|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 13, 2019 14:54:21 GMT 12
Thxs Senob, agree no NZ govt(s) will spend the necessary money or capital to setup a MEU force equivalent to effectively contest an amphibious mission.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiwiruna on Sept 13, 2019 19:13:30 GMT 12
We could ask the Aussies for a deal on their ARH Tigers given they are looking to replace them. It wouldn't be the first time.
|
|
|
|
Post by tfly on Sept 13, 2019 20:27:27 GMT 12
So were the Russians planning to have four Mistrals? Can’t find any mention of the third and fourth Russian Mistral. although since they constructed the stern sections of their first two Mistrals there must have been some design and maybe technology transfer to enable them to do this. So there could be possibility they can completely build their own Mistral design LHD. From memory the program was four Mistrals with two built in France and two in Russia. However the Russian annexation of the Crimea put paid to that project. I don't know if the Russians would continue with that particular project, however undoubtedly any learnings gained will inform future LHD projects. Kiwi Rob would know more, I suspect. I think this answers that question! Hopefully I can get the URL to link correctly 😬 Remember how France denied Moscow Mistrals over Ukraine? Now Russia ‘to make own carriers IN CRIMEA’ www.rt.com/russia/468721-russia-helicopter-carriers-crimea/I think this answers that question! Hopefully I can get the URL to link correctly 😬 |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 13, 2019 20:46:35 GMT 12
We could ask the Aussies for a deal on their ARH Tigers given they are looking to replace them. It wouldn't be the first time. Yes we could, but and there's always a but, will the Aussies replace them? Airbus are talking up to $2 billion savings by staying with the Tigers and following the French and German Tiger III upgrade programs. The aircraft is just about a mature platform now and apparently the Aussies are obtaining higher outputs with it than other operators. There are advantages for them to stay with the Tiger, and undertake the MLU to Tiger III in that by the time it does come to EOSL, the US Army should have its FVL (Future Vertical Lift) program up and running including its FVLAH (FVL Attack Helicopter). Having said that, the US Army doesn't have the greatest reputation for bring new capability programs to successful fruition. Sometimes I think the Auckland Blues have a better chance of doing a threepeat of the Super Rugby.
Apart from that, personally I do think that they would be a good asset for NZDF, however ARH and / or attack choppers have never been part of our CONOPS because of our long departed and mourned ACF. Since that's gone such a capability should be seriously considered, however such capabilities would be vulnerable in contested airspaces. But it would be better than what we have now.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 14, 2019 14:11:14 GMT 12
Do you think the NZDF ever modeled the option & cost of kitting out a few of the A109s with machine gun pods & rockets as a means to acquiring faux ARH assets in a pinch?
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 14, 2019 21:23:50 GMT 12
I think that they have because the current A109s are wired for weaponry (fitted for but not with) and are armoured. The A109 is available in a marinised variant and able to be fitted with guns, rockets, and I think some light weight missiles. MBDA have a new light weight missile out now that apparently is quite effective, plus I am not sure but think that the Javelin ati tank guided missile (Army has it) can be launched from helicopters. It would work for us and be a good crawl, walk, run, way of learning. It also means not introducing a new platform with all the associated extra costs in training and sustainment etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 15, 2019 23:00:34 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 15, 2019 23:46:17 GMT 12
Definitely looks interesting and being built in a yard of our choice could make it worthwhile. On the face of it, has a lot of pluses to it and the ability to act as an AOR backs up Aotearoa. One of these probably be well within the $1 billion indicated cost, and probably could have it winterised and ice hardened to the same level as Aotearoa. Wouldn't need two of them so the Canterbury replacement could be a pure LPD / LHD. I also like that the bridge wings overhang the hull like on Canterbury, because it gives the bridge good visibility of evolutions alongside at sea and whilst coming alongside. Be a great HADR asset as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 16, 2019 0:15:06 GMT 12
I think that they have because the current A109s are wired for weaponry (fitted for but not with) and are armoured. The A109 is available in a marinised variant and able to be fitted with guns, rockets, and I think some light weight missiles. MBDA have a new light weight missile out now that apparently is quite effective, plus I am not sure but think that the Javelin ati tank guided missile (Army has it) can be launched from helicopters. It would work for us and be a good crawl, walk, run, way of learning. It also means not introducing a new platform with all the associated extra costs in training and sustainment etc. Maybe we're on to something...  2014/15: The Philippine Navy armed two of their five AW109s with weapon pods (FN RMP LC). While the Philippine Air Force (PAF) ordered eight AW109E Power as Light Attack Helicopters with rockets & 7.62mm Gatling guns.  Philippine Navy armed AW109s  Belgian Army A109BA Hirundo with anti tank missiles  Malaysian Army Air Corps AW109LUH Watch for the RNZAF A109 @end! 1:54 (minus guns) |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Sept 16, 2019 12:22:11 GMT 12
