NZDF General discussion thread

[Markus40]

Can you verify that? Cheers.

It doesn't have an air weapons magazine though, from what I've seen of the plans, meaning: no Mavericks...

 

[Markus40]

Okay . Good to know that piece of Information. So you are saying really that the government will have to scrap the MAVs. for the Seasprites and look at a better option?

PS. Seems my $0.02 investment is really paying off.

I would imagine that is it possible to fit the Maverick to the P-3 in some fashion. The question becomes, would one want to? The Maverick is a good air-to-ground CAS missile, but it is not an anti-ship missile. The range is something like 15km and I believe the Maverick has either a laser or radio guidance system. This would put the launching platform (either Seasprite or P-3) with the launch range of most ship-based air defence systems. No, I'm not including point defence systems like RAM. A Maverick is fine for attacking/destroying small vessels or other vessels that don't have air defences, but if used on a warship, the attacking aircraft it likely to be engaged before entering the effective range of the Maverick.

IMV a Maverick-armed Seasprite while useful against FACs, is no replacement for a proper AShM aboard the frigates. As mentioned above, the Seasprite would need to get close enough to the target to launch, then would need to remain close in order to guide the missile in. This means (to me) that the Seasprite couldn't effectively engage a hostile warship. That would then force the RNZN Anzacs to rely on their 5 in/127mm main gun for anti-shipping attacks. I would expect that the Anzacs would've come under AShM fire before being able to get within range of the main gun.

Just my $0.02

-Cheers

 

[Markus40]

My question wasnt answered. Which of the Typhoon system will be installed according to the information given on the web site. Cheers.

A mini-Typhoon makes use of a 0.50 cal HMG. Generally to my understanding, the Typhoon/mini-Typhoon system is all pretty similar in terms of weapon stations. The differences come in when the decisision is made on arming the Typhoon system, selecting which gun to use, a gun/missile combo, etc.

Me being me, I'd rather the RNZN Anzacs get a Typhoon with the 25mm Bushmaster (I really don't like this gun BTW:shudder ) than the mini-Typhoon, just for the greater range and stopping power the 25mm has over the 12.7mm/0.50 cal. Having said that, mini-Typhoons are nevertheless steps in the right direction.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Can you verify that? Cheers.

The entire plans for the OPV can be found here:

http://www.akermarine.com/ship_patrol.html

The deck plans show very little room for such a magazine in the vessel. Even if some sort of "mobile" stowage system could be devised for the Mavericks, very few of them could be carried...

 

[Todjaeger]

It makes fiscal sense as well as economic sense to have the Navy and P3s armed with the same Missile. No doubt about that. If the Mav. can be installed to the P3 then its a done deal. We have a common rated system that covers both requirements for the defence forces.

If the Mav. was easily dropped and the Harpoon easily fitted to the P3 and ANZAC without too much expenditure then im sure it will be a green light.

How easy would it be to change the launch rack of the seasprite to be able to carry the Harpoon? And my next question would be if the ANZACs were to be fitted with the Harpoon should or would the Seasprites operate without a weapon other than the Torpedo.?

What possible link would there be between the P3 and ANZACs? Answer: A 100% link when considering the governments choice for a common rated type of ASM if that is what it will choose to do.

It might make fiscal and economic sense to use the same missile on the Seasprite and P-3K... IMV it would not make military sense to do so however. The mission profiles of the Seasprite and the Orion are very different, what might be appropriate for one likely wouldn't for the other.

I personally don't think the Seasprite could be modified to carry the Harpoon safely, given that it is a larger and heavier weapon, a Block I air-launched Harpoon is 3.8m and weights 515kg, and the SLAM-Block II Harpoon variants are even larger. A Maverick is about half that.

If it is determined that the Seasprites and Orions should have a common missile, then a better choice would be the Penguin AShM. IIRC it's about 100kg heavier than the Maverick, with about twice the range and the guidance is more appropriate for an anti-shipping role with a "fire and forget" mode available. It could even be mounted for shipboard use (Norway, Sweden and Finland having done so IIRC) though the NSM and RBS-15 are now replacing Penguin SSM launchers. An option in the future as I mentioned would be to adopt the NSM, which should be small enough for use from helicopters, with sufficient range to be worthwhile on ships and MPA.

