|
Post by futurenz on Jun 22, 2021 22:08:52 GMT 12
Was a bit disappointed that we didn't get a more modern AESA type radar, I think the one fitted is PESA.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 1, 2021 9:18:46 GMT 12
The two frigates may be small and insufficient but they do have teeth. The Te Kaha (I think) is the only ship to have found one of the rogue subs in the East Timor operation, and could have sunk it if it hadn't surfaced. That capability doesn't look cool or scary but is essential to protect other shipping in an emergency considering the number of submarines frequenting the South China Sea.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jan 23, 2021 14:56:31 GMT 12
Wow haven't been on here for so long but the forums are still alive!
Being able to identify a frigate is only an issue if you are trying to use it for covert ops. Not even relevant for patrol assets where you want your adversary to know that US is not the only actor to think about. However, if your frigate is identifiable then it must also have sufficient capability to defend itself, which is not the case with our current frigates.
"Gun boats" are not very survivable in a war scenario (basically kamikaze boats) and need to be an intentional part of a wider strategy that specifically requires expendable speedboats. The only countries that should consider such a strategy need to have bases within range of potential threats, where the boats can preferably live at dispersed covert bases that won't be targeted themselves (being within range of such threats). Fast lightweight boats don't have the range or seakeeping to self deploy across the Pacific, so they certainly can't replace the long range OPVs we need for fishing surveillance.
This can be mitigated by having 5 or 6 very capable frigates, with the extras rotating through the fleet as attrition/maintenance spares. I know, it won't happen. But any combat vessel that joins an allied force in the Asia-Pacific may need to defend itself against a coordinated attack of submarines and multiple hyper-velocity ASMs. If the ship can't take care of its share of defence then its a liability, or at best a decoy.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Dec 26, 2019 12:43:28 GMT 12
Wish they would replace a couple of Typhoon positions with Millenium Guns... I suspect finding space for Sea Ceptors would involve a bit of re-engineering and significantly more investment in radar etc than is warranted for an oiler/replenishment ship. It may need to tag along with a front-line fleet at times but still just a fleet auxiliary.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jul 25, 2019 9:32:32 GMT 12
No, it's not Sylver either. It is your typical British Engineering (TM) "bodge job". It is a modification of the old Sea Wolf VLS launcher on the Type 23 frigate. As the Sea Ceptor (CAMM) missile is longer and thinner than the Sea Wolf, it unfortunately sticks out of the existing launch tube a little. With the protective caps (or whatever they are) on, it looks like a field of mushrooms. Personally, I would have thought RNZN would have got the ExLS version - guess they were too risk-adverse and went for the safe-option already in service with the RN. beegeetee - I'm pretty sure you are right about the Mk41 VLS on the ANZAC - it was, as far as I am aware, the smallest version - that can only take Sea Sparrow or ESSM, but not Standard missiles or anything larger. Didn't know that it couldn't take ESSM Blk 2 though - I thought that the change between Blk 1 & Blk 2 was only in the substitution of an active seeker (like CAMM) for the semi-active radar-homing one. ESSM is already a larger missile than Sea Sparrow (substantially heavier and 10 inch diameter vs 8 inch from memory).I seem to remember reading somewhere that the Mk 41 VLS took up 3 decks on the ANZAC. Its a pity someone couldn't have fitted the old Mk29 Sea Sparrow launcher on the upgraded ANZAC in addition to Sea Ceptor. Only half the weight of the Mk 41, though only 8 missiles with manual reloads & limited firing arcs - but with modern anti-ship missiles, you really need the range of ESSM to do a reasonable job of protecting other ships (which is what a frigate is for). Yep, Block 2 has an active seeker, but whether that's an advatage in all scenarios is another point. A large ship born radar still needs to detect the threat, and will always have far more power than a seeker on a missile. So unless a ship is fitted with CEC, like the Hobarts and the Hunters, it may not really add that much. This indicates that the RAN plans to use ESSM block 2 on their ANZACs. adbr.com.au/essm-block-ii-conducts-first-live-fire-intercept/Semi-active missiles like ESSM need an illuminator in addition to the tracking radar, so you need a very strong radar to accurately guide the missile as it flies further from the ship, at which point it also becomes more susceptible to jamming. Active missiles become more effective as they get closer to the target, so after a mid flight correction from the ship they are hopefully close enough to track their own target autonomously and overcome any jamming attempts.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 23, 2019 23:22:11 GMT 12
Any idea why they removed the 2nd MK41 VLS module? Is it to ensure no future government ever decides to buy some longer range missiles?
