|
|
Post by 30sqnatc on Jun 22, 2019 15:21:00 GMT 12
This vessel is just a shade larger than the "Kaitaki" and will certainly be smaller than the new rail ferries. Go with it Ron. Might as well go for it and put some rails on the lower deck. Are you suggesting that NZDF pay for Kiwirail's design costs? Clever! Yeah but we own it and just loan back to KR between deployment and training periods. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Jun 23, 2019 10:39:05 GMT 12
While it would be nice to have a x2 LHDs like the Endurance 170, however it would mean more helo's and more pilots and crew to be trained up etc... and to use them to their full capability it really should also mean a few attack helos on board as well, if they want true troop projection and not just humanitarian aid...
As she can carry 10 medium sized helo's... with 5 landing spots... so, 5 NH-90's for force projection and 5 attack helo for protecting the force during the operation.
Adding to that then there is warf and docks at Devonport to dock 3 large vessels, plus the rest of the fleet... or moving the entire base... and if the did then make sure they build a bigger drydock and future proofing that... which I can't see happening.
To be honest I can't see us getting more than what we have, just with an added well dock... I like discussing it but also dislike speculating... |
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Jun 23, 2019 12:26:16 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Jun 23, 2019 13:51:26 GMT 12
CY has been reduced to 3 + 1. Originally designed as 3+4, but it was never a good fit with poorly designed lashing points etc. Much like CYs '2-spot' flight deck that only has space for one machine with rotors turning and one static. Is that 3 in the 'storage' hangar & 1 in the 'operational' hangar? Can't imagine where 3 + 4 would ever have been accommodated. JSDF Osumi is a fine looking design, but seems it might be light on vehicle lane metres!?! 3+1 Originally intended as 4+1 |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jun 23, 2019 16:14:22 GMT 12
While it would be nice to have a x2 LHDs like the Endurance 170, however it would mean more helo's and more pilots and crew to be trained up etc... and to use them to their full capability it really should also mean a few attack helos on board as well, if they want true troop projection and not just humanitarian aid...
As she can carry 10 medium sized helo's... with 5 landing spots... so, 5 NH-90's for force projection and 5 attack helo for protecting the force during the operation.
Adding to that then there is warf and docks at Devonport to dock 3 large vessels, plus the rest of the fleet... or moving the entire base... and if the did then make sure they build a bigger drydock and future proofing that... which I can't see happening.
To be honest I can't see us getting more than what we have, just with an added well dock... I like discussing it but also dislike speculating... There has been talk, off and on, of moving Devenport Naval Base before, but nothing has eventuated. However if / when the Ports of Auckland are moved then DNB will most likely move as well because of pressure from the nimbys and developers. Two locations for the Port of Auckland relocation are Matingarahi Point on the Firth of Thames and North Port at Whangarei near the refinery. The optimal relocation for the Ports of Auckland would Matingarahi Point, because the required infrastructure costs would be less than if the Port was relocated to Whangarei. From the RNZN point of view, Whangarei would be the better option with a second base in the South Island, probably Dunedin, for southern ocean and southern EEZ operations. www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dunedin-navy-base-rumour A lot hinges too on where the proposed dry dock is finally located. www.stuff.co.nz/business/113386445/whangarei-pins-hopes-on-a-240m-dry-dock-for-economic-boost |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Jun 23, 2019 17:13:44 GMT 12
There has been talk, off and on, of moving Devenport Naval Base before, but nothing has eventuated. However if / when the Ports of Auckland are moved then DNB will most likely move as well because of pressure from the nimbys and developers. Two locations for the Port of Auckland relocation are Matingarahi Point on the Firth of Thames and North Port at Whangarei near the refinery. The optimal relocation for the Ports of Auckland would Matingarahi Point, because the required infrastructure costs would be less than if the Port was relocated to Whangarei. From the RNZN point of view, Whangarei would be the better option with a second base in the South Island, probably Dunedin, for southern ocean and southern EEZ operations. www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dunedin-navy-base-rumour A lot hinges too on where the proposed dry dock is finally located. www.stuff.co.nz/business/113386445/whangarei-pins-hopes-on-a-240m-dry-dock-for-economic-boost yeah I know there has been talk I rememebr there was even talk about it when I was in the Navy... and that was back in 1985ish Your suggestions make sense... including a small base here in Dunners for the southern operations... |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Jun 23, 2019 20:22:20 GMT 12
