NZDF General discussion thread

[Aussie Digger]

You were the one who suggested the Hellfire . Not me. To whatever platform was completely beside the point, it has no relevance to the subject whatsoever. It seems you have a bad case of amnesia because if you remember it was you that suggested it was the Mav. that i was argueing about being fitted to the P3 when i hadnt even mentioned it. Give me a break.


FYI, the USN uses Hellfire in the maritime strike role from their Seahawks in the same manner RNZAF employ AGM-65 Maverick from your Seasprites, which you have argued SHOULD be employed from the P-3K's. Talk about contradicting yourself...

And I was big enough to publicly acknowledge my mistake.

A rare thing around here it seems.

I misquoted you and YOU did the same to me...

But anyway I digress.

I certainly hope the ASM project for NZ does go ahead, but it's HARDLY unheard of for a Government to change it's mind about it's defence priorities is it? It may be a current priority (though pretty far down the list according to LTDP) but who says it will be in 4-5 years time?

From a re-read of the LTDP it seems the P-3 mission systems upgrade is due for completion in the 2008/9 timeframe. From the quote I gave earlier it seems the ASM acquisition project will commence once this necessary project is completed.

Does anyone know if this project is proceeding on-time or is it delayed? Even if it IS on time and the ASM project kicks off in 2009, I can see that it's unlikely that the ASM will be in-service with NZDF before 2011/2012.

That's a LONG time in defence acquisition matters. Hopefully nothing springs up that persuades the Government to direct it's focus elsewhere...

 

[Markus40]

Yes you mentioned and quote: "From a re-read of the LTDP it seems the P-3 mission systems upgrade is due for completion in the 2008/9 timeframe. From the quote I gave earlier it seems the ASM acquisition project will commence once this necessary project is completed"

Well , something that makes sense at last and seems to agree with my original statement long ago if you read it. .Remember? Quote: "NZ will get the ASM shortly for the P3. This has been confirmed in the LTPD report put out last year. As to what type we have to wait. So the P3 WILL have the capabilities they need."

Maybe another "digression"?

As to the acquisition timing of the proposed ASM, you cant put each seperate acquisition into the same timing context. Some acquisitions will take a shorter time for commissioning like alot of the FMS purchases such as the Javelin Missile and Army radios etc. Some take longer depending on the availability and release aspects to its purchase. I really dont think 2008-2010 is a long time, considering the ASM once approved is in step with the P3 upgrade. Another example is the NH90 purchase which is not due till 2009.

Outside of the governments stupid disbandenment of the A4s i really think so far every promise has been made to keep the "buys" on line and they have been coming thick and fast for our defence forces. I really dont see them reneging on the ASM purchase.

And I was big enough to publicly acknowledge my mistake.

A rare thing around here it seems.

I misquoted you and YOU did the same to me...

But anyway I digress.

I certainly hope the ASM project for NZ does go ahead, but it's HARDLY unheard of for a Government to change it's mind about it's defence priorities is it? It may be a current priority (though pretty far down the list according to LTDP) but who says it will be in 4-5 years time?

From a re-read of the LTDP it seems the P-3 mission systems upgrade is due for completion in the 2008/9 timeframe. From the quote I gave earlier it seems the ASM acquisition project will commence once this necessary project is completed.

Does anyone know if this project is proceeding on-time or is it delayed? Even if it IS on time and the ASM project kicks off in 2009, I can see that it's unlikely that the ASM will be in-service with NZDF before 2011/2012.

That's a LONG time in defence acquisition matters. Hopefully nothing springs up that persuades the Government to direct it's focus elsewhere...

 

[Markus40]

Why wouldnt countrys be willing to sell the Harpoon in this case to NZ? If the US does sell them to Countrys around the world and we received the first batch for the P3 and ANZACs, why wouldnt long term sustainability be kept by receiving the numbers we need to sustain our stocks of this weapon from other countrys that have a surplus? This isnt a trick question. Its a valid and i would say relevant question if we want to sustain our offensive capability.

The other thing is where did you get your remark about whether the ASM would be regarded as a defensive weapon on our vessels.? Did you forget about what an ANZAC can do? What about the Evolved Seasparrow and CIWS?

The other suggestion i would like to make is that the government maybe less likely to arm the ANZACs with the ASM right now considering the Seasprite can launch the maverick. Does anyone have a comment about that? This would release the option to arm the P3 with the Harpoon if that is the weapon of choice only.

