|
|
Post by madmac on Oct 12, 2019 13:13:23 GMT 12
In the event the Navy manage to keel haul sufficient numbers of bean counters to actually keep the MK41's, wouldn't the most likely path be to put them in a structure that can pickup up the 20 foot container mounts on Aotearoa. Atleast giving us the ability to deploy it on Aotearoa, should whatever task force require a bit more firepower. Not a bad concept I guess but with any re-use of weapons as suggested they would be a bespoke installation and that exposes MinDef, NZDF, RNZN etc to potentially huge 'developmental' costs & guaranteed huge support costs by suppliers for 'non-standard' installations... that's not a risk NZ tends to take, nor should they IMHO. If overseas navies have done so successfully then yes lean on their expertise, but the financial risk is probably too great for what are, after all, on the whole mid to late life weapons systems. Given the new data link system on the frigates would it need a fire control, just sufficient to ensure control has been handed over to the right ship, plus they could rent it out to the army from time to time. Although taken to the extreme one could put modules like (hospital, barracks, Air defence, etc) this on jack-up rigs, add a shallow draft lift ship, any navigable atoll in the south Pacific could be a full functioning base in weeks. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 12, 2019 15:43:06 GMT 12
Why would we want to instal obsolete missiles and consoles on a new build hull? That's an absolute waste of money and would be like replacing the 20 mm cannon on the F-16 with 2 Browning M3 50 cal machine guns. The RIM-7 Sea Sparrows are long past their usefulness, with the ESSM Blk I being the updated variant of them. Now the ESSM Blk I is being replaced by the ESSM Blk II which has just gone into LRIP (Low Rate of Initial production).
From memory, I think that all of the 25 mm guns that is in storage at DNB is just the mountings, because I believe it was just the mountings that were replaced and upgraded with the Rafael Typhoon stabilised gun mounting. As far as I am aware, there was nothing wrong with the guns themselves.
Also, the 5"gun turret cover would be replaced rather than acquire a new gun. Mk 45 Mod 4 5"guns aren't exactly cheap. Why do you think that the Royal Danish Navy haven't replaced the 76 mm guns on both their Iver Huitfeld class frigates with the 5" guns originally specified? They reused some 76 mm guns they had in store.
It’s the two Mk41 VLS and the MSI 25mm gun mountings I’m referring to. These are not obsolete. Since navy already own SSM then obsolete or not they would be better than nothing for the MK41 until newer missiles were acquired. Certainly more than adequate for deployments such as anti piracy patrols. I also doubt that the MSI DS25M control consoles are junk either, surely upgradeable even if just software. Even so it’s the mountings and consoles that will be the larger cost portion of the DS25M, the naval bushmaster gun being the only new requirement. Never thought there was a spare 5inch gun available, just the possibility of a turret but that now seems to not be the case. The Mk-41 VLS that were on the ANZAC frigates were the self defence variant which hasn't been built by Lockheed martin for about 8 years. It's been superseded by the ExLS VLS which doesn't penetrate the deck like the MK-41 does. The self defence variant is restrictive in that it can only take missiles the same length as the Sea Sparrow, so is of no use on a future frigate. The gun mountings that were removed from the OPVs and Canterbury were replaced because they were not fit for purpose that they were required.
The fire control consoles maybe bespoke OEM units and unable to be upgraded to accept other forms of sensor input data, and / or integrate with a new combat management system (CMS). Whereas the modern standard is of open architecture that accepts software from different OEMs, and easily integrateable with any CMS because it's a straight software problem. The RDN are able to rerole the consoles on their Iver Huitfeld and Absalon ships in a matter of minutes by just changing the software. So a console can go from an ASW role to an AAW role by just changing the software, all because of the use of open architecture consoles.
The RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a Surface to Air Missile (SAM) not a SSM and has a range of approx 10 nm (19 km). It cannot manoeuvre quickly enough to intercept low flying anti ship missiles, and requires a dedicated fire control radar.
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Oct 13, 2019 17:07:23 GMT 12
The fire control consoles maybe bespoke OEM units and unable to be upgraded to accept other forms of sensor input data, and / or integrate with a new combat management system (CMS). Whereas the modern standard is of open architecture that accepts software from different OEMs, and easily integrateable with any CMS because it's a straight software problem. The RDN are able to rerole the consoles on their Iver Huitfeld and Absalon ships in a matter of minutes by just changing the software. So a console can go from an ASW role to an AAW role by just changing the software, all because of the use of open architecture consoles.
The RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a Surface to Air Missile (SAM) not a SSM and has a range of approx 10 nm (19 km). It cannot manoeuvre quickly enough to intercept low flying anti ship missiles, and requires a dedicated fire control radar.
I think you are too quick to write off the Mk41 VLS and MSI DS25M gun mounts. Has it actually been established that the version of Mk41 fitted to the Anzacs was really the shorter self defence version. I remember someone posting a diagram here showing the it penetrated 3 decks. Can you post any link to definitive info on the version fitted to the NZ Anzacs? There were plenty of reckons but no definites. As for the 25mm gun mounts being not fit for purpose. Perhaps not as main weapon on OPVs but they appear well fit for purpose on the many other naval ships that use them. Open architecture computer systems often have little difficulty in interfacing to legacy sysems. The legacy system developers may have started with a bespoke closed architecture but developing an API to provide a suitable comms or bus interface is quite common. I have no doubt that all versions of MK41 and MSI systems have been provided with required hardware interfaces and API software to enable full functionality with the latest developments in CMS I see nothing wrong in repurposing the NZ owned MK41 VLS and MSI gun mounts AND the use of existing paid for stock of older Seasparrow missiles. I accept the rim7 SS is an older design and has limitations but are NZ frigates ever likely to go toe to toe with modern aggressor navy SSMs? And survive? Those old Seasparrows wouldlikely still be very capable to deal with slower aircraft, UAVs or, Helos etc. could they be targeted to deal with smaller vessels? |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 13, 2019 21:28:28 GMT 12
The RIM-7 Sea Sparrow is a Surface to Air Missile (SAM) not a SSM and has a range of approx 10 nm (19 km). It cannot manoeuvre quickly enough to intercept low flying anti ship missiles, and requires a dedicated fire control radar.
I think you are too quick to write off the Mk41 VLS and MSI DS25M gun mounts. Has it actually been established that the version of Mk41 fitted to the Anzacs was really the shorter self defence version. I remember someone posting a diagram here showing the it penetrated 3 decks. Can you post any link to definitive info on the version fitted to the NZ Anzacs? There were plenty of reckons but no definites. As for the 25mm gun mounts being not fit for purpose. Perhaps not as main weapon on OPVs but they appear well fit for purpose on the many other naval ships that use them. Open architecture computer systems often have little difficulty in interfacing to legacy sysems. The legacy system developers may have started with a bespoke closed architecture but developing an API to provide a suitable comms or bus interface is quite common. I have no doubt that all versions of MK41 and MSI systems have been provided with required hardware interfaces and API software to enable full functionality with the latest developments in CMS I see nothing wrong in repurposing the NZ owned MK41 VLS and MSI gun mounts AND the use of existing paid for stock of older Seasparrow missiles. I accept the rim7 SS is an older design and has limitations but are NZ frigates ever likely to go toe to toe with modern aggressor navy SSMs? And survive? Those old Seasparrows wouldlikely still be very capable to deal with slower aircraft, UAVs or, Helos etc. could they be targeted to deal with smaller vessels? The used to be a reference online but blowed if I can find it now. It was part of a really great Mk-41 VLS resource that disappeared about 4 years ago. Really annoys me because it had a great illustration of what missiles went in what modules and the dimensions and number of decks penetrated. The Self defence Nodule didn't penetrate 3 decks and I think the tactical length on only penetrates two decks. The strike length module definitely penetrates 3 decks.
The navy only had sea sparrow missiles so there was no point in the govt spending more than it had to on a larger and heavier tactical length VLS module. Remember that the VLS was fitted up around No 3 deck from memory so stability considerations would've had to be taken into account. Subsequent RAN upgrades have shown that. The NZ govt that approved the ANZAC acquisition had Bolger as PM and Richardson as Finance Minister, and they cut back on as much as they possibly could, therefore there was no way that would pay for the SM2 missile which would have required the tactical length module. Even the RAN don't have tactical length modules on their ANZAC class frigates, again because of weight. The Sea Sparrows are history. They will have passed, or about to pass their out of service date and it costs money to keep them in service. With old gear as it gets older it costs a lot more to keep serviceable. Older systems cost money to upgrade to integrate with new systems and that's money that NZDF doesn't have. Plus, such development and integration is generally expensive and quite risky which means very expensive. It all comes down to money and what is both practical and feasible. The RAN SH-2G(A) Super Seasprite debacle is a classic case of not being practical and feasible.