There has been talk, off and on, of moving Devenport Naval Base before, but nothing has eventuated. However if / when the Ports of Auckland are moved then DNB will most likely move as well because of pressure from the nimbys and developers. Two locations for the Port of Auckland relocation are Matingarahi Point on the Firth of Thames and North Port at Whangarei near the refinery. The optimal relocation for the Ports of Auckland would Matingarahi Point, because the required infrastructure costs would be less than if the Port was relocated to Whangarei. From the RNZN point of view, Whangarei would be the better option with a second base in the South Island, probably Dunedin, for southern ocean and southern EEZ operations. www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/dunedin-navy-base-rumour A lot hinges too on where the proposed dry dock is finally located. www.stuff.co.nz/business/113386445/whangarei-pins-hopes-on-a-240m-dry-dock-for-economic-boost yeah I know there has been talk I rememebr there was even talk about it when I was in the Navy... and that was back in 1985ish Your suggestions make sense... including a small base here in Dunners for the southern operations... Thanks, I do think DNB will move in the long term along with Whenuapai because of the continual population growth of Auckland and eventual urban intensification, due to it's urban sprawl becoming unsustainable and resisted. Dunedin would be the better option for a southern base than Bluff and there really isn't room in Lyttelton Harbour without major and very expensive reclamation work. We will acquire 2 enhanced sealift vessels, as stated in the DCP, and even if they are LHDs, we would rarely sail them both at the same time. We are actually short on rotary wing lift capability, so some more platforms should be acquired. 10 NH90 were recommended to the govt as the minimum number required to meet the govt policy requirements, but the then govt only acquired 8. We also need a heavy lift helicopter as well, something along the lines of the CH-47 and some marinized NH90 utility / TTH helicopters or similar. However funding is not available for such unless Vote NZDF and Vote Defence are increased to 2% GDP, and there is no political will to do that. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 5, 2019 20:57:24 GMT 12
In the DCP 2019 each of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels has a budget of $1+ billion, or is it 1 billion for both (which is most likely) While it is still 5 - 10 years away the wording in the DCP19 states a "Landing Platform Dock is an example of
the type of vessel that will be considered." Page 33 DCP 2019This part does not say this is also the replacement of Canterbury that is separate in section 203... $1+ billion that is a lot of LPD even when you include the LCM's. Even if it is ten years away with inflation. defence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Defence-Capability-Plan-2019.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 5, 2019 22:20:06 GMT 12
In the DCP 2019 each of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels has a budget of $1+ billion, or is it 1 billion for both (which is most likely) While it is still 5 - 10 years away the wording in the DCP19 states a "Landing Platform Dock is an example of
the type of vessel that will be considered." Page 33 DCP 2019This part does not say this is also the replacement of Canterbury that is separate in section 203... $1+ billion that is a lot of LPD even when you include the LCM's. Even if it is ten years away with inflation. defence.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Defence-Capability-Plan-2019.pdfYes it's a lot of LPD and makes me wonder if they are looking at an LHD. Everybody reckons it is a LPD that they will get, however as you point out, the DCP uses that LPD only as an example of the type of ship that they are looking at. The operative phrase being "Landing Platform Dock is an example of the type of vessel that will be considered." If they acquired an LPD from a European or North American yard, then yes they could be looking at $800 million to $1 billion, because those are expensive yards. However if the vessel was accquired from Singapore, South Korea, or Japan then it is relatively cheap but with the same or better quality.
