Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Sorry to keep banging on about this, but it ain't that simple.Aster hasn't been integrated into any type of Mk 41 yet (although it shouldn't be difficult: CAMM integration hasn't exactly been difficult, by the look of it), & not all Mk 41s are equal. Mk 41 for ESSM is too short for Aster 30.

As for ESSM being 'merely an evolved variant of Sea Sparrow" - I wonder about that. It has a different (fatter) body, different motor, different fins/wings, & some other changes. I think it's really a new missile with some Sea Sparrow parts carried over - & IIRC they're likely to be ditched one day.
 
Just a quick post. Discovery Channel documentary on HDMS Abasalon anti-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden. Shows a bit of the ships capabilities.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtoRQcRY130"]Discovery Channel Mighty Ships, S02E06, HDMS Absalon, 720p, HD - YouTube[/nomedia]

Another video, just turn down the volume if you done't like the music.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu3UZFMDUtc&list=TLZtucvq__ZaKuEtWcolpiQZ8bEEC5c0tJ"]HMDS L16 ABSALON - YouTube[/nomedia]
 
swerve said:
Sorry to keep banging on about this, but it ain't that simple.Aster hasn't been integrated into any type of Mk 41 yet (although it shouldn't be difficult: CAMM integration hasn't exactly been difficult, by the look of it), & not all Mk 41s are equal. Mk 41 for ESSM is too short for Aster 30.

As for ESSM being 'merely an evolved variant of Sea Sparrow" - I wonder about that. It has a different (fatter) body, different motor, different fins/wings, & some other changes. I think it's really a new missile with some Sea Sparrow parts carried over - & IIRC they're likely to be ditched one day.
Click to expand...

The rocket motor was added to the Sea Sparrow missile body and is 10inches in diameter as opposed to 8 on the Seasparrow. The remaining 8inch SeaSparrow missile body was used and remains so today however I agree, the ESSM Block II will likely leverage AMRAAM technology as SM-6 has and will then no longer contain much (if any) of the original SeaSparrow missile.
 
t68 said:
Is there a reason why we don't see twin gun mounts anymore or is the rate of fire of the modern naval gun superior to that twin mounts?


File:HMAS-Vampire-D11-01 crop(113mmL45aag).jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Just to give you historical perspective, the standard 4.5" twin gun turrets on Vampire could achieve a max rate of 16 rounds/gun/min. The single 5" mounts on the DDGs had a max RoF of 40 per min. Therefore unless you had enormous magazine capacity there would be little point in doubling up.
Both these examples are not fully auto guns but both were DP and contributed a significant input to AA defence where rapid rates were important.
Modern missiles make such rapid rates of fire for large calibre weapons less significant IMO.
 
Here's another link regarding the Absalon class.Apologies if you've seen it before.
NG that was a good video. Highlights the importance of a good sensor suite and ships helicopter.

Danish Naval Projects - Absalon Class - Command and Support Ship - Transport Frigate - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Command Staff - Vehicle Transport - Containerized Hospital - Leopard

Program cost figure is interesting however not quoted with a date reference for context.

Regarding multiple barrels. I was told by an ex navy guy that the reason for migration to single barrel systems was to allow more internal volume in the turret to a more efficient and mech heavy feed system and metallurgy improvements allow a single barrel to better withstand the punishment. I think the new 5 inch guns had a barrel life of something like a 1000 or 2000 rounds. Compare that to the leopard 2's 400 or so rounds its abit of a contrast.
 
Shanesworld said:
Here's another link regarding the Absalon class.Apologies if you've seen it before.
NG that was a good video. Highlights the importance of a good sensor suite and ships helicopter.

Danish Naval Projects - Absalon Class - Command and Support Ship - Transport Frigate - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Command Staff - Vehicle Transport - Containerized Hospital - Leopard

Program cost figure is interesting however not quoted with a date reference for context.
Click to expand...

There's alot of advocacy for the Absolom class on this thread, and I agree, it's an impressive ship. Armament wise, if packs a lot of punch, the additional sealift is impressive and I especially like the idea of being able to operate 2 helos off a frigate type ship.

There are obviously a lot of pros to this design. However, realistically, what are the cons? Would a more traditional GP type frigate be a better bet for NZs future needs? Would we need the extra sealift if we were allready operating more JATF capable Canterbury and Endeavour replacements?

Sorry in advance for the rhetorical questions.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
kiwi in exile said:
There's alot of advocacy for the Absolom class on this thread, and I agree, it's an impressive ship. Armament wise, if packs a lot of punch, the additional sealift is impressive and I especially like the idea of being able to operate 2 helos off a frigate type ship.

There are obviously a lot of pros to this design. However, realistically, what are the cons? Would a more traditional GP type frigate be a better bet for NZs future needs? Would we need the extra sealift if we were allready operating more JATF capable Canterbury and Endeavour replacements?

