Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[gf0012-aust]

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

agree completely. the Phalanx and SeaRAM are non intrusive, and thats one of the reasons why they're (Phalanx) still held as war stock. It means that we can basically retrofit them to any vessel that has suitable free deck level real estate.

They're a self contained unit, so literally only require juice and minimal integration once they're in place.

The yanks set up a couple in bagdhad mounted on some semi trailer flatties. they wired them up to artillery radar and used them for anti-mortar work on some land based CIWS trials.

Goalkeeper requires almost one deck level of lower space for fitment issues.

 

[Markus40]

Re: MRV and OPV

Sure, however if they thought about a 76mm to begin
with the engineers may have been able to build this option in the design. Makes me wonder how much thought has gone into this and whether there was discussion on this at all. Every Naval designer and Defense force commitee must realise that to build a Navy vessel you need to protect it and build in the costs for supporting such measures. There has been already some misgivings from the ship builders over the design factor of the MRV so nothing surprises me. I just hope we dont have another Charles Upham.

I have stated in previous postings that i have supported a CIWS like Goal keeper.

Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

 

[Padman]

I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?

 

[Aussie Digger]

Fitting a 76mm gun to a vessel not originally built to take it is not a simple task. The system has deck penitration and requires a shell room below the mount for the ready use rotary magazine. Given the rate of fire addtional rounds would derfinately be requred to refill the rotary magazine stowage. So you would be looking at a shell handling room, main magazine and some sort of handling system for the ammunition transfer. That before we start looking at fire control. This all costs and imposes quite a bit of top weight.

30mm gun based CIWS like goalkeeper also take up considerable space and require deck pentration and housing below the mount. However the Phalanx 20mm gun system or, better still, Sea RAM don't have such a restriction and are self contained in so far as sensors are concerned.

This would appear to be a more realistic option

The MRV was initially supposed to be fitted with a 76mm gun. Apparently a design change was initiated when NZDF realised it could afford the in-shore patrol vessels if it switched to a 25mm gun system. Perhaps the design still allows the fitting of such a system if necessary? Sort of like the "fitted for but not with" ideal of the ANZAC???

 

[Markus40]

Re: IPV and OPV.

Will the IPVs be fitted with a 25mm?

 

[Markus40]

Re: ANZAC

I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

I thought the OPVs were based on the design used by the Irish Navy, a vessel that is equipped with a 76mm cannon. Why did we not keep this aspect of the vessel? Has the design been changed so much that adding a 76mm could not be done during the current building phase, or has the building progressed too far?

I've seen the plans. There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil. Any of the standard 76mm turrets would fit in easily, there is ample space in the two decks below.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I was visiting an open day recently on board the Te Kaha and the weopons specialist said that the VLS can be loaded with a tomahawk. Does anyone know about that? If you do can someone shed some more light on this statement. If its true then our Navy does have a long hand at our operations than what i was supposed to believe.

There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

There are two types of Mk41 Strike and tactical, to the best of my knowledge the ANZACs are equipped with Tactical, so no Tomahawk. But they can load the SM-2. Need the fire control upgraded though.

I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.

 

[Whiskyjack]

I had an idea that the purchase of the MK41 was for the full-length version (Strike), that tactical length version not being available at the time.

Might be, that would add a bit of weight to the superstructure, will have to research it a bit more.

 

[gf0012-aust]

There is enough physical space to put in a 127mm turret if so deisred,and if you ignored the fact the superstructure probably couldn't handle the recoil.

Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Recoil from a 127mm shouldn't be a show stopper or an engineering difficulty. In rough terms you're looking at between 15 tonnes and 20 tonnes of recoil.

Thats is easily structurally resolved without impeding core design.

It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat

I'll take your word about the recoil. I don't know how crewing or fire control would fit in to the mix. One things for sure, 20 tonnes of recoil seems like a hell of a lot compared to my .308!

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's also a big cannon for a patrol boat

I'll take your word about the recoil.

as an example, and a very broad parallel,. The TDS-120 SP mortar puts out 15 tonnes of recoil, the M-777 155mm puts out 27 tonnes. One of the other posters (artyengineer) can give more accurate numbers on the 777.

thats also "felt recoil" only, so I'm not including the other two types of recoil that are also generated.

 

[alexsa]

Space is one issue. Weight is another. The mount and assocaited supporting structure for the gun and feed system, not to mention recoil and the fire control system (including operator stations) will impose quite a bit of weight on the design set quite high up. This will need to be compensated for and may restrict your operations depending on the load out.

It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.

 

[Lucasnz]

It would not appear to be a 'cheap' fit and spedning the money fitting a decent CIWS (say Sea RAM) would appear to be better option. I wouel appear reasonable to assume that the vessel would be escorted by an ANZAC should it be in a situation where such fire power was required.

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.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

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.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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?

 

[Rocco_NZ]

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.

 

[Whiskyjack]

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.