What we don't know is what sensors and armament they are thinking of putting on it either. That adds to the cost. The sensors and weapons platforms (launchers, guns) will add to the capital expenditure costs, however the weapons themselves, missiles, torpedoes and ammo, are paid out of the operational expenditure, not the capital expediture. I think that they may install better sensors and ASMD than they have on Canterbury because of the significant advances and increases in both the submarine population within the Indo Pacific and proliferation of antiship missiles, even into non state actors hands (Houthi rebels in Yemen). Then again it's NZ politicians that we are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 5, 2019 23:24:12 GMT 12
Yes it's a lot of LPD and makes me wonder if they are looking at an LHD. Everybody reckons it is a LPD that they will get, however as you point out, the DCP uses that LPD only as an example of the type of ship that they are looking at. The operative phrase being "Landing Platform Dock is an example of the type of vessel that will be considered." If they acquired an LPD from a European or North American yard, then yes they could be looking at $800 million to $1 billion, because those are expensive yards. However if the vessel was accquired from Singapore, South Korea, or Japan then it is relatively cheap but with the same or better quality. What we don't know is what sensors and armament they are thinking of putting on it either. That adds to the cost. The sensors and weapons platforms (launchers, guns) will add to the capital expenditure costs, however the weapons themselves, missiles, torpedoes and ammo, are paid out of the operational expenditure, not the capital expediture. I think that they may install better sensors and ASMD than they have on Canterbury because of the significant advances and increases in both the submarine population within the Indo Pacific and proliferation of antiship missiles, even into non state actors hands (Houthi rebels in Yemen). Then again it's NZ politicians that we are talking about.
You funny... us actually arm a ship properly... lol you funny |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 8, 2019 19:23:15 GMT 12
Interesting discussion. It sort of looks fairly obvious that the ST Marine Endurance 170 would be an ideal fit for the NZ Navy next Dock type vessel. The LHD with through deck, five helo spots and hangar for up to 10 sure has the capacity. But to go in another direction with Air support the comments in www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26049/singapore-moves-closer-to-joining-what-china-calls-the-u-s-f-35-friends-circle“The most likely candidate for the JMMS is a design based around the Endurance-160 and 170 designs from Singapore’s own ST Marine. These ship designs are almost 540 feet long with an estimated displacement of around 14,500 tons. Most importantly, unlike the existing Endurance-class ships, they feature a full-length flight deck. So far, concept art and models have only shown the new design with parking spots on the deck for five medium helicopters, but these vessels could potentially support limited F-35B operations” So with an Endurance 170 in NZ Navy service we could join the f35b club and within the ‘over NZ $1bn’ price total acquire an Endurance 170 AND have about $300m for a pair of f35b to operate from it. 🤖 |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 8, 2019 20:59:15 GMT 12
Interesting discussion. It sort of looks fairly obvious that the ST Marine Endurance 170 would be an ideal fit for the NZ Navy next Dock type vessel. The LHD with through deck, five helo spots and hangar for up to 10 sure has the capacity. But to go in another direction with Air support the comments in www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26049/singapore-moves-closer-to-joining-what-china-calls-the-u-s-f-35-friends-circle“The most likely candidate for the JMMS is a design based around the Endurance-160 and 170 designs from Singapore’s own ST Marine. These ship designs are almost 540 feet long with an estimated displacement of around 14,500 tons. Most importantly, unlike the existing Endurance-class ships, they feature a full-length flight deck. So far, concept art and models have only shown the new design with parking spots on the deck for five medium helicopters, but these vessels could potentially support limited F-35B operations” So with an Endurance 170 in NZ Navy service we could join the f35b club and within the ‘over NZ $1bn’ price total acquire an Endurance 170 AND have about $300m for a pair of f35b to operate from it. 🤖 First of all the possibility of any F-35 type being acquired by the NZ Govt is very low, within the 5% margin of error, because very few, if any, NZ politicians would want to expend considerable the political capital required on what would be a very controversial acquisition. It would be a political career killer and don't forget that now most of our politicians are career politicans.
The ST E-170 would meet most of NZs requirements and it would also meet some of the NZ Govt political, diplomatic and trade policy goals as well, by enhancing the NZ - Singaporean relationship. Importantly it would also be good Value for Money (VfM) which would satisfy the goblins of Treasury. Because it would be a high value asset (HVA), hence a high priority target, the NZ Govt should expend money on a good sensor, weapons and CMS fit so that the ship(s) can properly defend themselves. Whilst the current ANZACUK strategy is to use FFG / DDG escorts to defend HVAs, PLAN (Peoples Liberation Army Navy) and VMF (Voyenno-morskoy flot - Russian Navy) strategy is to kill the escorts then the HVA. In the PLAN case with their DF-21 Ship Killer ballistic missile they have the capability to take out a HVA without touching the escorts, if the missile works as advertised. The RNZN nor RAN don't have an ABM (Anti Ballistic Missile) at the moment, but the RAN have the capability to track and target them and they plan to acquire the SM6 at some stage.