I earnestly hope that our young sailors and airmen / airwomen never have to face incoming SSMs / AShMs, however that possibility always exists and as tensions within the Indo Pacific region increase, the probability of such a thing happening increases. When you make your oath of allegiance and sign your attestation papers, you sign an undated cheque made out to the govt & people of NZ with a maximum value of your life as the amount. Maybe that cheque will be cashed, maybe and hopefully it won't be. It's the same with the frigates, maybe they will be used in anger against a SSN or enemy battle fleet, aircraft, or incoming missiles etc., but maybe and hopefully not.
Whilst I have been arguing against the fitting of the Mk-41 Self Defence VLS to new frigates, I do think it would be feasible to fit one 8 cell module on Aotearoa and the second on Canterbury. In fact, I would go so far as saying that it should happen. That would mean added capability of 32 Sea Ceptor missiles on each ship for the ships self defence. I haven't gone into the details but Sea Ceptor is pretty radar agnostic, so they might be able to reuse the old search radars off Te Kaha and Te Mana, if it's possible to integrate the radars and just have to install new consoles etc. If not then stump up for new 3D search radars because both Aotearoa and Canterbury will be prime targets. However, I can't see a NZ govt doing such an upgrade because it would cost money, which I really don't see the logic in because it's a darn sight cheaper than losing one or both ships. I think they like playing roulette with the risk.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Oct 13, 2019 23:39:49 GMT 12
Whilst I have been arguing against the fitting of the Mk-41 Self Defence VLS to new frigates, I do think it would be feasible to fit one 8 cell module on Aotearoa and the second on Canterbury. In fact, I would go so far as saying that it should happen. That would mean added capability of 32 Sea Ceptor missiles on each ship for the ships self defence. I haven't gone into the details but Sea Ceptor is pretty radar agnostic, so they might be able to reuse the old search radars off Te Kaha and Te Mana, if it's possible to integrate the radars and just have to install new consoles etc. If not then stump up for new 3D search radars because both Aotearoa and Canterbury will be prime targets. However, I can't see a NZ govt doing such an upgrade because it would cost money, which I really don't see the logic in because it's a darn sight cheaper than losing one or both ships. I think they like playing roulette with the risk.
How about we just buy a couple of land ceptor systems and park them on Aotearoa & Canterbury. ..or better yet a couple of stealth systems - something akin to the AGAT Club-K Container Missile System The missile container concept has been talked about since back in 2013-15 so surely there must be several western versions in this asymmetric threat age. (the Russians and Chinese supposedly have developed versions) ThinkDefence did a good 'DIY' writeup on the feasibility of the concept for western forces back in 2015. Read Here: www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/11/a-universal-missile-and-rocket-launcher/ |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Oct 13, 2019 23:49:46 GMT 12
The used to be a reference online but blowed if I can find it now. It was part of a really great Mk-41 VLS resource that disappeared about 4 years ago. Really annoys me because it had a great illustration of what missiles went in what modules and the dimensions and number of decks penetrated. The Self defence Nodule didn't penetrate 3 decks and I think the tactical length on only penetrates two decks. The strike length module definitely penetrates 3 decks.
Was it the Thinkdefence blog?- they did several good pieces on rockets like this one: www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/01/rocket-renaissance/ |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 14, 2019 19:09:01 GMT 12
The used to be a reference online but blowed if I can find it now. It was part of a really great Mk-41 VLS resource that disappeared about 4 years ago. Really annoys me because it had a great illustration of what missiles went in what modules and the dimensions and number of decks penetrated. The Self defence Nodule didn't penetrate 3 decks and I think the tactical length on only penetrates two decks. The strike length module definitely penetrates 3 decks.
Was it the Thinkdefence blog?- they did several good pieces on rockets like this one: www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/01/rocket-renaissance/Thanks for the link, but unfortunately no it wasn't that one.
