Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_F-22A_0608-1.jpg

Nellis_EA-6B_0052-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_0070-1.jpg

Nellis_F-15C_Aggressor_0018-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Lucasnz A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 6 votes, 3.17 average.
Old May 28th, 2006   #76
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.
I don't want to belabour the point but something like the NLOS-LS might be a consideration. Better range and precision strike to avoid collateral damage. Also a system that is iner-operable with the army.

Something to consider anyway.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #77
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I don't want to belabour the point but something like the NLOS-LS might be a consideration. Better range and precision strike to avoid collateral damage. Also a system that is iner-operable with the army.

Something to consider anyway.
True. I only see the OPV being armed with something more substantial as providing anothe training platform. Frigates are scarce assets and FO parties don't have enough platforms to train with as it is.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #78
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
True. I only see the OPV being armed with something more substantial as providing anothe training platform. Frigates are scarce assets and FO parties don't have enough platforms to train with as it is.
I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?

I have no doubt that they will both do the job but one is a bit overkill I think.

Some sort of joint FO training with the Aussies?
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #79
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 155
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?

I have no doubt that they will both do the job but one is a bit overkill I think.

Some sort of joint FO training with the Aussies?
25mm is a substantial round itself. 76mm would make a decent hole, but remember that presumably the .50 cal systems would be retained as well.

The Australians are probably in the same position regarding FO training we are in. I don't we can reasonably expect them to train us on both naval gunfire observing and close air support! To a certain extent the skills for calling fire from a land-based battery and a ship are similar. Plotting the fire mission is a different story all together.
Rocco_NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #80
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco_NZ
25mm is a substantial round itself. 76mm would make a decent hole, but remember that presumably the .50 cal systems would be retained as well.

The Australians are probably in the same position regarding FO training we are in. I don't we can reasonably expect them to train us on both naval gunfire observing and close air support! To a certain extent the skills for calling fire from a land-based battery and a ship are similar. Plotting the fire mission is a different story all together.
I wonder then, if Aus and NZ were to equip a barge with a 5inch and have a combined School funded by both countries, combine land and air as well and cover all areas.

Not overly convinced myself, but it could be an idea to be explored. would help interoperability.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #81
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,938
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I guess the problem is this, if for some reason you have to fire on a trawler, because they decide not to stop, after the warning shots, do you put a 76mm into the bridge or a single/burst 25mm?
What are the Kiwi SOPs re this?

normally it's a progressive order of bangs:
  • single shot forward of bow
  • .50cal/20mm burst shot forward of bow
  • stern or engine block shot
  • wheelhouse
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #82
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,204
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
A 76mm would provide for an limited NGS capability on the MRV and air defence, using the existing optical fire control. There's no way you would fit a 127mm, without serious space issues below deck. On the MRV once you fitted a 76mm there are very few spaces left for a CIWS that would provide a suitable firing arc. Acquiring the naval version of Mistral seems to offer a low level of air defence suitable for the South Pacific, that is compatible with the army (one of the reasons the 25mm was fitted). Dito for the OPV.

Operating in a medium intensity environment is going to require an escort, but then thats the same for any LPD or like.
Why would you fit an 76mm with an optical sight with all the operational and weight penalaties at the exclusion of something like SeaRAM and give the vessel a credible ASMD? The 25mm is enough for stoping FFV's.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #83
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
I guess the issue is what sort of threat environments are the RNZN going to be operating the OPVs in? With the exception of the French and Australians they are more heavily armed than any other ship in the South Pacific and are mainly for resource protection, SAR and showinh the flag.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #84
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 719
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I guess the issue is what sort of threat environments are the RNZN going to be operating the OPVs in? With the exception of the French and Australians they are more heavily armed than any other ship in the South Pacific and are mainly for resource protection, SAR and showinh the flag
I see the need for NZ to be able to conduct low level military operations in the South Pacific. Operational experience such like Bouginville saw a need for a show the gun and the flag in the early stages. As a result Canterbury, with an NGS capability was deployed in support of the army. The same can also be said of East Timor - Show the gun with the flag. I concede the early operations in East Timor are considered medium level ops.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
Why would you fit an 76mm with an optical sight with all the operational and weight penalaties at the exclusion of something like SeaRAM and give the vessel a credible ASMD? The 25mm is enough for stoping FFV's.
I'm looking beyond just chasing FFV's. With only two ANZAC's the navy cannot guarantee an NGS capability for operations in the South Pacific. Sea RAM would be nice, but its limited to Air Defence and a limited surface warfare role - which Mistral can do.

