NZDF - Now and the Future.

[Aussie Digger]

Mavericks on P-3s? Why don't they just buy some cheap Harpoons?

Harpoons aren't cheap, costing roughly $1m per round and Maverick is already in NZ's inventory (arming RNZN's Super Seasprites).

Maverick has a standoff round of around 20-30k's which should be sufficient for any limited engagement the NZDF would be "allowed" to undertake...

 

[Rocco_NZ]

At NZ$20-25m, they won't be buying much of a capability. It's more than likely NOT going to be Harpoon at that price, let alone SLAM-ER or anything else more capable...

It probably doesn't need to involve large numbers of weapons. Procurement for training should be enough. I don't see anyone denying war stocks to an ally requesting them....

 

[Aussie Digger]

It probably doesn't need to involve large numbers of weapons. Procurement for training should be enough. I don't see anyone denying war stocks to an ally requesting them....

The French were allies of Argentina, and France and Sweden were allegedly allies of Australia during Vietnam...

 

[Lucasnz]

It probably doesn't need to involve large numbers of weapons. Procurement for training should be enough. I don't see anyone denying war stocks to an ally requesting them....

Except we are not an Ally of the supplier (USA), were just friends, as a result of ANZUS dispute, which saw the US suspend any obligations NZ had in relation to the defence of NZ.

Result - NZ needs to hold higher stock piles of equipment. Reality is that the threat level means that 2 Load outs for each P3's (72 missiles in total assuming 6 per flight)and ANZAC (32 Missiles) each should be sufficent if not excessive to meet low/medium level threats at short notice. Personally I'd rather split such expenditure between Harpoon and a stand off ground attack missile.

 

[Big-E]

Harpoons aren't cheap, costing roughly $1m per round and Maverick is already in NZ's inventory (arming RNZN's Super Seasprites).

Maverick has a standoff round of around 20-30k's which should be sufficient for any limited engagement the NZDF would be "allowed" to undertake...

It is possible to get older versions of Harpoon on resale or better yet they could buy the even cheaper AM39-Exocets. Using AGM-65F will get a P-3 shot down long before it has a chance to fire against any ship armed with MR-SAMs. Any ship over 2k tons will take multiple hits to sink.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Using AGM-65F will get a P-3 shot down long before it has a chance to fire against any ship armed with MR-SAMs. Any ship over 2k tons will take multiple hits to sink.

• The Maverick F AGM-65F (infrared targeting) used by the Navy has a larger (300 pound; 136 kg) penetrating warhead vice the 125 pound (57 kg) shaped charge used by Marine and Air Force) and infrared guidance system optimized for ship tracking.

re above, I would have thought that if a Maverick is able to make a mess of RHA with a 300lb shaped charge warhead, then they'll certainly do some damage to a ship - esp at the waterline.

if the skimmer does have decent anti-air then it could be a worry for them, but they also have a 9th life as they carry decoys and flares as well.

damn shame no one has worked out how to "JDAM" a Maverick and/or a Penguin. You could launch at 80km and once it hit 20km its own booster could kick in. At least 80km would give the orion real stand off range.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I don't think they'll find much to cut. The airforce is losing Auckland (Down from 4 bases 15 years ago to 2). The navy has already rationalised into Devonport, most of Narrow Neck and efforts to close Burnham in the past have been fustrated by "Strategic Issues".

The only areas I see available for cutting / deferring are projects like the Frigate upgrade and associated ASW Torpedo replacement, Anti ship missiles. Most of the other projects are those approved when the government came in 6 years ago and already underway. The structure of the army might be streamlined, but thats more adminstrative.

Of course as in the case of the Skyhawks which hadn't been used for 30 years operationally NZ could "safely" remove its anti armour, artillery, Manpads capability:

I wouldn't read too much in to talk of looking for economies. Trentham Camp is under review, but that's about it as far as I know. I can't see much point of keeping Trentham open. It's been known for years as a pogue base. The most important occupant is SPEL, and they'll operate from whereever their contract tells them to.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Except we are not an Ally of the supplier (USA), were just friends, as a result of ANZUS dispute, which saw the US suspend any obligations NZ had in relation to the defence of NZ.

The United States has conveniantly forgotten about that issue when we've needed kit to contribute to operations they are involved in or support. Look at Bosnia, Timor and Afghanistan.

I don't subscribe to the ridiculious notion that they will be needed for use within the EEZ, or that NZ will face any armed attacker alone - that is simply fantasy.

 

[Lucasnz]

The United States has conveniantly forgotten about that issue when we've needed kit to contribute to operations they are involved in or support. Look at Bosnia, Timor and Afghanistan.