While it would be nice to have a x2 LHDs like the Endurance 170, however it would mean more helo's and more pilots and crew to be trained up etc... and to use them to their full capability it really should also mean a few attack helos on board as well, if they want true troop projection and not just humanitarian aid...
As she can carry 10 medium sized helo's... with 5 landing spots... so, 5 NH-90's for force projection and 5 attack helo for protecting the force during the operation.
To be honest I can't see us getting more than what we have, just with an added well dock... I like discussing it but also dislike speculating... The Seasprites are up for replacement in 2028 so undoubtedly the replacement project will be about to kick off soon, if it already hasn't started. The Germans have just selected the NHI NH90-NFH for their Navy Lynx ASW helicopter replacement. I undertsand that it has to go to the Bundestag for final approval. They're also due to receive the first of 18 modified NFH to replace their naval Sea Kings. This variant of the NFH still sports the maritime radar but is without the sonar and weapons. Not sure if it still has the E/O turret.
it would make sense to marines the 8 NH90 that we already have and acquire more NH90-TTH marinising them as well. Then if we acquired the NFH we'd have a common platform across the medium helicopter fleet. We should also acquire some militarised marinised A109 as well because this would mean you'd have a helicopter that could go to sea and be used when a NH90 is to much helicopter or to obvious. That's one option albeit an expensive one because the NH90 isn't cheap to acquire and operate, however we do live in hope that Airbus sorts the production, sustainment and spares availbility problems out quickly and well before we release the first RFI for the Seasprite replacement.
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 9, 2019 23:52:06 GMT 12
I would never say never when it comes to possibility of f35 purchase by the NZ govt. The political climate concerning the future role of the NZDF and the equipment required has definitely changes over the last few years. This stuff article on the purchase of four Poseidon P5-A for delivery starting 2023 appears to sum up the changing govt attitude. www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105452173/new-subkiller-planes-may-never-fire-in-anger-but-govt-wants-the-optionIf, indeed, the navy does acquire an LHD such as the ST Endurance 170 by late next decade then I can envisage a time where f35b from a visiting British QE carrier will exercise STOVL from the NZ LHD. Perhaps even f35b from a visiting US LHD to the NZ LHD. With this capability established then depending on the need to monitor and respond to events in the NZ EEZ a future quick response force projection could be two to four f35b from our one or two LHDs. Perhaps the time may come where a land based squadron of f35a becomes a reality. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbo on Aug 10, 2019 12:15:31 GMT 12
I would never say never when it comes to possibility of f35 purchase by the NZ govt. The political climate concerning the future role of the NZDF and the equipment required has definitely changes over the last few years. This stuff article on the purchase of four Poseidon P5-A for delivery starting 2023 appears to sum up the changing govt attitude. www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/105452173/new-subkiller-planes-may-never-fire-in-anger-but-govt-wants-the-optionIf, indeed, the navy does acquire an LHD such as the ST Endurance 170 by late next decade then I can envisage a time where f35b from a visiting British QE carrier will exercise STOVL from the NZ LHD. Perhaps even f35b from a visiting US LHD to the NZ LHD. With this capability established then depending on the need to monitor and respond to events in the NZ EEZ a future quick response force projection could be two to four f35b from our one or two LHDs. Perhaps the time may come where a land based squadron of f35a becomes a reality. Yes agree there has been a change in attitude, to an extent. However the Greens are likely to be come a more predominate player in NZ politics as the younger generations come thru and we know their attitudes to all things military. I think you'll agree however that while we can 'never say never', a NZ ACF purchase (whether it be F35 or whatever) would be in response to a very serious and sustained deterioration in the security situation in our part of the world. We would then need to step-up with a credible combat capability and I can't help thinking a handful of F35 might be a little more a token. In the scenario you paint I think a better option would be something matching the ADF Tiger replacement would be a better direction... Apache? Rather hypothetical for now though! |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 10, 2019 14:52:07 GMT 12
I very very much doubt that the F35b is even on the radar (excuse the pun) ;-)
If the by an outside chance that the E-170 LHD is purchased I would rather see a few decent attack helo's of some description on deck, allowing force projection, and protection and a variety of other roles including recon. This means that, if say we get 1 LHD and the 2nd vessel is a LPD we can still take attack/recon helo to LZ and have some form of air coverage whether the LPD is on sole task or both vessels... (if that makes sense)
The main problem with our defence force is they have enough power to defend the asset ie; the frigates have enough firepower to defend them self, but that is about it, not quiet enough to take out the opposing force... While it was cool to see us get the penguin ASM when we got the upgraded SeaSprites, but reality is, it is too short of a range to be effective enough and we have no true ship born anti ship missile to take out any enemy vessels at range (Both CAMM and Sea Sparrow have surface modes but these are really only a light weight and not designed to evade decoys etc...) Just adding Harpoon to the frigates would dramatically change this...