True the only indication seems to be under the ANZAC self defence upgrade section of the LTDP with it's "links to other capabilities - anti-ship missiles". Perhaps NZDF consider an ASM as part of the vessels self defence capability?

The Block II can be fired in legacy mode, indeed that is how they would be fired from Australian AP-3C's and Adelaide Class FFG's which are not receiving the Harpoon Block II AHWCS....

The NSM/JSM could be an option, but as I outlined earlier will probably occur additional integration costs. No doubt NZDF will study these issues at length if it does get Government approval to proceed with the project. A purchase of more than 1 variant of missile seems doubtful in the extreme to me, given the overall level of doubt about the project anyway...

As to whether any Country would be willing to sell Harpoon missiles to NZ out of existing inventory I'm not sure, but it hardly seems a sustainable long term acquisition plan...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Why wouldnt countrys be willing to sell the Harpoon in this case to NZ? If the US does sell them to Countrys around the world and we received the first batch for the P3 and ANZACs, why wouldnt long term sustainability be kept by receiving the numbers we need to sustain our stocks of this weapon from other countrys that have a surplus? This isnt a trick question. Its a valid and i would say relevant question if we want to sustain our offensive capability.

For starters most Countries outside of the USA don't maintain large warstocks of weapons. Australia certainly doesn't and barely has enough Harpoon missiles to equip it's front line vessels with their standard loadout. It doesn't have excess capacity to sell to others.

If this is true of other Countries as it is of Australia, then even if they DO grant a small purchase of missiles, it is hardly going to be sustainable is it? THEY are not going to have the inventory capable of supporting your missile needs and nor should they. I hardly see any great benefit for these unnamed Countries, except perhaps as a way to off-load life expired weapon systems and do you think such is a good deal for NZ?

It's the same as the idea of a RAAF fighter Sqn being based in NZ. Whilst I'm sure it'd be a good thing for NZ, providing them with air defence capacity they won't provide for themselves, where exactly is the benefit for Australia to do so?

The other thing is where did you get your remark about whether the ASM would be regarded as a defensive weapon on our vessels.? Did you forget about what an ANZAC can do? What about the Evolved Seasparrow and CIWS?

Section 8.5 LTDP page 43: "Links to other Capabilities:

- P-3 air to surface weapon

What possible link could the ANZAC upgrade have to the P-3 air to surface weapon?

The other suggestion i would like to make is that the government maybe less likely to arm the ANZACs with the ASM right now considering the Seasprite can launch the maverick. Does anyone have a comment about that? This would release the option to arm the P3 with the Harpoon if that is the weapon of choice only.

I would, but I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Particularly: "This would release the option to arm the P3 with the Harpoon if that is the weapon of choice only".

Do you mean that the Seasprite/Maverick capability makes a P-3/ASM combo unnecessary in Government's eyes?

 

[Tasman]

The other suggestion i would like to make is that the government maybe less likely to arm the ANZACs with the ASM right now considering the Seasprite can launch the maverick. Does anyone have a comment about that? This would release the option to arm the P3 with the Harpoon if that is the weapon of choice only.

I think that NZ is on the right track in giving priority in the Anzac upgrade to fitting ESSM and upgrading the CIWS to give it a better capability against fast waterborne threats. The addition of Mini Typhoon would also be a comparatively cheap and effective option for littoral and general patrol operations.

As the Seasprite already has the Maverick I would give priority to fitting an ASM to the P3s before fitting Harpoon to the Anzacs although it would be nice to do both. As to the type of ASM I don't see a problem with having a different missile for the P3s to the Harpoon Block IIs that hopefully will eventually be fitted to the Anzacs.

The Block II can be fired in legacy mode, indeed that is how they would be fired from Australian AP-3C's and Adelaide Class FFG's which are not receiving the Harpoon Block II AHWCS....

The NSM/JSM could be an option, but as I outlined earlier will probably occur additional integration costs. No doubt NZDF will study these issues at length if it does get Government approval to proceed with the project. A purchase of more than 1 variant of missile seems doubtful in the extreme to me, given the overall level of doubt about the project anyway...

I know from what Magoo said in an earlier post (may have been in another thread) that quite extensive work would be needed to fit the P3s to fire Harpoon Block II. The fact that they can be fired in legacy mode (I presume you mean by this that they would lose the land attack capability and would be purely an anti shipping weapon) is interesting. Does anyone know how much work would be required to fit Kiwi P3s to fire Harpoon II in legacy mode? If it involves a lot of work and expense would it not be better to go all the way and fit them with full capability to operate Harpoon II or would it be better to acquire a different missile like the NSM? Maybe it needs Magoo or another technically savvy member to answer this!