Regarding your Land Ceptor suggestion, no we would be far wiser to use Sea Ceptor with either the Mk-41 SDM VLS or the ExLS VLS because it's been specifically designed for the maritime environment, both up high and down low. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 18, 2019 22:15:30 GMT 12
The Royal New Zealand Navy has shared first photos of the upgraded Anzac-class frigate HMNZS Te Kaha. The most notable change following the upgrade was the ship’s new fore & aft masts which house a suite of electronic warfare equipment necessary for the Lockheed Martin Canada-developed CMS 330 combat management system. Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS 330 combat management system was initially developed for Canada’s Department of National Defence and then modified for the Royal New Zealand Navy with Canada’s support. HMNZS Te Kaha was the first of two NZ Navy frigates to undergo the extensive modernization, arriving at Seaspan’s shipyard in Victoria, British Columbia, in March 2018. Under a contract signed between the New Zealand government and Lockheed Martin Canada in 2014, HMNZS Te Kaha was fitted with updated equipment and systems including the combat management system, radar and underwater sonar. Te Kaha’s sister ship, HMNZS Te Mana, arrived in Canada for the same treatment in March 2019. In addition CMS upgrades, the frigates are also receiving MBDA’s Sea Ceptor vertical launched, active Common Anti-Air Modular Missile (Maritime) – CAMM(M) which will replace the current RIM7P NATO Seasparrow missile system. nighthawk.nz/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1496:upgraded-anzac-class-frigate-hmnzs-te-kaha&catid=11&Itemid=111 |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 20, 2019 19:34:47 GMT 12
Supporting the ANZAC-Frigate Systems Upgrade (FSU)
The ANZAC Frigate Systems Upgrade (FSU) project is upgrading the surveillance, combat and self-defence capabilities of the ANZAC frigates to match current and future threats and address obsolescence of some of the current systems.  Our Involvement from the Start In the beginning, Operations Analysts from the Defence Technology Agency (DTA) worked closely with military staff to define and wargame operational scenarios. We developed the analytic plan and executed it with the warfare officers and civilian representatives. The goal of this work was to determine and document the warfare performance required of the ANZAC frigate system. A significant part of this ground-breaking work was written by DTA scientists and it laid a solid foundation for the ANZAC FSU’s requirements and subsequent trade-off discussions. Once we established the performance requirements for the ANZAC FSU we then set out to compare the existing frigate system with them. Our work clearly showed gaps in capability that needed to be rectified if the government was to have a credible maritime combat capability. A multi-disciplinary team of DTA scientists then set out to consider what was possible in terms of different subsystem and overall system option types. We worked closely with the project team, military, industry and our defence science & technology partners to inform this work. The outcome was a strong understanding of the types of options available and the trade-offs that would need to be considered. We provided evidence that supported options trade-off studies which led to developing several options with different associated budget profiles. These were presented to decision makers for consideration. From this the size and scope of the ANZAC FSU was decided, requirements were fine-tuned and industry was approached for tenders. Our DTA scientists helped the tenders board by providing timely technical advice. We travelled with the FSU team on risk reduction visits to Canada, the UK, and the US in order to make sure the preferred solutions were robust and well understood by us. From this collective work a set of commercial
Ongoing Work
Since 2013 a wide range of our scientists have been involved in making ANZAC FSU a success. Our work includes: - aiding the design of the FSU operations rooms through physical walk-through modelling
- developing an evidence-based understanding of the mission support needs of the ANZAC FSU system
- performing modelling and data analysis to determine the expected performance of the ANZAC FSU system
- developing initial tactics data to drive the automation within the combat system
- refining RNZN’s technical understanding of new classes of subsystem
- supporting planning for operational testing and evaluation of the ANZAC frigates when they return from their installation phase.
DTA’s central role in maritime combat in New Zealand has been recognised by recently having a maritime countermeasures cell instated at the DTA. This cell or centre will periodically advise the RNZN on the optimal tactics to combat threats to the ANZAC FSU frigates in particular. We are also active in supporting the definition phase of the Future Surface Combatant project. www.dta.mil.nz/what-we-do/case-studies/supporting-the-anzac-frigate-systems-upgrade-fsu/
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Oct 20, 2019 22:55:17 GMT 12
Interesting PR verbiage about the FSU program.
