|
Post by madmac on Apr 1, 2016 15:05:07 GMT 12
Maybe we should just keep a pile of letters of marque on hand, that way we will just have the pirates on our side (and its cheap).
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:25:14 GMT 12
"convoy duty" didn't we discover in WWII that keeping the fighters tied to the bombers was highly ineffective, and it is likely to be much the same with ships now. If you look at the Battle of the Atlantic the escorts and air cover did become the hunters as well. A lot of old lessons have been forgotten.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:43:36 GMT 12
Do oil tankers require escort from frigates at the moment? If so, why? And if that is the case why could the smaller patrol craft I suggested not do it?? Not right at the moment. I don't find it difficult to envision otherwise if events in say the South China Sea were to take a unexpected turn. As for smaller patrol craft I feel the matter deserves more attention. I am dumbfounded as to why anybody didn't think it was a good idea for the RNZN's OPV to have MCW and ASW capabilities that could fallen back upon in a pinch. The argument is much like the around the RNZAF former air strike capability. Not having the capability relies on never needing it. Frigates can also make for a useful presence e.g Freedom of Navigation patrols , the next INTERFET.
|
|
|
Post by thelensofhistory on Apr 1, 2016 15:44:49 GMT 12
Maybe we should just keep a pile of letters of marque on hand, that way we will just have the pirates on our side (and its cheap). I fancy a career change.
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Apr 1, 2016 17:30:40 GMT 12
The RNZN has been short on combat power since the 1960's and it will never regain what it once had. They'd be better off ditching the pointless frigates and getting another ship like Canterbury that actually comes in useful, and some smaller faster craft for chasing down poachers, etc. What the point of that? they won't be able to do anything to them when they catch up to them,rules of engagement or H&S will put paid to any actual 'action'. Maybe we should take a leaf out of Argentina's book and shoot to sink,Then ask for forgiveness after!
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 86
|
Post by chis73 on Apr 1, 2016 18:34:12 GMT 12
In a (foolish?) attempt to get this thread back on track, can I ask what torpedoes are we expecting to use with the proposed new sub-surface acoustics system for the Orions? I'm skeptical that this upgrade will even go ahead (from memory such an upgrade has been rejected twice before- in the early 1980s and the early 2000s; the Orions have less than 10 years left to serve apparently; and Mr English seems to have been caught short in the tax-take this year). The current Mk46 torps must be getting near to expiry again I would think (and they were scrounged from US stocks iirc circa 2008, after the Aussie maintenance centre stopped supporting them). Neither the Australians, the US, or the UK, now use the Mk46*. Wouldn't it be infinitely more sensible to put the money for this project directly towards a new plane? If the government wants the P-8, I think they are already in great danger of missing the production window (USN orders end 2020 I think, certainly well before the 2025-2030 timeframe we are looking at). Out of curiosity, do the new SH-2G(I) Seasprites only support Mk46? Aussies were planning to integrate MU90, but that effort was cancelled. The Poles are using MU90 on their SH-2Gs (but curiously only can carry one at a time). Since we paid so little for these helicopters I presume little was done to improve them since leaving Aussie service. Perhaps we are facing some upcoming hidden costs. * Not quite true - Aussie AP-3Cs are I think still using the Mk46, but they are definitely on the way out (by 2021?). ANZAC frigates & FFGs are using the MU90 for surface launch, but their new MH-60R Seahawks have the Mk54. The US were intending to use the Mk46 until 2015, but I imagine much of their stock will have been converted to Mk54 as well.
|
|
atgv
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 29
|
Post by atgv on Apr 20, 2016 22:25:40 GMT 12
The new Seasprites have Penguin missiles at their disposal.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Apr 21, 2016 9:46:59 GMT 12
It may be more about piracy than outright attack of a supply ship of oil... or, perhaps a combination of a Frigate and an NH90 would be more effective as escort duty? NH90 - naaah an armed UAV. I'm an expert on them having just watched the movie 'Eye in the Sky'
|
|
|
Post by horicle on May 1, 2016 17:20:16 GMT 12
From Chris73, does that mean our Mk46's can be upgraded?
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 4, 2016 20:22:45 GMT 12
From Chris73, does that mean our Mk46's can be upgraded? Considering we've only just brought them into service, I can't see that happening just yet.
|
|
|
Post by noooby on May 5, 2016 2:50:44 GMT 12
Chis73, why do you need torpedo's with the new acoustic set in the Orion? They don't use torpedo's today, they use depth charges or 500lb bombs, dropped by the same machine that finds the sub in the first place, the P-3.
I'm not aware of torpedo's being fitted to the RNZAF P-3's in the last 20 odd years (which is about when I last worked on them!) so why worry about it now? Bombs make short work of a sub, as do depth charges, if accurate information on where to drop is obtained from the acoustics.
Hell, one poor Portuguese sub I had the pleasure of playing with off of the Canary Islands (1998), was dealt a double blow by us. We found them pretty quickly and triangulated a precise fix, then when we dropped the SQUID (I think that is the name??) to tell them electronically that they were dead, we hit their conning tower and broke a radio antenna! If it had been a bomb it would have been the end of the sub.
So.... why torpedo's? The P-3 can take care of surface and sub-surface threats with bombs or depth charges, likewise, the Seasprite can too, with the added capability of the Penguin for surface threats as well.
|
|
chis73
Flight Lieutenant
Posts: 86
|
Post by chis73 on May 5, 2016 9:58:50 GMT 12
noooby, if the sub-surface sensor systems in the Orion are upgraded, why wouldn't you use torpedoes - considering that the weapon is currently in the inventory (hopefully) on the Seasprite and the frigates, and the aircraft is designed to carry them. To do less would be foolish. Using depth charges & bombs is a useful adjunct (especially in shallow water), but to only use them sounds crazy.
If torpedoes are not being currently used, I think that says more about the deplorable state of our military and the incompetence of our government than I could possibly add. Especially for a nation so completely dependent on maritime trade for it's prosperity. We are just so vulnerable to any disruption - ie. long supply routes; no national merchant marine; low commodity stocks in-country (eg oil); think how many industries run on a just-in-time supply policy?. A declared submarine in NZ waters is a more realistic threat than any invasion scenario. ASW should be one of the last capabilities to be let go for a NZ Defence Force, even if there is no major threat identified presently (although that threat has magnified greatly in the Asian littoral regions, through which much of NZ's trade passes, in the last 20 years). Certainly, in my opinion, retaining ASW should be a higher priority capability than any ISR (especially overland) role for the Orion (even more so if you won't/can't add a self-protection suite).
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 5, 2016 18:21:01 GMT 12
Torpedoes and Mk82 depth bombs are in use on the P3.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on May 11, 2016 15:05:45 GMT 12
MK 46's are pretty old, haven't most forces replaced them with MK 50's ?
|
|
|
Post by phil on May 11, 2016 18:07:58 GMT 12
Bound to have done. We replaced our very old Mk 46 Mod 2s with an updated and upgraded version.
|
|