As I indicated above I'm not sure I agree that NZ couldn't operate two missiles, particularly if Australia eventually buys the NSM for its AP3Cs. If NZ opted for NSM for its P3s and eventually fitted Harpoon Block II to the Anzacs it may well be able to arrange joint support with Australia for both systems, perhaps with Australia taking the lead with the Harpoon and NZ with the NSM.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know from what Magoo said in an earlier post (may have been in another thread) that quite extensive work would be needed to fit the P3s to fire Harpoon Block II. The fact that they can be fired in legacy mode (I presume you mean by this that they would lose the land attack capability and would be purely an anti shipping weapon) is interesting. Does anyone know how much work would be required to fit Kiwi P3s to fire Harpoon II in legacy mode? If it involves a lot of work and expense would it not be better to go all the way and fit them with full capability to operate Harpoon II or would it be better to acquire a different missile like the NSM? Maybe it needs Magoo or another technically savvy member to answer this!

As I indicated above I'm not sure I agree that NZ couldn't operate two missiles, particularly if Australia eventually buys the NSM for its AP3Cs. If NZ opted for NSM for its P3s and eventually fitted Harpoon Block II to the Anzacs it may well be able to arrange joint support with Australia for both systems, perhaps with Australia taking the lead with the Harpoon and NZ with the NSM.

Cheers

I don't think there's any doubt that NZ COULD operate 2x missile systems if it chose, but you have to wonder exactly WHY they'd want to.

The NZDF available budget is not large and it seems like a considerable waste to me operating multiple missile types in the same role. Adding in the additional integration costs of a different weapon system and as Dave_the_Kiwi stated the RNZAF P-3K's are already wired for Harpoon. It just makes very little sense to me why they'd opt for anything else.

Magoo as I recall was referring to the AHWCS system that is needed to gain the full capability from the Harpoon II. As I understand things, it is as capable as the Block I's WITHOUT the AHWCS though...

BTW, the Kiwi's are apparently rather soured on the idea of "joint defence acquisitions" with Australia since the Seasprite decision by all reports. I doubt that the fact that we might choose something holds much influence in NZ anymore.

Look at the fact that they've opted to go with the German Army for their NH-90 training and support. Would've been easier and probably cheaper to "tag onto Australia" but they haven't...

 

[Tasman]

I don't think there's any doubt that NZ COULD operate 2x missile systems if it chose, but you have to wonder exactly WHY they'd want to.

The NZDF available budget is not large and it seems like a considerable waste to me operating multiple missile types in the same role. Adding in the additional integration costs of a different weapon system and as Dave_the_Kiwi stated the RNZAF P-3K's are already wired for Harpoon. It just makes very little sense to me why they'd opt for anything else.

Magoo as I recall was referring to the AHWCS system that is needed to gain the full capability from the Harpoon II. As I understand things, it is as capable as the Block I's WITHOUT the AHWCS though...

Thanks for the clarification AD. I'd missed the fact that the P3Ks are wired for the Harpoon. On that basis the purchase of Harpoon Block II to be fired in legacy mode would make sense.

Cheers

 

[Mr Brown]

Hey Tasman, Kiwi frigates are already been equipped with Mini-Typhoon, read about it in April Navy Today.

I would like to see the OPVs equipped with this system as well, plus replacing 25mm with 57mm, design has the space for it, orginal Appledore design for Irish has 76mm as I recall.

I don't know if OPV design has space for a missle magazine to support Mav armed Seasprite. Certainly not a condsideration in original specs.

 

[Gibbo]

... they've (NZ) opted to go with the German Army for their NH-90 training and support...

Hmm, where did you hear that? I believe we're getting French built a/c but hadn't heard anything about training and support.

 

[Aussie Digger]

Hmm, where did you hear that? I believe we're getting French built a/c but hadn't heard anything about training and support.

I read it somewhere recently. I'll try and find where I found it. It was in the context of the NZ unhappiness over the Seasprite issue though...

 

[Gibbo]

Hey Tasman, Kiwi frigates are already been equipped with Mini-Typhoon, read about it in April Navy Today....

Almost...

"...A contract for the system, valued at about USD3.5 million, was placed with Rafael, Israel’s Armament Development Authority, in December 2006. Installation is planned to be undertaken on Te Mana in late 2007 and Te Kaha and early 2008...."

