 though - I thought that the change between Blk 1 & Blk 2 was only in the substitution of an active seeker (like CAMM) for the semi-active radar-homing one. ESSM is already a larger missile than Sea Sparrow (substantiaslly heavier and 10 inch diameter vs 8 inch from memory). I got that info from a media interview I read with a LM official. The incompatibility with ESSM Blk 2 was given as the reason why they no longer offer the self defence Mk41, he didn't say why it's incompatible. If I had to guess I'd say the missile control/interface electronics on the SD Mk41 are probably a cut down version of the full systems on the tactical and strike versions. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jun 26, 2019 17:54:45 GMT 12
Also, the Mk41 launcher fitted to the ANZACs is the self defence version which is only capable of launching SeaSparrow and ESSM Blk 1 missiles and is obsolete. Lockheed Martin no longer market or manufacture this version as it's incapable of launching ESSM Blk 2. Below is a size comparison of the three Mk41 versions: self defence, tactical (ESSM, ASROC and SM2) and strike (all missiles) - I'm fairly sure that isn't correct. When the VLS was specified for the Anzac there was only one version, the one now known as 'Strike Length' Nope, there was the self defence length, tactical length and strike length. About four years ago Lockheed Martin discontinued the self defence length variant and replaced it with the ExLS. fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-41-vls.htm |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jun 26, 2019 19:57:46 GMT 12
Thanks. Then its the MBDA Sylver launcher if its the "mushroom" one. ExLS comes in single cell and triple cell units from memory. No, it's not Sylver either. It is your typical British Engineering (TM) "bodge job". It is a modification of the old Sea Wolf VLS launcher on the Type 23 frigate. As the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) missile is longer and thinner than the Sea Wolf, it unfortunately sticks out of the existing launch tube a little. With the protective caps (or whatever they are) on, it looks like a field of mushrooms. Personally, I would have thought RNZN would have got the ExLS version - guess they were too risk-adverse and went for the safe-option already in service with the RN. beegeetee - I'm pretty sure you are right about the Mk41 VLS on the ANZAC - it was, as far as I am aware, the smallest version - that can only take Sea Sparrow or ESSM, but not Standard missiles or anything larger. Didn't know that it couldn't take ESSM Blk 2 though - I thought that the change between Blk 1 & Blk 2 was only in the substitution of an active seeker (like CAMM) for the semi-active radar-homing one. ESSM is already a larger missile than Sea Sparrow (substantially heavier and 10 inch diameter vs 8 inch from memory).I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Mk 41 VLS took up 3 decks on the ANZAC. Its a pity someone couldn't have fitted the old Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher on the upgraded ANZAC in addition to Sea Ceptor. Only half the weight of the Mk 41, though only 8 missiles with manual reloads & limited firing arcs - but with modern anti-ship missiles, you really need the range of ESSM to do a reasonable job of protecting other ships (which is what a frigate is for). Yep, Block 2 has an active seeker, but whether that's an advatage in all scenarios is another point. A large ship born radar still needs to detect the threat, and will always have far more power than a seeker on a missile. So unless a ship is fitted with CEC, like the Hobarts and the Hunters, it may not really add that much. This indicates that the RAN plans to use ESSM block 2 on their ANZACs. adbr.com.au/essm-block-ii-conducts-first-live-fire-intercept/ |
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jul 9, 2019 0:20:53 GMT 12
This is the latest image google spits out. Through the scaffolding can see the scale of the forward mast superstructure
|
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jul 25, 2019 9:32:32 GMT 12
No, it's not Sylver either. It is your typical British Engineering (TM) "bodge job". It is a modification of the old Sea Wolf VLS launcher on the Type 23 frigate. As the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) missile is longer and thinner than the Sea Wolf, it unfortunately sticks out of the existing launch tube a little. With the protective caps (or whatever they are) on, it looks like a field of mushrooms. Personally, I would have thought RNZN would have got the ExLS version - guess they were too risk-adverse and went for the safe-option already in service with the RN. beegeetee - I'm pretty sure you are right about the Mk41 VLS on the ANZAC - it was, as far as I am aware, the smallest version - that can only take Sea Sparrow or ESSM, but not Standard missiles or anything larger. Didn't know that it couldn't take ESSM Blk 2 though - I thought that the change between Blk 1 & Blk 2 was only in the substitution of an active seeker (like CAMM) for the semi-active radar-homing one. ESSM