Weird looking three screen console clearly intended for one person operation. I envisaged a large wall screen or projected display for bridge command to overview CMS with perhaps the CMS manager in front of wide curved sense surround display, or perhaps wearing a 3D Virtual reality headset. I hope the CMS is not based on either 2013 computing hardware or vintage operating system software. Maybe that’s wishful thinking.
Im sure I read somewhere remote weapon control and operation using VR headset
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 21, 2019 0:58:21 GMT 12
Interesting PR verbiage about the FSU program. Weird looking three screen console clearly intended for one person operation. I envisaged a large wall screen or projected display for bridge command to overview CMS with perhaps the CMS manager in front of wide curved sense surround display, or perhaps wearing a 3D Virtual reality headset. I hope the CMS is not based on either 2013 computing hardware or vintage operating system software. Maybe that’s wishful thinking. Im sure I read somewhere remote weapon control and operation using VR headset The CMS 330 is a Lockheed CMS and uses the open architecture and functionality from the Saab 9LV Mk 4 CMS to work with the SMART-S Mk 2 E/F-band 3D surveillance radar. It is already in use with the RCN on their Halifax class frigates. All modern CICs have work stations like the one in the DTA item and then usually wall mounted monitors. One of either the new Japanese or South Korean destoyers / frigates CICs have 360 degree wraparound wall monitors in the CIC, giving full 360 degree coverage.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Oct 27, 2019 21:20:39 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Oct 29, 2019 10:22:50 GMT 12
Looks like somewhere captain Kirk, Spock and Scotty would be seen. Does it have "Swish Swish" doors? |
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Oct 29, 2019 10:41:04 GMT 12
Looks like somewhere captain Kirk, Spock and Scotty would be seen. Does it have "Swish Swish" doors? I know modern frigates are quite big (WW2 cruiser size?), but are wheeled chairs a good idea? |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Oct 29, 2019 19:07:03 GMT 12
Thanks for posting this. On first viewing the CIC I thought it was a joke or perhaps a perverse Nippon disinformation exercise. 24 wheelie swivel chairs for 24 people to sit at individual mostly 3 screen workstations and a couple of coffee table screens. I don’t see where ‘integration’ comes into play or ‘augmented reality’. Does each swivel chair sitter command one missile each or a few dozen gun rounds or a main gun shell? Who gets to view the circle of flat screens? CAP Kirk on Enterprise would laugh if he had to deal with this mess of a CIC How do they possibly communicate in an integrated fashion with each other? I suspect by the time they organise whose turn it is to get the coffee and buns a modern ballistic ASM would have vaporised the whole CIC and probably the ship. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 29, 2019 20:35:58 GMT 12
Thanks for posting this. On first viewing the CIC I thought it was a joke or perhaps a perverse Nippon disinformation exercise. 24 wheelie swivel chairs for 24 people to sit at individual mostly 3 screen workstations and a couple of coffee table screens. I don’t see where ‘integration’ comes into play or ‘augmented reality’. Does each swivel chair sitter command one missile each or a few dozen gun rounds or a main gun shell? Who gets to view the circle of flat screens? CAP Kirk on Enterprise would laugh if he had to deal with this mess of a CIC How do they possibly communicate in an integrated fashion with each other? I suspect by the time they organise whose turn it is to get the coffee and buns a modern ballistic ASM would have vaporised the whole CIC and probably the ship. They play musical chairs, then go look for the golden rivet. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 29, 2019 20:57:01 GMT 12
we use to have chairs like that on the leanders in the Ops Room... don't recall it ever causing any uses...
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 29, 2019 22:52:13 GMT 12
we use to have chairs like that on the leanders in the Ops Room... don't recall it ever causing any uses... I saw a video on Youtube about that display. It can also give a 360 degree outside view, much better than your normal bridge view. Did you spot the helmsmans station in the CIC as well? |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 29, 2019 22:55:17 GMT 12
we use to have chairs like that on the leanders in the Ops Room... don't recall it ever causing any uses... I saw a video on Youtube about that display. It can also give a 360 degree outside view, much better than your normal bridge view. Did you spot the helmsmans station in the CIC as well? I did... and the two situation tables very star trek... lol |
|
|
|
Post by mcmaster on Oct 31, 2019 0:52:10 GMT 12
we use to have chairs like that on the leanders in the Ops Room... don't recall it ever causing any uses... So speaking of the Leanders in NZ service. What was the good and bad with that class? |
|