Full press release at bottom of page on following link:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

 

[Markus40]

Does anyone know which of the mini typhoon system will be installed on the ANZACs as there appears to be several prototypes available. Cheers.

Almost...

"...A contract for the system, valued at about USD3.5 million, was placed with Rafael, Israel’s Armament Development Authority, in December 2006. Installation is planned to be undertaken on Te Mana in late 2007 and Te Kaha and early 2008...."

Full press release at bottom of page on following link:
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

 

[Markus40]

Hi Tasman, yes all the essm and essential upgrades on the ANZACs are critical in keeping pace with todays technology.

Can i throw in my two cents worth here, that i really cant see our current government installing 2 x types of ASM or even having the Harpoon 1 or 11s on our ANZACs. Its highly unlikely in my opinion that they will do this when the Mav. is already fitted to the Seasprite. Unless of course they discard the MAV. altogether and go with one common type ASM. And if they did this then im sure the P3 will be fitted with this type, but there is no way in my understanding of Defence politics within NZ (although im surprised sometimes) that two different types will be operating, unless they have too much money to spend.

Question: Is it possible to fit a Mav. to a P3? If not , why not?

I think that NZ is on the right track in giving priority in the Anzac upgrade to fitting ESSM and upgrading the CIWS to give it a better capability against fast waterborne threats. The addition of Mini Typhoon would also be a comparatively cheap and effective option for littoral and general patrol operations.

As the Seasprite already has the Maverick I would give priority to fitting an ASM to the P3s before fitting Harpoon to the Anzacs although it would be nice to do both. As to the type of ASM I don't see a problem with having a different missile for the P3s to the Harpoon Block IIs that hopefully will eventually be fitted to the Anzacs.



I know from what Magoo said in an earlier post (may have been in another thread) that quite extensive work would be needed to fit the P3s to fire Harpoon Block II. The fact that they can be fired in legacy mode (I presume you mean by this that they would lose the land attack capability and would be purely an anti shipping weapon) is interesting. Does anyone know how much work would be required to fit Kiwi P3s to fire Harpoon II in legacy mode? If it involves a lot of work and expense would it not be better to go all the way and fit them with full capability to operate Harpoon II or would it be better to acquire a different missile like the NSM? Maybe it needs Magoo or another technically savvy member to answer this!

As I indicated above I'm not sure I agree that NZ couldn't operate two missiles, particularly if Australia eventually buys the NSM for its AP3Cs. If NZ opted for NSM for its P3s and eventually fitted Harpoon Block II to the Anzacs it may well be able to arrange joint support with Australia for both systems, perhaps with Australia taking the lead with the Harpoon and NZ with the NSM.

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Does anyone know which of the mini typhoon system will be installed on the ANZACs as there appears to be several prototypes available. Cheers.

It's the mini-typhoon equipped with a 12.7mm machine gun with 2x remotely operated guns and a Top Lite EO sensor per ship, I believe, same as RAN's ANZAC's.

 

[Markus40]

I believe that the OPV does have the space and support for a Mav armed seasprite. I recently saw a really good website that has the whole plan structure for the NZ OPV including Helo hanger.

Hey Tasman, Kiwi frigates are already been equipped with Mini-Typhoon, read about it in April Navy Today.

I would like to see the OPVs equipped with this system as well, plus replacing 25mm with 57mm, design has the space for it, orginal Appledore design for Irish has 76mm as I recall.

I don't know if OPV design has space for a missle magazine to support Mav armed Seasprite. Certainly not a condsideration in original specs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

I believe that the OPV does have the space and support for a Mav armed seasprite. I recently saw a really good website that has the whole plan structure for the NZ OPV including Helo hanger.

It doesn't have an air weapons magazine though, from what I've seen of the plans, meaning: no Mavericks...

 

[Todjaeger]

Does anyone know which of the mini typhoon system will be installed on the ANZACs as there appears to be several prototypes available. Cheers.

A mini-Typhoon makes use of a 0.50 cal HMG. Generally to my understanding, the Typhoon/mini-Typhoon system is all pretty similar in terms of weapon stations. The differences come in when the decisision is made on arming the Typhoon system, selecting which gun to use, a gun/missile combo, etc.