is already a larger missile than Sea Sparrow (substantially heavier and 10 inch diameter vs 8 inch from memory).I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Mk 41 VLS took up 3 decks on the ANZAC. Its a pity someone couldn't have fitted the old Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher on the upgraded ANZAC in addition to Sea Ceptor. Only half the weight of the Mk 41, though only 8 missiles with manual reloads & limited firing arcs - but with modern anti-ship missiles, you really need the range of ESSM to do a reasonable job of protecting other ships (which is what a frigate is for). Yep, Block 2 has an active seeker, but whether that's an advatage in all scenarios is another point. A large ship born radar still needs to detect the threat, and will always have far more power than a seeker on a missile. So unless a ship is fitted with CEC, like the Hobarts and the Hunters, it may not really add that much. This indicates that the RAN plans to use ESSM block 2 on their ANZACs. adbr.com.au/essm-block-ii-conducts-first-live-fire-intercept/Semi-active missiles like ESSM need an illuminator in addition to the tracking radar, so you need a very strong radar to accurately guide the missile as it flies further from the ship, at which point it also becomes more susceptible to jamming. Active missiles become more effective as they get closer to the target, so after a mid flight correction from the ship they are hopefully close enough to track their own target autonomously and overcome any jamming attempts. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 25, 2019 15:34:20 GMT 12
Yep, that’s what the CEAMOUNT X-band active phased array does. The new Hunter class and upgraded ANZACs will have three separate active phased arrays. A generational advance over the Hobarts.
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Jul 25, 2019 16:43:48 GMT 12
Yep, that’s what the CEAMOUNT X-band active phased array does. The new Hunter class and upgraded ANZACs will have three separate active phased arrays. A generational advance over the Hobarts. Thats interesting Richard. Does that imply the AWDs might get x band at their next upgrade? Will be interesting to see who buys CEAs stuff abroad. The other type 26 buyers notably. |
|
|
|
Post by richard1098 on Jul 25, 2019 23:59:01 GMT 12
Yep, that’s what the CEAMOUNT X-band active phased array does. The new Hunter class and upgraded ANZACs will have three separate active phased arrays. A generational advance over the Hobarts. Thats interesting Richard. Does that imply the AWDs might get x band at their next upgrade? Will be interesting to see who buys CEAs stuff abroad. The other type 26 buyers notably. Navantia’s Sea 5000 bid was essentially an evolved Hobart class with CEA radars and updated version of Aegis. |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 4, 2019 17:27:18 GMT 12
The Mk41 VLS removed from the frigates, anyone know the fate of these? Shipped back to NZ for possible refitting to some future vessel, e.g. NZ type 26 frigate, type 31e frigates. Surely not scrapped or sold cheap to some other navy.
perhaps for the new LHD.
|
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Aug 5, 2019 17:05:21 GMT 12
Unlikley we would install it on another ship given it is now a pretty old system and requires the appropriate radar and computer systems to make it all work.
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 5, 2019 19:46:34 GMT 12
Unlikley we would install it on another ship given it is now a pretty old system and requires the appropriate radar and computer systems to make it all work. The Mk-41 VLS is systems agnostic and we can install it on another ship. It's just a matter of integrating them to the ship by hooking up power supply, cooling system and data systems. However its a dockyard job because the Mk-41 penetrates the deck for one or two deck levels depending upon the length of the cells with strike lenght being the longest. From memory the Mk-41 VLS used on the RNZN Anzac frigates is the self defence variant which had the shortest cell length, is no longer manufactured by Lockheed Martin, being replaced by the ExLS which doesn't penetrate the deck.
It is canister payloads within the cells that require appropriate sensor, comms, and CMS systems. The self defence length was / is also limited in the missiles it could launch with only Sea Sparrow, ESSM, and Sea Ceptor being the only missiles capable of being launched from it. The next cell size up is the tactical length and that is far more versatile because besides ESSM and Sea Ceptor it includes SM2, SM6, Harpoon, ASROC, LRASM and NSM amongst others. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 12, 2019 19:32:17 GMT 12
Does anyone know when HMNZS Te Kaha is due back...? I am assuming sometime before the end of the year?
|
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Aug 13, 2019 19:26:31 GMT 12
Does anyone know when HMNZS Te Kaha is due back...? I am assuming sometime before the end of the year? I assume she would have to hang around up there for testing new systems etc or not? |
|
