|
Post by phil on Jun 7, 2007 8:58:04 GMT 12
Our frigates have both been to the Gulf in the last few years as part of the our commitment to TWA T (The War Against Terror...). There was considered to be a very real threat from fast suicide boats. So the Navy have done a few things more recently than WW2.
I'm sure I saw photos in the latest Navy Today magazine of the landing craft from the MRV being put through their paces. How many civilian ferries come complete with landing craft? There has recently been a NZDF wide call for anyone with Amphibious operations experience, at any level, to put their hand up to help develop our capability in this area.
|
|
|
Post by Calum on Jun 7, 2007 9:50:23 GMT 12
to add to what Phil said, the insertion of Interfet troops into East Timor. In that operation the Navy was certainily in a position to be threathened if the Indoneisans wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 7, 2007 15:24:57 GMT 12
My 2 cents worth... there has been a need for this multi-role vessel for many years. The new Canterbury will fill a significant capability gap in the NZDF and as a bonus provide a very useful Civil Defence and training platform, as will the new Patrol boats. Since the RNZN has gone down to just 2 frigates they have found it increasingly difficult to train crews at sea and an ANZAC Frigate is an expensive platform to train sailors on - better to use the frigates for operational tasking and do the basic seakeeping training on the non-combat capable ships. I know the Navy is very excited at the arrival of all these new vessles and they will provide a good platform to train sailors for the ANZAC Frigates and allow the Navy to expand in size and capability should the need ever arrise. Yes it would be nice to have more frigates (I still think NZ needs a minimum of 4 ANZAC Frigates) but under the current political climate this ain't going to happen.
Dave - you ask why wasn't the old Canterbury kept as a training vessel? There are two reasons - one is it was totally stuffed/worn out and was actually unsafe to operate in high sea states due to serious corrosion of its hull and structure. Two it was very expensive to run due to its old technology.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 17:25:10 GMT 12
And I wouldn't be surprised if those Leanders aren't full of asbestos too.
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 7, 2007 17:33:20 GMT 12
It was just last year when they had a big fire or similar with their main electrical power board etc, which would have cost millions and months of work but luckily they still had the one from the wellington lying around and used that. This might be only 80% correct, I could be a tad wrong on exact details.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jun 7, 2007 18:15:40 GMT 12
Back in the early 1990's or so, the frigates were refitted and had - rather than asbestos - NZ Wool lining fitted to fireproof them. It was some special wool product developed here I believe.
I love a good wind up, make a few remarks in the negative and look how many excellent, well thought out comments have come forth - including from a few newer memebrs. Great stuff. And GO NAVY!
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 18:37:47 GMT 12
Hey, I like the RNZN - it's the NZ Army I don't trust. ;D
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 7, 2007 18:42:54 GMT 12
A few people don't trust that one that was about to do a shoot up at burnham.
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 18:51:57 GMT 12
?
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 7, 2007 18:58:27 GMT 12
Hey, I like the RNZN - it's the NZ Army I don't trust. ;D Lucky the Canterbury hasn't been commissioned yet, I'd be rounding up the boys and sailing into Lake BG to prove you right
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 19:03:09 GMT 12
They'd get stuck in the mud in LBG. I think even the carp struggle in that lake! ;D
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 7, 2007 19:11:04 GMT 12
LBG ? as for the Burnham issue, in the news here today, a soldier was looking at shooting up some fellow members, the police arrived etc and as they were going to shoot him, his partner stepped inbetween the police and the soldier and stopped any further incident. he was apprehended to find the gun was a replica
|
|
|
Post by corsair67 on Jun 7, 2007 19:16:42 GMT 12
LBG - Lake Burley Griffin (not Laser Guided Bomb!). It's the lake in the centre of Canberra. Well, that guy at Burnham can kiss his Army career goodbye then.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 7, 2007 20:25:55 GMT 12