For now, it would be far better IMO to have the frigates and the Orion to have a common missile type, since the engagement profile where it would be used for the two is similar.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

My question wasnt answered. Which of the Typhoon system will be installed according to the information given on the web site. Cheers.

According to Rafael marketing re the Mini Typhoon being supplied to the RNZN:

Mini-Typhoon consists of three principal subsystems: the stabilised weapon station itself, based on a 0.50cal machine gun; the TopLite electro-optical director (combining TV and infrared cameras and an eyesafe laser rangefinder in an above-decks sensor head); and a main control panel fitted in the operations room. The intended RNZN configuration for its ANZAC frigates comprises two Mini-Typhoon weapon stations and a single TopLite director per ship.According to the RNZN, the new system will provide “for force protection from FIACs and is a piracy deterrent, whilst also providing an enhanced passive surveillance capability, including range detection and fire control solution generation”. It adds: “Mini-Typhoon can detect, identify,
warn off, engage, neutralise and destroy threats. All this is achieved independently of existing ship’s systems, adding another layer of redundancy and enhancing protection and survivability characteristics.”

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SIP_STORAGE/FILES/9/849.pdf

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

My question wasnt answered. Which of the Typhoon system will be installed according to the information given on the web site. Cheers.

The question you had was this...

Does anyone know which of the mini typhoon system will be installed on the ANZACs as there appears to be several prototypes available. Cheers.

From http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/naval/typhoon/Typhoon.html

New Zealand Improves ANZAC
Force Protection With Mini-Typhoon

The Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) is to fit the Mini-Typhoon remote-controlled weapon station aboard its two ANZAC frigates HMNZS Te Kaha and HMNZS Te Mana.

A contract for the system, valued at about USD3.5 million, was placed with Rafael, Israel’s Armament Development Authority, in December 2006. Installation is planned to be undertaken on Te Mana in late 2007 and Te Kaha and early 2008.

According to the RNZN, the service is procuring the Mini-Typhoon system to enhance protection capability against fast inshore attack craft (FIACs) and other surface threats. follows recent operational experience in the Arabian Gulf, in support of Operation ‘Enduring Freedom’, which highlighted a gap in layered defence in the surface domain.

Mini-Typhoon consists of three principal subsystems: the stabilised weapon station itself, based on a 0.50cal machine gun; the TopLite electro-optical director (combining TV and infrared cameras and an eyesafe laser rangefinder in an above-decks sensor head); and a main control panel fitted in the operations room. The intended RNZN configuration for its ANZAC frigates comprises two Mini-Typhoon weapon stations and a single TopLite director per ship.

As mentioned, the RNZN is getting mini-Typhoon systems, which based on the 12.7mm/0.50 cal HMG.

As for this...

Okay . Good to know that piece of Information. So you are saying really that the government will have to scrap the MAVs. for the Seasprites and look at a better option?

PS. Seems my $0.02 investment is really paying off.

Maverick-armed Seasprites aren't bad at all, depending on what they're used for and how...

Sending a Seasprite out so armed, with the expectation of it damaging a hostile FFG is sort of like expecting rescue from the Judean Suicide Squad... Sending that same Seasprite out with the exact same weapons load to strike FAC, and someone is going for a swim... By way of example, look at how the USN is starting to arm it's Seahawks. They're deploying Hellfires, which have even shorter range and a smaller warhead. The expected targets for the Hellfires aren't ships, instead they are much smaller and can be approached more closely while remaining relatively safe from return fire. For use in littoral environments, the Maverick works. The biggest potential issue in this type of environment is that the Seasprite can likely only carry one or two.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Maverick-armed Seasprites aren't bad at all, depending on what they're used for and how...