True that the interests of NZ and the US will be generally aligned to a high degree in matters of foreign policy, defence, human rights etc. But there have been clear cases where the US has looked after its own interests (The ANZUS dispute, Falklands war: when it supported one side over the other). Consequently reliance on a nation to supply equipment (or cut of supply) in a military crisis can not be taken for granted.

I don't subscribe to the ridiculious notion that they will be needed for use within the EEZ, or that NZ will face any armed attacker alone - that is simply fantasy.

I disagree. New Zealander's tend to focus the defence debate (what there is of one) around invasion scenarios, but ignore the fact that a significant number of country's have a much wider or readily available range of capabilities, that fall significantly short of an invasion. These include: Mining of ports and harbours (Either by submarine or a merchant vessel (Has the Iranian's have used), Threatening or carrying out attacks on key political, economic and military targets using special forces, cruise missiles, Naval Gunfire, and to a more limited extent air stirkes. NZ should be able to deal with these types of low level threats alone, if it can't we should join Australia (I'll will now wash my mouth out).

 

[Big-E]

. NZ should be able to deal with these types of low level threats alone, if it can't we should join Australia (I'll will now wash my mouth out).

If your really worried about it then petition the US to become the 51st state.:lol3

 

[Padman]

How about the navy getting a third OPV with a 76mm gun and fitting one of the other two with one? Would provide a little mobile artillery for Pacific deployments.
Also what happened to United Future and New Zealand First defence ideas, the former suggested a Maritime Protection Force equipped with IPVs, helicopters and MP aircraft, for fisheries protection, in order to free up frigates and Orions for deployments. NZF suggested he creation of a marine infantry battalion, though did not mention how to deploy it.

The F-16s we were to get are now operated by USN for aggressor training. Pakistan the original customer, is now getting more capable F-16s as reward for part in fighting Al-Qeada.

 

[Whiskyjack]

How about the navy getting a third OPV with a 76mm gun and fitting one of the other two with one? Would provide a little mobile artillery for Pacific deployments.
Also what happened to United Future and New Zealand First defence ideas, the former suggested a Maritime Protection Force equipped with IPVs, helicopters and MP aircraft, for fisheries protection, in order to free up frigates and Orions for deployments. NZF suggested he creation of a marine infantry battalion, though did not mention how to deploy it.

The F-16s we were to get are now operated by USN for aggressor training. Pakistan the original customer, is now getting more capable F-16s as reward for part in fighting Al-Qeada.

Has anyone seen the new Austal trimaran corvette?

2-3 of these would be perfect for the South Pacific, capable of patrols of 3000nm, and a crew of 35. Capable of operating helos up to NH-90 class and a 480m2 ‘mission’ deck that can take army vehicles, cargo, be converted into a hospital or a spec ops area.

Something like this can patrol, provide disaster relief, move small amounts of military forces around etc…

Like a small less expensive LCS.

 

[Padman]

Great idea! I was already impressed by the Cat you guys operated a few years ago. An identical vessel is current used a fast ferry across Cook Strait. But a Trimaran corvette, now that would be awesome!

 

[gf0012-aust]

Has anyone seen the new Austal trimaran corvette?

2-3 of these would be perfect for the South Pacific, capable of patrols of 3000nm, and a crew of 35. Capable of operating helos up to NH-90 class and a 480m2 ‘mission’ deck that can take army vehicles, cargo, be converted into a hospital or a spec ops area.

Something like this can patrol, provide disaster relief, move small amounts of military forces around etc…

Like a small less expensive LCS.

I actually prefer some of the other Austal designs that are readily available and adaptable.

Some of Austals fast feeder designs especially would be suitable for rapid force insertion or interdiction. add a RCWS to the roof and/or bow and you;d have some excellent FPV's/OPV's.

I got some of their more recent designs sent to me the other month, but none are electronic. (and they're A3 sized schemers)

 

[Whiskyjack]

I actually prefer some of the other Austal designs that are readily available and adaptable.

Some of Austals fast feeder designs especially would be suitable for rapid force insertion or interdiction. add a RCWS to the roof and/or bow and you;d have some excellent FPV's/OPV's.

I got some of their more recent designs sent to me the other month, but none are electronic. (and they're A3 sized schemers)

I have to agree, they seem to answer to the low level issues that both Australia and NZ find in the South Pacific, due to there combination of stability, multi role hull, endurance and speed.

I guess we shall have to wait and see.

 

[Lucasnz]

Has anyone seen the new Austal trimaran corvette?