Sorry in advance for the rhetorical questions.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Good points. Damage control is another one. I think though with as others had alluded to on other threads the sub is going to be a big problem in any shooting war in this neck of the woods. I figure the extra helicopter (s) would be the best defence other than our own submarines (not likely). The extra sea-lift I think is a wise thing to look at though. With rising tensions having the ability to move additional forces under protection and separately might prove to be quite handy.

But yeah I think damage control and management is an issue with all that extra gear on board.

I like the idea of 35x228 but millenium gun I think has a smallish magazine. I might have that wrong but I think its only a couple of hundred rounds.
 
SASWanabe said:
^ the Soviets were fans of twins (read AK-130 and AK-726) nowadays tho, the Russians seem to only use single 100 and 76s
Click to expand...

I was thinking about just mounting two single 127mm gun turrets, that put out a similar number of rounds to the old twin turrets. Part of my justification for looking at specialising in Naval Fire Support is the declining numbers of surface combatants in the western fleet that would be available to support forces ashore. A two turret ship could carry out the roll of two surface combatants, therefore freeing up units for other duties. I don't have the data for Gulf War but one US study states that in the Falklands War a total of 7,900 rounds were fired from 14 ships (18 Guns in total), so on average around 439 rounds per gun. That I suspect is close to the max ammo outfit for a gun these days, so resupply would also would take two vessels off the line, in a sustained fight. I think in the face of declining ship numbers there is a lot to be said for a two gun ship. Anyway my two cents worth of madness.

I do like the Absolom class, but its possibly in terms of electronics over engineered for South Pacific operations, but why tinker with something that works:).
 
Lucasnz said:
I was thinking about just mounting two single 127mm gun turrets, that put out a similar number of rounds to the old twin turrets. Part of my justification for looking at specialising in Naval Fire Support is the declining numbers of surface combatants in the western fleet that would be available to support forces ashore. A two turret ship could carry out the roll of two surface combatants, therefore freeing up units for other duties. I don't have the data for Gulf War but one US study states that in the Falklands War a total of 7,900 rounds were fired from 14 ships (18 Guns in total), so on average around 439 rounds per gun. That I suspect is close to the max ammo outfit for a gun these days, so resupply would also would take two vessels off the line, in a sustained fight. I think in the face of declining ship numbers there is a lot to be said for a two gun ship. Anyway my two cents worth of madness.

I do like the Absolom class, but its possibly in terms of electronics over engineered for South Pacific operations, but why tinker with something that works:).
Click to expand...

I think that there are many misconceptions about naval gunfire support (NGS) or whatever the modern term is.
There are very few occasions, apart from a Normandy style amphib landing that require high volume, continuous fire. The majority will be responding to spotter's call for fire to quell firefights or the ubiquitous H&I (Harassment and Interdiction).

Even at these lower rates, a ship will require to replenish ammo every 4 to 5 days.
Most RAN DDG's in Vietnam were averaging about 14,000 rounds per 6 month deployment and during that time gun barrels would need to be replaced once and then returning home with them clagged.

I guess the point is that given NZ's strategic reality, a second gun would be a disadvantage because of the capability forfeited by having one with no tactical advantage achieved.
 