Sending a Seasprite out so armed, with the expectation of it damaging a hostile FFG is sort of like expecting rescue from the Judean Suicide Squad... Sending that same Seasprite out with the exact same weapons load to strike FAC, and someone is going for a swim... By way of example, look at how the USN is starting to arm it's Seahawks. They're deploying Hellfires, which have even shorter range and a smaller warhead. The expected targets for the Hellfires aren't ships, instead they are much smaller and can be approached more closely while remaining relatively safe from return fire. For use in littoral environments, the Maverick works. The biggest potential issue in this type of environment is that the Seasprite can likely only carry one or two.

-Cheers

Hence why I think Hellfire and M299 launchers would be a better option for NZ. Hellfire whilst shorter ranged than Maverick can still be fired from 8ks (outside most MANPAD range, certainly from a "bobbing FIAC" in the Pacific Ocean) but can carry up to 4x missiles per hardpoint, or if NZ decided to get "cutting edge" could employ DAGR rockets (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=18241&rsbci=0&fti=0&ti=0&sc=400) from the same Hellfire launcher and actually provide some aerial fire support for it's deployed forces... :shudder

 

[KH-12]

I like the option of the Hellfires, smaller weapon, can carry more and is alot cheaper, as mentioned you are unlikely to put your Seasprite up against a major surface vessel with only a 15km weapon range. I suspect the only reason that the SeaSprites are so armed is because the RNZN inheritited the AGM-65's from the RNZAF when the A4's were retired and it would have been pretty hard to flog off some used missles they are definately overkill for the vast majority of projected missions for these A/C.

 

[dave_kiwi]

RNZN AGM 65-D Maverick / Sea Sprite Combo

I would imagine that is it possible to fit the Maverick to the P-3 in some fashion. The question becomes, would one want to? The Maverick is a good air-to-ground CAS missile, but it is not an anti-ship missile. The range is something like 15km and I believe the Maverick has either a laser or radio guidance system.

If I understand correctly RNZN uses AGM 65-D's. These are IR seeker equipped.

So am guessing would be used in the following manner:

Seaprite detcts target with radar --> progresses to a point where FLIR can be used to ID impact point, AGM 65-D seeker slaved to FLR target. Missile launch. I dont thing there is any "mid course" correction capability. Its launch & forget

Range varies from with altitude - which up to approx 25 km at height

So, in theory, I guess, provided the wiring to the pylons could cope, a P3-K could use its FLIR to "target" a AGM 65-D in much the same manner as the Sea Sprite.

Wonder what the load of AGM-65's would be on a P3-K ?

<sic> 4 x pylons x 3 = 12 Mavericks (most likely the NZ stock nfloorl: )

PS: Actually from what has been said, the AGM 65's for the RNZN were a new buy, not ex RNZAF stock ( which I belive maybe an earlier model - accquired from Jordan.....)

 

[Lucasnz]

I don't know if OPV design has space for a missle magazine to support Mav armed Seasprite. Certainly not a condsideration in original specs.

There is no permanent storage (magazine) on the OPV's for any Sea Sprite Launched weapons. I image that they could use the container on the stern for that, but it raises a number of weapons handling issues.

I should add that there appears to be very little space in the design to refit a magazine into the ship.

 

[icelord]

you could remove the beer and wine storage room....no i'm sorry, my comments were out of order and i revoke them.

 

[Mr Brown]

you could remove the beer and wine storage room....no i'm sorry, my comments were out of order and i revoke them.

I should think so, got to remind crew what they are fighting for, Steinlager and a good Chardonnay!

 

[Markus40]

A hit and run comment but i am not so sure why you think they are out of order. Dont worry you wont get fired considering some of the comments ive seen have been way worse.

In any "case" (pun not intended) having not seen the OPV i really wouldnt like to comment on exactly what space wud be available for a weapon such as the Mav. but i would have to say that i would be damn sure that at least 4-6 Mavs. could be secured either within the hanger or externally with in a casing or within the ship near the hanger. I am convinced that if the Seasprite is wheeled out to its launching pad that the Mavs. are moved through the hanger as well and fitted to the Seasprite. Cheers.

you could remove the beer and wine storage room....no i'm sorry, my comments were out of order and i revoke them.