Same can be said with the army, just enough to defend, and no more... don't get me started about the air taxi service.
the best defence is a good offence...
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 10, 2019 19:59:46 GMT 12
I very very much doubt that the F35b is even on the radar (excuse the pun) ;-) If the by an outside chance that the E-170 LHD is purchased I would rather see a few decent attack helo's of some description on deck, allowing force projection, and protection and a variety of other roles including recon. This means that, if say we get 1 LHD and the 2nd vessel is a LPD we can still take attack/recon helo to LZ and have some form of air coverage whether the LPD is on sole task or both vessels... (if that makes sense) The main problem with our defence force is they have enough power to defend the asset ie; the frigates have enough firepower to defend them self, but that is about it, not quiet enough to take out the opposing force... While it was cool to see us get the penguin ASM when we got the upgraded SeaSprites, but reality is, it is too short of a range to be effective enough and we have no true ship born anti ship missile to take out any enemy vessels at range (Both CAMM and Sea Sparrow have surface modes but these are really only a light weight and not designed to evade decoys etc...) Just adding Harpoon to the frigates would dramatically change this... Same can be said with the army, just enough to defend, and no more... don't get me started about the air taxi service. the best defence is a good offence... I agree about the ship defence and offenc but skip Harpoon because it is an obsolete weapon system now. We'd be better to go with somethng like Kongsberg's NSM (Naval Strike Missile) or Lockheed Martin's AGM/SSM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti Ship Missile), both being LO (Low Observable a.k.a., stealth) missiles and able to fly random courses to the predetermined target, avoiding enemy hazards on the way. The NSM is a lighter missile than the LRASM and is being developed into the JSM (Joint Strike Missile) for use on the F-35 and able to strike land targets as well. Australia is a lead player in this along with Norway. The LRASM is a develpment of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER already in service with the USAF and RAAF, amongst others. Both the NSM and LRASM can be launched from the MK-41VLS tactical launcher and also from box launchers mounted on the deck. Sea Ceptor takes about 1 km before it can hit a surface target and doesn't have the range or hitting power of a dedicated anti ship missile (AShM).
Interestingly enough, Thales UK have developed a new launcher assembly for the LMM (Lightweight Multi Role Missile) that is mounted on the RN 30 mm Bushmaster cannon mounts. The launcher holds either 5 or 7 missiles and the missile has a range of about 6 km. In UK service th LMM is called the Mrtlet and it is already in service with their AW159 Wildcat helicopters. Something like that should work with our 25 mm Typhoon mounts. It's beam guided so would require a laser designator for each mount. Be cheaper than firing a Sea Ceptor at fast boat.
With regard to attack helicopters, if we were to go down that route, Apaches or Tigers would have to be marinised and we'd have to pay for that and most likely be the lead operators. No thanks, because that is a very risky expensive option. We could go down the USMC path and use the AH-1W Super Cobra or AH-1Z Viper. Previous govts have looked at attack helicopters but have never accepted the need for them because they always said that the ACF covered their role. Of course we don't have an ACF now so that negates that argument. An attack helicopter is also a quite politically charged term, even across the ditch, and they got around that by calling them "Armed Recconnaisance Helicopters".