Definitely looks interesting and being built in a yard of our choice could make it worthwhile. On the face of it, has a lot of pluses to it and the ability to act as an AOR backs up Aotearoa. One of these probably be well within the $1 billion indicated cost, and probably could have it winterised and ice hardened to the same level as Aotearoa. Wouldn't need two of them so the Canterbury replacement could be a pure LPD / LHD. I also like that the bridge wings overhang the hull like on Canterbury, because it gives the bridge good visibility of evolutions alongside at sea and whilst coming alongside. Be a great HADR asset as well. Indeed a nice looking ship. The devil is always in the details... is that as many as 24 standard 20foot containers and two CIWS included? Pity the CIWS on hangar roof is stuck well between the two exhaust stacks which limit its fire arc so that any ASM approaching mid ships has an easy run. Even the forward CIWS looks limited. Unless, it doesn’t matter because there will be containerised missile defences. 🙂 |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 16, 2019 12:52:03 GMT 12
Definitely looks interesting and being built in a yard of our choice could make it worthwhile. On the face of it, has a lot of pluses to it and the ability to act as an AOR backs up Aotearoa. One of these probably be well within the $1 billion indicated cost, and probably could have it winterised and ice hardened to the same level as Aotearoa. Wouldn't need two of them so the Canterbury replacement could be a pure LPD / LHD. I also like that the bridge wings overhang the hull like on Canterbury, because it gives the bridge good visibility of evolutions alongside at sea and whilst coming alongside. Be a great HADR asset as well. Indeed a nice looking ship. The devil is always in the details... is that as many as 24 standard 20foot containers and two CIWS included? Pity the CIWS on hangar roof is stuck well between the two exhaust stacks which limit its fire arc so that any ASM approaching mid ships has an easy run. Even the forward CIWS looks limited. Unless, it doesn’t matter because there will be containerised missile defences. 🙂 The CIWS could be moved to port and starboard so that's not really an issue. However, I think that the current 20 mm calibre is to small and short ranged for modern missile defence and 35 mm or 40 mm is better served because of the extra range and hitting power, especially with supersonic AShM being fielded by various navies. Even a 20 mm hit on a subsonic AShM still has the potential for damage to the vessel because momentum may carry debris and remain of the missile to the vessel. In NZ's case since we already are introducing Sea Ceptor into service, the LM ExLS VLS could easily be fitted to these ship because it doesn't penetrate the deck, unlike the Mk-41 VLS. I think that if the funnels were moved forward about 3 - 5 m then a 35 mm or 40 mm gun could be mounted above the hangar. My own preference would be the Rheinmettal 35 mm Millennium gun because it's an effective and proven system with its AHEAD ammo. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 16, 2019 19:39:06 GMT 12
agree. install 8-12 VLS Seaceptors or if its simpler/more affordable, park a couple of containerized CAMM (L) missiles on the deck hidden among the rest of the containers.
Mount a 30mm Thales Goalkeeper on the Bow, with a Martlet LMM pack (similar to what RN doing with their DS30M Mark II cannons on their Type 23s)
To complete the perimeter - mount remote (Mini)Typhoon stations on the starboard & port points of the stern.
If we are recycling the Phalanx CIWS from the Te Kaha or Te Mana, stick it on the Bow paired with a SeaRAM that uses the radar and electro optical system of the Phalanx.
The SeaRAM offers 11 missiles @mach 2.0+ with a range of 9km & 11kg warhead, while the Martlet LMM's range is 8km @mach 1.5 with 5-7 missiles packing 3kg warheads.
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 16, 2019 20:04:14 GMT 12
This is Xavier's report on the BMT ELLIDA ship. I see that it only replenishes solid stores and not liquids, so I am wrong in it being able to act as a back up for Aotearoa.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 16, 2019 21:17:46 GMT 12
well the original dsei article did headline: "/tanker.." so understandably misled.  Looks like a pair of 40/57/76mm guns just below the bridge each behind a crane! Obviously model builder never heard of arc of fire. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Sept 16, 2019 21:21:34 GMT 12
From my understanding and research I did...(ok a quick google), it is solids only, 1000 lims of wheeled vehicles, but can carry 350 troops, and carry a large number of containers and stores... NATO 2 Medical, and can RAS solids ... I couldn't find anywhere liquids...
I not even sure if it has a well dock...?
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Oct 13, 2019 14:20:49 GMT 12
First section a new LDP Joint Support Ship from Navantia Australia
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Oct 14, 2019 19:14:26 GMT 12
Yes saw that and it has the capability for refuelling at sea. If a mini mast for dry stores ship to ship transfer, like on the Ellida concept design, was added it would make it more interesting.
|
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Nov 7, 2019 20:36:58 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by foxcover on Nov 11, 2019 20:41:54 GMT 12
Pair of Makassar class would do nicely!
|
|
|
|
Post by senob on Nov 11, 2019 22:27:19 GMT 12
Pair of Makassar class would do nicely! Nope, to open to the sea in the sides and no hangar facilities. Also, a bit on the small side which means no room for future expansion / upgrades. Compared to the Canterbury, the only advantage they have is the well dock, however everything else would be a loss in capability. When you replace a capability, the accepted defence procurement theory is that you replace it with something that so that you don't lose any capability and that it will improve your capabilities for the next 20 years or so, because it will have room for upgrading during a MLU. This means not just in quality but also in quantity because when you acquire in low numbers like NZ does then quantity definitely has a quality of its own. We see that with the frigates, OPV, P-8 & C-130J. |
|
Looks like a pair of 40/57/76mm guns just below the bridge each behind a crane! Obviously model builder never heard of arc of fire. 