It was just last year when they had a big fire or similar with their main electrical power board etc, which would have cost millions and months of work but luckily they still had the one from the wellington lying around and used that. This might be only 80% correct, I could be a tad wrong on exact details. You are correct. Even using Wellington's old switchboard the cost of repairs was close to $1M I believe. In 1999 when I was on 75 Sqn and we were at Darwin for Exercise Kakadu (just weeks prior to East Timor blowing up) I arranged a visit to HMNZS Canterbury for a number of the SNCO's on 75 Sqn. Canterbury was in port with an engine problem and a friend of mine was the ships Engineering Officer. We were given an extensive tour of the frigate and made well aware of its many limitations and engineering problems. The "engine" problem was actually much more serious than first thought. There was an alignment problem between one of the engines and its gearbox. Every time they went to full power on the engine the alignment went out and it was chewing up the gearbox coupling bearings and causing severe vibrations. This was caused by the recent extensions to the helicopter hangar and strengthening of the flight deck to accommodate the new Seasprite. The engine room is right below the hangar/flight deck and it had changed the whole structural integrity of the ship! Canterbury was repaired at Darwin and served with distinction off East Timor in the coming weeks, including detecting and tracking an Indonesian Submarine that attempted to infiltrate the INTEFET transport ships carrying the troops and their equipment to East Timor from Darwin. Also when acting as the air warfare controlling warship she detected and tracked Indonesian fast jets (believed to be BAE Hawk 200's) that were probing the ships defensive perimeter and also attempted to intercept an RAAF P-3 (Canterbury gave the P-3 sufficient warning to enable it to turn away from the threat and run!). Few people realise just how close we came to a stouch with Indonesia over East Timor. It was only the very strong deterant provided by the RAN/RNZN warships and RAAF F-18/F-111's that prevented a clash. The biggest mistake NZ made was not deploying the Skyhawks to Darwin early in the conflict, and actually hanging weapons on them like the Aussies did with their fast jets. Had we done so I firmly believe we would still have an ACF today.
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 8, 2007 18:29:04 GMT 12
The biggest mistake NZ made was not deploying the Skyhawks to Darwin early in the conflict, and actually hanging weapons on them like the Aussies did with their fast jets. Had we done so I firmly believe we would still have an ACF today. Given that the government must give direction for them to deploy do you really think it would have had any chance of approval even if NZDF offered them as a military response option
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 9, 2007 9:33:40 GMT 12
They were "on the table" as an option most definitely, just like they were in 1990/91 during the first Gulf War (I was on 2 Sqn in 1990 and 75 Sqn in 1999). At the time East Timor blew up we (75 Sqn) were in Malaysia on Exercise with 3 Sqn RAAF and their F-18's. They packed up overnight and flew back to Darwin (using their 707 tankers) and were soon loaded up with live weapons and flying CAP missions. Meanwhile we sat at Kuantan waiting... and waiting for transport and tankers to turn up to take us back to Darwin (prior to going to Malaysia we had spent 2 weeks flying out of Darwin in a fleet support exercise which as it turned out was a practice for what actually happened a few weeks later). The problem was all our Hercs and 727's were committed to deploying the initial Army and Iroquois units into theater and there just wasn't any spare aircraft (including RAAF transports and tankers) to come and get us. After 2 weeks of waiting (during which we flew daily DACT sorties aganst the Malaysian Mig 29's and Hawk 200's in anticipation!) the Malaysians offered us 2 of their stretched Hercs and it was them that flew us back to Amberly, via, Laborn (East Malaysia), Manila, Guam and PNG to avoid Indonesian airspace. By the time we got to Amberly the threat from Indonesia had passed and the situation on the ground in Timor was under control so we came home. Close, but no cigar!
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Jun 14, 2007 16:33:40 GMT 12
So getting back to the new HMNZS Canterbury, it looks like it will be going down deep south not too long after getting here, wonder if they will be putting a sea sprite on her when she goes. I supposse they will have to do the usual trials etc, Les would know more. I would say you would want it in relatively calm waters for iroquois operations.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jun 14, 2007 17:51:11 GMT 12
Plan is to land 2 Seasprites on board before it enters Lyttleton, and maybe an Iroquios.
|
|
|
Post by skyhawkdon on Jun 15, 2007 10:24:16 GMT 12
So getting back to the new HMNZS Canterbury, it looks like it will be going down deep south not too long after getting here, wonder if they will be putting a sea sprite on her when she goes. I supposse they will have to do the usual trials etc, Les would know more. I would say you would want it in relatively calm waters for iroquois operations. Given the situation in Fiji and comments made by Helen yesterday about the safety of NZ'ers there, the Canterbury may be heading north pretty soon after arrival in NZ?
|
|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 15, 2007 18:51:59 GMT 12
An undertaking like that would involve huge risk so don't even think it I imagine it will take at least a year for the ships company to complete fitting out, develop SOPs including the other NZDF users, work up and under go testing. Remeber this is a new capability to NZDF. In many areas we don't know what we don't know. Paul
|
|