The DCP only used the term "LPD" as an example so nothing is cast in stone. My own preference is for a LHD purely because of the flight deck space and hangarage available, plus future proofing, something that NZ politicians and Treasury are strangers too. It's very difficult to increase the flight deck area or hangar size of a LPD when you find that it's not big enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 10, 2019 22:34:08 GMT 12
I agree about the ship defence and offenc but skip Harpoon because it is an obsolete weapon system now. We'd be better to go with somethng like Kongsberg's NSM (Naval Strike Missile) or Lockheed Martin's AGM/SSM-158C LRASM (Long Range Anti Ship Missile), both being LO (Low Observable a.k.a., stealth) missiles and able to fly random courses to the predetermined target, avoiding enemy hazards on the way. The NSM is a lighter missile than the LRASM and is being developed into the JSM (Joint Strike Missile) for use on the F-35 and able to strike land targets as well. Australia is a lead player in this along with Norway. The LRASM is a develpment of the AGM-158B JASSM-ER already in service with the USAF and RAAF, amongst others. Both the NSM and LRASM can be launched from the MK-41VLS tactical launcher and also from box launchers mounted on the deck. Sea Ceptor takes about 1 km before it can hit a surface target and doesn't have the range or hitting power of a dedicated anti ship missile (AShM). I just used Harpoon as an example as it was the first one that came to mine...  but I agree with you Interestingly enough, Thales UK have developed a new launcher assembly for the LMM (Lightweight Multi Role Missile) that is mounted on the RN 30 mm Bushmaster cannon mounts. The launcher holds either 5 or 7 missiles and the missile has a range of about 6 km. In UK service th LMM is called the Mrtlet and it is already in service with their AW159 Wildcat helicopters. Something like that should work with our 25 mm Typhoon mounts. It's beam guided so would require a laser designator for each mount. Be cheaper than firing a Sea Ceptor at fast boat. Yes, I saw that and would be a good upgrade for OPVs and even the ANZACs... maybe a typhoon mount behind the main gun... The DCP only used the term "LPD" as an example so nothing is cast in stone. My own preference is for a LHD purely because of the flight deck space and hangarage available, plus future proofing, something that NZ politicians and Treasury are strangers too. It's very difficult to increase the flight deck area or hangar size of a LPD when you find that it's not big enough. Totally agree there... Endeavor had that problem with her flight deck... |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 11, 2019 17:15:50 GMT 12
Interestingly enough, Thales UK have developed a new launcher assembly for the LMM (Lightweight Multi Role Missile) that is mounted on the RN 30 mm Bushmaster cannon mounts. The launcher holds either 5 or 7 missiles and the missile has a range of about 6 km. In UK service th LMM is called the Mrtlet and it is already in service with their AW159 Wildcat helicopters. Something like that should work with our 25 mm Typhoon mounts. It's beam guided so would require a laser designator for each mount. Be cheaper than firing a Sea Ceptor at fast boat. Yes, I saw that and would be a good upgrade for OPVs and even the ANZACs... maybe a typhoon mount behind the main gun...
However, not sure if this LMRM would be useful to have on either the NZ OPVs or the frigates. The OPVs are unlikely to be in a confrontation with armed speedboats that need to be dealt with beyond the range of the 25mm bushmaster.
Its a pity those wasted 300 tons of added weight to provide ice protection for the OPVs couldn’t be removed and some better sensors along with 57mm or 76mm main gun installed (as was originally planned). That would make them more useful to deal with larger illegal fishing vessels and resource thieves.
The frigates have just had their Phalanx CIWS upgraded to deal with small fast boat threats. The RN frigates don’t have CIWS so Martlet fills a gap just beyond the range of the 30mm gun. I don’t think the NZ frigates need either 25mm or 30mm guns with Martlet launchers on DS or Raphael mounts. The Phalanx and minigun Raphaels would cover the same threats. Don’t they? |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 11, 2019 18:34:42 GMT 12
The RN appear to have rushed the Martlet installation, testing and acceptance for the type 23 frigates since the well televised Iranian small boat swarm tactics in gulf of Hormuz. The addition of an LMRM five tube launcher on a fork tine of the 30mm DS30m mount looks a neat solution.