Me being me, I'd rather the RNZN Anzacs get a Typhoon with the 25mm Bushmaster (I really don't like this gun BTW:shudder ) than the mini-Typhoon, just for the greater range and stopping power the 25mm has over the 12.7mm/0.50 cal. Having said that, mini-Typhoons are nevertheless steps in the right direction.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Hey Tasman, Kiwi frigates are already been equipped with Mini-Typhoon, read about it in April Navy Today.

That's good to hear. Progress in the RAN with fitting this weapon seems to be a little slow. At present it seems that it's being fitted to ships deploying to the Gulf and then pulled off when they return. Hopefully in NZ's case both frigates will be fitted with it on a permanent basis.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

In answer to the last question i wouldnt say unecessary but i would say the the government will be looking pretty closely at its options and tapping on the calculators to make sure they are getting the biggest bang for their buck. So would i if i had to make the choice. Unless of course i had lots of surplus money in the Reserve bank to draw on to supplement the MAV. thats already fitted to the Navys Seasprite.

It makes fiscal sense as well as economic sense to have the Navy and P3s armed with the same Missile. No doubt about that. If the Mav. can be installed to the P3 then its a done deal. We have a common rated system that covers both requirements for the defence forces.

If the Mav. was easily dropped and the Harpoon easily fitted to the P3 and ANZAC without too much expenditure then im sure it will be a green light.

How easy would it be to change the launch rack of the seasprite to be able to carry the Harpoon? And my next question would be if the ANZACs were to be fitted with the Harpoon should or would the Seasprites operate without a weapon other than the Torpedo.?

What possible link would there be between the P3 and ANZACs? Answer: A 100% link when considering the governments choice for a common rated type of ASM if that is what it will choose to do.

For starters most Countries outside of the USA don't maintain large warstocks of weapons. Australia certainly doesn't and barely has enough Harpoon missiles to equip it's front line vessels with their standard loadout. It doesn't have excess capacity to sell to others.

If this is true of other Countries as it is of Australia, then even if they DO grant a small purchase of missiles, it is hardly going to be sustainable is it? THEY are not going to have the inventory capable of supporting your missile needs and nor should they. I hardly see any great benefit for these unnamed Countries, except perhaps as a way to off-load life expired weapon systems and do you think such is a good deal for NZ?

It's the same as the idea of a RAAF fighter Sqn being based in NZ. Whilst I'm sure it'd be a good thing for NZ, providing them with air defence capacity they won't provide for themselves, where exactly is the benefit for Australia to do so?



Section 8.5 LTDP page 43: "Links to other Capabilities:

- P-3 air to surface weapon

What possible link could the ANZAC upgrade have to the P-3 air to surface weapon?



I would, but I don't really understand what you're saying here.

Particularly: "This would release the option to arm the P3 with the Harpoon if that is the weapon of choice only".

Do you mean that the Seasprite/Maverick capability makes a P-3/ASM combo unnecessary in Government's eyes?

 

[Todjaeger]

Can i throw in my two cents worth here, that i really cant see our current government installing 2 x types of ASM or even having the Harpoon 1 or 11s on our ANZACs. Its highly unlikely in my opinion that they will do this when the Mav. is already fitted to the Seasprite. Unless of course they discard the MAV. altogether and go with one common type ASM. And if they did this then im sure the P3 will be fitted with this type, but there is no way in my understanding of Defence politics within NZ (although im surprised sometimes) that two different types will be operating, unless they have too much money to spend.

Question: Is it possible to fit a Mav. to a P3? If not , why not?

I would imagine that is it possible to fit the Maverick to the P-3 in some fashion. The question becomes, would one want to? The Maverick is a good air-to-ground CAS missile, but it is not an anti-ship missile. The range is something like 15km and I believe the Maverick has either a laser or radio guidance system. This would put the launching platform (either Seasprite or P-3) with the launch range of most ship-based air defence systems. No, I'm not including point defence systems like RAM. A Maverick is fine for attacking/destroying small vessels or other vessels that don't have air defences, but if used on a warship, the attacking aircraft it likely to be engaged before entering the effective range of the Maverick.

IMV a Maverick-armed Seasprite while useful against FACs, is no replacement for a proper AShM aboard the frigates. As mentioned above, the Seasprite would need to get close enough to the target to launch, then would need to remain close in order to guide the missile in. This means (to me) that the Seasprite couldn't effectively engage a hostile warship. That would then force the RNZN Anzacs to rely on their 5 in/127mm main gun for anti-shipping attacks. I would expect that the Anzacs would've come under AShM fire before being able to get within range of the main gun.

Just my $0.02

-Cheers