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 2, 2019 13:08:38 GMT 12
So when does MoD plan to start the search for a new frigate? EDIT: Apparently the "Initial Business Case" is supposed to be this year and decisions happening in 2026. Is that when the competition for a ship design starts?
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on May 21, 2019 23:22:57 GMT 12
Hope it at least has some sort of CIWS...
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on May 21, 2019 23:17:04 GMT 12
I still reckon a MAN Wrecker sounds like a feminist extremist.... So thats why they pronounce it M.A.N.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 11, 2016 20:28:01 GMT 12
Can NZ afford to replace the frigates like for like? My opinion would be to: Replace the frigates with 2-3 Svalbard class Replace the OPV with 2-3 KV Harstad class Replace the IPV with several NZ built cats. Upgrade Canterbury 1 New multi role replenishment ship 1 New survey/dive support/mine hunter 1 New Robert T Kuroda class Lower procurement and running costs, more useful for missions other than out and out war. Or, just spend billions on highly armed ships you might never use that aren't much use in helping clear up after an earthquake. Norwegian Coast Guard icebreaker and offshore patrol vessel KV Svalbard (W303) isn't an ASW combatant like the frigates, we would need a serious debate about gutting RNZN's combat capability before we go down that road — especially since we already have 2 OPVs that meet a completely different need from surface combat. Whether there is any need for an icebreaker cannot be related to frigate replacements, so thats a debate to be had about EEZ surveillance (currently filled by OPVs and Orions). "Harstad was built as a multipurpose vessel, but optimised for emergency towing of large oil tankers" according to Wikipedia. NZs OPV requirements are more to do with endurance and ability to take on the Southern Ocean. Replacements for IPVs is a bit murky at the moment, what actually are the problems with them? Plenty of choices if they do come up for replacement, but perhaps we should debate whether they get run by Police or a CoastWatch organisation instead of RNZN Volunteer Reserve. I'm not sure if there is any possible upgrade that can fix the compromises that are RNZS Canterbury. There are some Singaporean built logistics ships that would fit the role so much better than reworked RORO ferries. To start with they have a welldeck for launching landing craft etc in rough weather. Kuroda appears to be essentially a modernised LSH tank landing ship run by the US Army, a format both NZ and Australia have moved away from due to being suitable for only a very narrow range of roles. Proper logistics ships now meet that need as well as being configurable for hospital and disaster relief functions, so the main issue is how many helos and troops need to be supported. And do we need a couple of heavylift helos. Replenishment is not a multi-role job if you put fuel and stores in the same category, it's basically a combined tanker/cargo ship optimised for at-sea replenishment. Has to happen pretty quickly too since single skinned tankers like RNZS Endeaver have become obsolete and internationally banned from major ports. I reckon bigger is better since we could end up replenishing an allied fleet as well as our own ships. Mine Countermeasures replacement has also already started. Not sure if this can be combined with the survey requirement since Mine Countermeasures tends to evolve into a littoral combat role if containerised mission modules make it a true multi-role vessel. It seems to be a common function of small to large corvettes with the Dutch Sigma class looking like its already made to fit. I think this potentially could also share the EEZ surveillance job for the Pacific Ocean, leaving the OPVs to patrol Southern Ocean. As the strategic environment gets more conflict-prone, we should also look at whether 2 frigates is enough for a surface combat force. I wonder if 4 frigates in 2 variants make more sense: 2 ASW frigates, and 2 setup more as general purpose and air defence. Air defence implies more powerful radar, longer range missiles, space available for containerised modules and an aft launching/recovery ramp for UUVs and an assault boat. My idea is that 2 variants of the same hull would complement each other if deployed in pairs, maybe also having CEC capability so that one ship can light up a target while the other ship (or a nearby US ship) fires a spare missile. I know NZ doesn't like spending on defence but things happen.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Mar 20, 2016 16:04:34 GMT 12
The Type 26 is supposed to be quite versatile, and in addition to the core ASW version there was proposed a "general purpose (GP) variant". I suspect the theory behind this is that some of the below deck space would have a modular configuration and a way of launching assault boats or unmanned vessels as with the Danish one. Potentially quite a useful capability but means you then need extra ships on top of your ASW capability. Militaries aren't getting cheaper...
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 7, 2016 1:50:57 GMT 12
Looks like a handy platform to use for a 155mm self propelled howitzer...