I need to look into NLOS-LS as a viable alternative for the 76mm .
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #85
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucasnz
I see the need for NZ to be able to conduct low level military operations in the South Pacific. Operational experience such like Bouginville saw a need for a show the gun and the flag in the early stages. As a result Canterbury, with an NGS capability was deployed in support of the army. The same can also be said of East Timor - Show the gun with the flag. I concede the early operations in East Timor are considered medium level ops.
I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28th, 2006   #86
Super Moderator
Captain
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 719
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.

Agreed, but most nations are no longer building low level op ships to full mil-spec. Areas like the magazines are still at milspec but the rest is to civilian standard. The French Floreal, Danish SF3000 and SF3500 are examples.
Lucasnz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #87
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,204
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.

Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.
At a large cost and only a 57mm gun. Given the fixation with 76mm or greater this would seem counter to some of the opinions given.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #88
Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analyst
Major
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 903
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexsa
At a large cost and only a 57mm gun. Given the fixation with 76mm or greater this would seem counter to some of the opinions given.
Probably more accurate to say the Austal design Trimaran, with armament to suit local conditions. Patrol, amphibious, capable of ASW and ASuW upgrades etc..

Small crew low costs.

Sorry I should have expanded.
Whiskyjack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #89
Defense Professional / Analyst
Major General
alexsa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,204
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiskyjack
Probably more accurate to say the Austal design Trimaran, with armament to suit local conditions. Patrol, amphibious, capable of ASW and ASuW upgrades etc..

Small crew low costs.

Sorry I should have expanded.
Noted, no problems. I don't mean to sound difficult but to include such capability the 127m hull platform based on the Fred Olsen ferry (same hull form used for LCS) is still not going to be cheap. In addition there are very real operating limitations on the lightweight aluminium structure used on this type of vessel in respect of seastate (i.e the great southern ocean) and what loads you can apply to the structure. The LCS itself is limtied to ASMD (RAM), 50 cal HMG, a 57mm gun and sensors. The other capability is provided by mission packages which again add to cost.

Being aware of the classification of the Fred Olsen ferry in respect of its operating limitations (it is built under the HSC code) it would appear it is not a vessel that can sustain operations in all conditions and I doubt it is intended for sustained operations in some of the areas that NZ needs to patrol. There are more cost effective solutions to provide similar capability for the money NZ (and Australia for that matter) can afford.
alexsa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 29th, 2006   #90
Defense Aficionado
Major General
Sea Toby's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,473
Threads:
I don't think New Zealand would commit to any military operations in the South Pacific without any military support from Australia, nor without the support of the South Pacific Forum nations either. However I do see a humanitarian mission undertaken alone by New Zealand, if and when the Australians are overstretched in other military or humanitarian missions elsewhere. New Zealand forces are very capable of doing this very low threat level of operations.

While I would prefer to have a 57-mm or 75-mm gun on both the MRV and OPVs, and the 25-mm gun on the IPVs, having the 25-mm gun on the larger ships and small arms on the IPVs is adequate for patrol missions these ships were designed and equipped for. New Zealand needs new IPVs as much as they needed the MRV and OPVs, therefore I accept and understand the compromise of the smaller arms. The currrent partol boats New Zealand has are inadequate and need to be replaced ASAP, the new IPVs can do every job the old patrol boats could do and are better ships for other missions.

The new Project Protector ships are needed, and their potential missions have been well thought out by the government agencies involved. Nevertheless, New Zealand still needs at least a third frigate in my opinion for forward deployments, the two don't provide sustainability past six months. Since New Zealand missed the opportunity to build the third frigate of the same class, it would be best to commission two frigates of a newer class at the mid-life point of the Anzac class frigates, bring the total to four frigates. Doing so will stretch out the acquisition costs allowing for sustainability and most importantly avoid block obsolescence.

New Zealand should be able to afford a new small replenishment ship, a hydrographic ship, and a diving tender when the former ships wear out, these ships are cheap compared to frigates. Since the MRV will most likely see only 100 days at sea annually, its life should and could last over 40 years, whereas the OPVs and IPVs will wear out before 30 years.

I know a few Kiwis who think the frigates should be replaced by OPVs, which are not in my opinion warships, nor can they ever be. They were not designed to military standards, therefore won't last in a war. I would prefer to build another two frigates than upgrade the OPVs with SAMs or SSMs. The whole purpose of acquiring the OPVs is to free up the frigates for forward deployments. While the OPV can replace a frigate in a show the flag visit, they are not designed for combat.

Last edited by Sea Toby; May 29th, 2006 at 01:22 PM.
Sea Toby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:28 AM.