However, not sure if this LMRM would be useful to have on either the NZ OPVs or the frigates. The OPVs are unlikely to be in a confrontation with armed speedboats that need to be dealt with beyond the range of the 25mm bushmaster.
Its a pity those wasted 300 tons of added weight to provide ice protection for the OPVs couldn’t be removed and some better sensors along with 57mm or 76mm main gun installed (as was originally planned). That would make them more useful to deal with larger illegal fishing vessels and resource thieves.
The frigates have just had their Phalanx CIWS upgraded to deal with small fast boat threats. The RN frigates don’t have CIWS so Martlet fills a gap just beyond the range of the 30mm gun. I don’t think the NZ frigates need either 25mm or 30mm guns with Martlet launchers on DS or Raphael mounts. The Phalanx and minigun Raphaels would cover the same threats. Don’t they? Our frigates until they get some form of ship-based ASM, will only be good for light duties, and even then, lets face it the Phalanx CIWS is an anti-air weapon design to take out an incoming missile, and a last ditch effort at that, and while the upgrades do work in surface mode, it is like relying on sea sparrow and or CAMM in surface mode to be an ASM. So if it is a swarm attack then you need more than one weapon to bear on the targets... Phalanx CIWS and 50cals targeting port targets, 25mm bushmaster with LMRM launcher and 50cals targeting starboard targets... On a side note, the Phalanx CIWS is to be upgraded again according to DCP 2019... |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 11, 2019 20:11:02 GMT 12
The RN appear to have rushed the Martlet installation, testing and acceptance for the type 23 frigates since the well televised Iranian small boat swarm tactics in gulf of Hormuz. The addition of an LMRM five tube launcher on a fork tine of the 30mm DS30m mount looks a neat solution.
However, not sure if this LMRM would be useful to have on either the NZ OPVs or the frigates. The OPVs are unlikely to be in a confrontation with armed speedboats that need to be dealt with beyond the range of the 25mm bushmaster.
Its a pity those wasted 300 tons of added weight to provide ice protection for the OPVs couldn’t be removed and some better sensors along with 57mm or 76mm main gun installed (as was originally planned). That would make them more useful to deal with larger illegal fishing vessels and resource thieves.
The frigates have just had their Phalanx CIWS upgraded to deal with small fast boat threats. The RN frigates don’t have CIWS so Martlet fills a gap just beyond the range of the 30mm gun. I don’t think the NZ frigates need either 25mm or 30mm guns with Martlet launchers on DS or Raphael mounts. The Phalanx and minigun Raphaels would cover the same threats. Don’t they? Our frigates until they get some form of ship-based ASM, will only be good for light duties, and even then, lets face it the Phalanx CIWS is an anti-air weapon design to take out an incoming missile, and a last ditch effort at that, and while the upgrades do work in surface mode, it is like relying on sea sparrow and or CAMM in surface mode to be an ASM. So if it is a swarm attack then you need more than one weapon to bear on the targets... Phalanx CIWS and 50cals targeting port targets, 25mm bushmaster with LMRM launcher and 50cals targeting starboard targets... On a side note, the Phalanx CIWS is to be upgraded again according to DCP 2019... I'm actually of the opinion that Phalanx is obsolete because with it being 20 mm, it's range is now to short, especially when supersonic AShM, such as the BraMos, are becoming more common. At a minimum, the 30 mm calibre preferably with AHEAD rounds or the 35 mm Millennium gun with it's AHEAD rounds being ideal. If the Phalanx system hits a supersonic AShM the successfull interception will still have the potential to cause significant damage because the explosion will occur close inboard and the debris will still impact the ship at a relatively high velocity. Even with the new breeds of subsonic AShM the 20 mm range is still to short with the Phalanx radar not detecting and locking on to stealth missiles until they are somewhat closer. |
|
If we time things right we might be able to do a deal for the USS Harry Truman should the Yanks decide to retire her early Hmmmmmmm The HMNZS Aunty Jacinda has got a ring about it All we'd need to do is rip out the nuclear power plant (keeps the greens happy) 
Bung a couple of AAs in its place It could carry the entire RNZAF and a couple of Air New Zealand Boeings, and it would look good parked out in the Gulf, Fishery patrols wouldn't be a problem. Even the Aussie might think its a good idea. 
but I agree with you