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 7, 2016 1:37:45 GMT 12
There will probably be Type-26's built in both Brazil and India, I don't think theres any reason for NZ to buy direct from Britain. Weapons and systems fitouts can also be done in the most appropriate country.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Feb 7, 2016 1:30:02 GMT 12
Now I am intrigued - what exactly is the definition/criteria of 'Milspec' that we are referring to? Haha - you've got me there! I just presumed (from the post I was answering) that there was some sort of military standard for naval ships and it probably meant heavier construction than a commercial ship. The US seem to have some quite well defined levels of survivability specified for their warships, also related to the scope creep of their littoral ship designs due to debates about their survivability. Part of it is being able to take damage while still fighting, so there is a level of redundancy built into many of the systems and cabling. Some of the bigger ships have a "dual island" configuration that adds to the level of system redundancy.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jan 19, 2016 15:45:17 GMT 12
Absalon etc are not milspec vessels, so best to learn from the concepts and put the ideas into survivable hulls than to just copy them.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jan 19, 2016 15:32:58 GMT 12
"A total of 194 trucks are being delivered at a cost of $113 million. This includes armour protection kits, weapons mounts, a range of specialist equipment, spare parts, logistic support arrangements, and training packages." Thats a serious improvement!
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Aug 13, 2015 21:26:40 GMT 12
I like the Type 26 and only about 6500 tonne I think, but its radars seem to be optimised for Sea Ceptor missiles etc and the RAN probably wants its homegrown radar so maybe one of the German or Italian ships is more suited to the Australians.
Now that NZ has decided on Sea Ceptors and isn't yet committed to other missile types, Type 26 frigates would seem a perfect fit if the price was right. Being built in an expensive country won't help, so perhaps we could buy frigates from either India or Brazil that could end up building Type 26 themselves — and free up enough money for us to buy 4 or 5 frigates. BAE could do the weapons fitout in Australia.
I vote for French Gowind class for mine countermeasures, with modules for each mission.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 18, 2015 22:36:20 GMT 12
Brits are developing a Littoral Support Ship, intended to have interchangeable mission modules like the Ozzie concept. I think theres similar European ones around too. My thinking is you have a few littoral ships, and mission modules including combat (LCS with missiles etc) and mine countermeasures. Both of them would have a fairly substantial gun like at least 40mm. Mine countermeasures can then be deployed with a littoral combat escort, with third or fourth ships on maintenance/standby. LCS also could support larger ships in shallow waters etc where pirates or smugglers might try to avoid the bigger frigates. They might be able to handle fisheries patrols in the Pacific while both OPVs focus more on the Southern Ocean. One aspect of the 4 frigate argument that also applies here is that you have to allow for attrition losses (hopefully survivable losses) as well as normal maintenance and work-up. Can't see there being a budget for it but a worthwhile contribution to a fleet. Interesting is that the new British replenishment vessels apparently built in Korea... We should do that with the frigates! China's navy has 76 frigates and over 50 submarines...
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 18, 2015 21:50:24 GMT 12
Strike fighters are a critical part of major offensive operations, as well as contributing to safety of peacekeeping missions. They don't have to be our aircraft but may be seen as the most valuable contribution, so we need to remember that our allies will expect us to deliver some other capability where we have more of an advantage. Dollars spent on strike aircraft have to come from somewhere and NZ's size could result in budgets being spread too thinly. I expect its better (at this time) to focus on ensuring that any assets we ever deploy are fully kitted out with all the protection we can give them.
P8s are expensive but equivalent to our P3K, have all the comms suites etc, and are about right for our requirements so they could be valuable in their own right. No chance to use them as a proxy for our lack of strike aircraft, not designed for that. They are specialised for surveillance, and yes there must be some capacity to handoff info about enemy positions to friendly ships. I didn't think surveillance patrols were equipped with any kind of long-range target designation gear, but certainly are not a suitable platform to launch anti-ship missiles because that would put them within range of anti-aircraft missiles. You would also want to team up with a country that has a more balanced force, while being able to hold our own if the enemy tries to pick off ships on the edge of the fleet.
Definitely NSM would be an ideal complement to any longer range air-defence missile, fits the Mark 41 cells, and would give a new frigate more offensive capability if required. Considering the limited number of missile vertical cells on the ANZACs, I would think area air defence would be more of a priority, eg SM2 or Aster 30 with 100km range, but perhaps the 8 existing Mark 41 tubes could be left in to fit some of those (and reduce the chances of an attack since you could then engage the enemy aircraft before it fires its missiles). Thats how I would prevent frigates being easy targets.
|
|
|
Post by futurenz on Jun 15, 2015 22:40:12 GMT 12
Australia is budgeting 1.8% of GDP for defence, and targeting 2% in future. NZ has a disadvantage being far away from everywhere, but 1.8% of GDP shouldnt be so bad? We should first be trying to compensate for the years that we were lucky to spend 1.1% of GDP and deal with the block obsolescence we have at the moment. We are certainly not geared up for anything like a medium intensity conflict, and MoD still think we have too many LAVs.
|
|