This is turning into quite an interesting discussion and some very important questions have been asked and important points raised.
Lucasnz said:
I'm going to play devils advocate here. Within the context of the South Pacific does the RNZN need an extensive radar / weapons outfit. Short answer is probably not.
While I see NZ has always needing high end ships as part of international obligations. Within the South Pacific a 76mm/127mm, CAAM, helicopter and a couple of 25mm, limited ASW combined with a restricted sensor outfit along the lines of Thetis / Floreal / Sigma would allow the RNZN to cover 90% of the contingency's in the South Pacific. .... In terms of high end capability I think NZ needs to find a niche roll in terms of either "Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support ....
Click to expand...
I think that the RNZN does need a reasonably good radar system that has good detection values and able to have multiple illumination channels. It also has to be a system that can be easily integrated into a wider allied (e.g., RAN, USN etc.,) Task Force network. Here I would plumb for quality and suggest the Australian CEAFAR radar and CEAMOUNT illuminator system. The Aussies are stating that its price is comparable to 2D radar systems. radar (CEAFAR active phased array) - Team Australia - DMO Also it is being developed to be included on small ships such as corvettes. Its main components are software based rather than hardware based so upgrades are far less expensive. Australia and USA Collaborating on New Small-Ship Radars
Lucasnz said:
The way I see it we need to balance quality over quantity, we just aren't doing it properly right now. Were heavy on the light end and light on the combat end. There is IMHO no balance in the fleet right now.
Click to expand...
Sea Toby said:
New Zealand has a larger EEZ than Ireland, but the Irish have eight OPVs. Of course the Irish have nations and their fishermen much closer than New Zealand as well. But I don't consider having two OPVs as being excessive anymore than I do having two frigates as being excessive. Nor do I consider having four IPVs as being excessive. If anything, New Zealand is short in every type of ships.
Click to expand...
I strongly agree with both Lucas and Toby. They both make very valid points and that is why I advocate 3 frigates and around five properly armed OPVs, plus 4 IPVs. I also think that Lucas’s suggestion of the RNZN specialising in “Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support” is quite good. He goes on to state in a later post:
Lucasnz said:
I was thinking about just mounting two single 127mm gun turrets, that put out a similar number of rounds to the old twin turrets. Part of my justification for looking at specialising in Naval Fire Support is the declining numbers of surface combatants in the western fleet that would be available to support forces ashore. A two turret ship could carry out the roll of two surface combatants, therefore freeing up units for other duties. I don't have the data for Gulf War but one US study states that in the Falklands War a total of 7,900 rounds were fired from 14 ships (18 Guns in total), so on average around 439 rounds per gun. That I suspect is close to the max ammo outfit for a gun these days, so resupply would also would take two vessels off the line, in a sustained fight. I think in the face of declining ship numbers there is a lot to be said for a two gun ship. Anyway my two cents worth of madness. I do like the Absolom class, but its possibly in terms of electronics over engineered for South Pacific operations, but why tinker with something that works:).
Click to expand...
I undertook a quick search for western navies using any form of naval MRLS and the only real info I found was a DT discussion http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/naval-version-mlrs-10871/ It is apparent from the discussion that a naval MRLS would be a highly specialised system that would take up for more useful space on a modern warship. Lucas does have quite a valid point regarding the diminishing numbers of surface combatants with guns capable of providing NGS. His concern is reflected in the above DT Naval MRLS thread. Lucas suggests mounting 2 x 5” guns on a future RNZN frigate class, citing the above concern. However, Assail begs to differ:
ASSAIL said:
I think that there are many misconceptions about naval gunfire support (NGS) or whatever the modern term is. There are very few occasions, apart from a Normandy style amphib landing that require high volume, continuous fire. The majority will be responding to spotter's call for fire to quell firefights or the ubiquitous H&I (Harassment and Interdiction). Even at these lower rates, a ship will require to replenish ammo every 4 to 5 days. Most RAN DDG's in Vietnam were averaging about 14,000 rounds per 6 month deployment and during that time gun barrels would need to be replaced once and then returning home with them clagged. I guess the point is that given NZ's strategic reality, a second gun would be a disadvantage because of the capability forfeited by having one with no tactical advantage achieved.
Click to expand...
If an appropriate sized frigate was acquired by the RNZN then capability may not necessarily be forfeited by installing a second 5” gun in the B gun position. The Danes have done it on their Iver Huiteld Class installing 2 x 76mm guns until they obtain the 35mm revolver auto cannon which will go in the B gun position and the A gun will be replaced by a 5” gun. Danish Naval Projects - Patrol Frigate - Iver Huitfeld Class - Patrol Ship - Projekt Patruljeskib - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Frigate Project - Absalon Class - SCSC - Single Class - . Albeit a smaller calibre gun and a temporary arrangement, but it is feasible. The 5” magazine space would have to increased significantly and another forward mount found for a 30mm remote auto cannon. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the Absalon would be ideal for NZ - room to work with within the hull.
 
Karl Dorman? I don't recall ever seeing that spelling. Have I missed something?

Many names are misspelt occasionally, but Absalon seems to be misspelt almost as often as it's right. Ending it with "m" is extremely common.
 
ASSAIL said:
I think that there are many misconceptions about naval gunfire support (NGS) or whatever the modern term is.
There are very few occasions, apart from a Normandy style amphib landing that require high volume, continuous fire. The majority will be responding to spotter's call for fire to quell firefights or the ubiquitous H&I (Harassment and Interdiction).

Even at these lower rates, a ship will require to replenish ammo every 4 to 5 days.
Most RAN DDG's in Vietnam were averaging about 14,000 rounds per 6 month deployment and during that time gun barrels would need to be replaced once and then returning home with them clagged.

I guess the point is that given NZ's strategic reality, a second gun would be a disadvantage because of the capability forfeited by having one with no tactical advantage achieved.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. I think NZ would be far better off in investing in precision guided munitions for it's existing 127mm guns so it actually has to fire LESS rounds to be effective, not more.

Upgrading to the Mod 4 variant of the Mk 45 127mm gun might also be useful, given it's (likely) better supportability and better range capability.

ANZAC class frigates have a magazine for 500 rounds or so from (vague) recollection, so devoting a substantial part of this to precision rounds such as Excalibur or precision fuse equipped rounds, would seem a worthy investment, if land attack / NGS is so important.
 
If you were going for a second turret I would rather see something complimentary such as a 76mm with DAVID etc. Add to capability and flexibility rather than duplicate.
 
swerve said:
Karl Dorman? I don't recall ever seeing that spelling. Have I missed something?

Many names are misspelt occasionally, but Absalon seems to be misspelt almost as often as it's right. Ending it with "m" is extremely common.
Click to expand...

There was a famous Australian outback expert in the 70's called Jack Absalom, maybe his fame has embedded itself subcutaneously into our cousins across the small ditch
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top