2-3 of these would be perfect for the South Pacific, capable of patrols of 3000nm, and a crew of 35. Capable of operating helos up to NH-90 class and a 480m2 ‘mission’ deck that can take army vehicles, cargo, be converted into a hospital or a spec ops area.

Something like this can patrol, provide disaster relief, move small amounts of military forces around etc…

Like a small less expensive LCS.

General Question: Does a trimaran hull provide improved sea keeping over traditional hull forms? Talking to a relative who use to work on the Fast Cook Strait Ferry it seems they did not perform as well in rough whether.

As for a corvette design - I agree with the need and the numbers. The issues I have is range for operation in the South Pacific - I think the ANZAC range is better, of course this . Crew size is going to depend on what operation is in progress. For example: Low level military operations would require a min crew of 60: 25-30 Damage Control: 10 Flight Deck + operations, weapons and engineering spaces. 480m2 is a fair bit of lane area, and poses questions about landing operations (Can the Austral conduct landing ops similar to the MRV?) : The MRV only has 403 lane mtrs. I think less might be better, freeing out space for modules.

I think before NZ went down the modular route for a corvette it would need to look very carefully at the base line capability of the ships and what was additional, taking into account any cost benefits. The LCS has the basic rights (NZ 76mm + RAM), but additional capabilities would probably need to built in rather than modular (Basic ASW for example), given NZ size vs the cost of individual modules.

I'm not sure the OPV's could be upgraded with a 76mm. Given the helicopter capability I suspect there might be some stability issues.

 

[Whiskyjack]

General Question: Does a trimaran hull provide improved sea keeping over traditional hull forms? Talking to a relative who use to work on the Fast Cook Strait Ferry it seems they did not perform as well in rough whether.

As for a corvette design - I agree with the need and the numbers. The issues I have is range for operation in the South Pacific - I think the ANZAC range is better, of course this . Crew size is going to depend on what operation is in progress. For example: Low level military operations would require a min crew of 60: 25-30 Damage Control: 10 Flight Deck + operations, weapons and engineering spaces. 480m2 is a fair bit of lane area, and poses questions about landing operations (Can the Austral conduct landing ops similar to the MRV?) : The MRV only has 403 lane mtrs. I think less might be better, freeing out space for modules.

I think before NZ went down the modular route for a corvette it would need to look very carefully at the base line capability of the ships and what was additional, taking into account any cost benefits. The LCS has the basic rights (NZ 76mm + RAM), but additional capabilities would probably need to built in rather than modular (Basic ASW for example), given NZ size vs the cost of individual modules.

I'm not sure the OPV's could be upgraded with a 76mm. Given the helicopter capability I suspect there might be some stability issues.

I'm not so sure that 60 is the minimum, 35 is still enough to operate the ship although I think that may not include aircrew. I also think that the MRV needs to be kept as the tactical lift for a company. However the tri corvette I see in operation is more taking over from the OPVs not the ANZACs and would be used for low intensiry warefare down. the 480 m2 allows for the lift if two reinforced infantry platoons, but also engineers, medics etc. I do not advocate using them for ASW etc.. although an ability to operate with spec ops would be nice.

In summary this is a ship to show the flag in the South Pacific and provide a multitude of services both military and non military.

 

[Padman]

Yes the trimaran corvette would provide NZ with a flexible asset to provide support to Pacific Island nations. Even the current Labour govt should be able to be convinced to buy vessels to provide neighbourly assistance to island nations, would say large number of Polynesian Kiwis are Labour supporters. Would be useful to react to next Fijian coup, or if things get nasty in Tonga.

This would also free up OPVs to provide fisheries patrol in Southern Ocean. This was one of the prime roles intended for them anyway. Considering the value of fishing stocks down south I would not be surprised if things did not get nasty in the future. The 25mm gun should be enough to deal with it though, but maybe an upgun to 57mm would be good. Providing a capability to arm Seasprite with 25mm cannon, or rockets would add extra firepower.

 

[Lucasnz]

Has anyone seen the new Austal trimaran corvette?

Link to the site below: Has a 7 page PDF file showing the vessel in some detail. Thought it lacked an NGS capability.

http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-corvette

 

[Whiskyjack]

Link to the site below: Has a 7 page PDF file showing the vessel in some detail. Thought it lacked an NGS capability.

http://www.austal.com/go/product-information/defence-products/multi-role-corvette

Yes, I have an earlier one that shows a line diagram of the mission deck with 5 x Bushmasters 3 x LAVs, 2 x Containers and a LCM. Not a bad reaction force!

As a NGS capability I am sure a 57mm or 76mm could be fitted, but I am leaning towards the next generation NLOS-LS. Less risk of collateral and more range than you would get out of either the 57 of the 76.