 

[Markus40]

Actually they are not "fighting" for anything because there isnt anything to fight for in our waters around NZ. So what would be a good reason to be serving on the OPV.? Maybe a qualification such as a University degree, or maybe experience with sailorship that gives them experience in serving on longer deployments like the Frigate maybe?, or even a transfer to the RAN that urgently needs officers right now.?

Remember to that alot of the man hours are required for patrol work alongside the customs and fisheries people, so that too would offer the guys in the fisheries protection role a opportunity to enroll in the Navy.

Anyways enough waffle, i do see where you are coming from and yes the teeth in the tiger are extremely thin and iam too wondering what the navy guys are thinking when their OPV doesnt have survellience radar and a proper selfdefence weapon that can tackle most scenarios. The only real offensive weapon is the Seasprite with the mav. Cheers.

I should think so, got to remind crew what they are fighting for, Steinlager and a good Chardonnay!

 

[Markus40]

Are you in the RNZN? If so i accept your points. If not then your suggestion that there is no room on the OPV for a weapon for the Seasprite is pure speculation. Its not that i dont believe you but i think it would be better to have some hard evidence than to make up observations that dont have proof.

The questions i would have to ask you specifically and without speculation are these:

1-What gives you the idea that there isnt room in the Hanger for a weapon?
2-Why couldnt or wouldnt there be cannisters that could "hold" the Mav. externally? It would seem from the photos that the OPV has room at the rear.
3-If there was space restrictions for a weapon then why couldnt, once the seasprite is rolled out to the launch pad, weapons rolled out from behind the hanger in a room that could house 4-6 Mavs.?
4-Is there evidence to believe that there isnt a room that can house the weapon behind the hanger?
5-Why couldnt the Seasprite be folded up and put inside the hanger with the 2 mavs. still attached? Remember they are not armed.
6-It would appear that the Mav. is more helo "hugging" than many other weapons. So why couldnt the Mav. be still attached to the Seasprite on any given operation.?
7-If many of the worlds Submarine crews are sleeping within close quarters of the torpedo chamber then why couldnt room be made for unarmed Mavs. to be stored within close proximity to the helo in the hanger?
8-To store 4-6 Mavs. then really it would be plausible to argue that the space required to store this weapon wouldnt need to be large. Remember the Mav. is 2.5 meters long and 1 ft wide. So to store say 4 Mavs. wouldnt need much space.


If you have "inside " knowledge that the OPV doesnt have the room well and good, but i would need to see the evidence to make me a believer.

There is no permanent storage (magazine) on the OPV's for any Sea Sprite Launched weapons. I image that they could use the container on the stern for that, but it raises a number of weapons handling issues.

I should add that there appears to be very little space in the design to refit a magazine into the ship.

 

[icelord]

Are you in the RNZN? If so i accept your points. If not then your suggestion that there is no room on the OPV for a weapon for the Seasprite is pure speculation. Its not that i dont believe you but i think it would be better to have some hard evidence than to make up observations that dont have proof.

The questions i would have to ask you specifically and without speculation are these:

1-What gives you the idea that there isnt room in the Hanger for a weapon?
2-Why couldnt or wouldnt there be cannisters that could "hold" the Mav. externally? It would seem from the photos that the OPV has room at the rear.
3-If there was space restrictions for a weapon then why couldnt, once the seasprite is rolled out to the launch pad, weapons rolled out from behind the hanger in a room that could house 4-6 Mavs.?
4-Is there evidence to believe that there isnt a room that can house the weapon behind the hanger?
5-Why couldnt the Seasprite be folded up and put inside the hanger with the 2 mavs. still attached? Remember they are not armed.
6-It would appear that the Mav. is more helo "hugging" than many other weapons. So why couldnt the Mav. be still attached to the Seasprite on any given operation.?
7-If many of the worlds Submarine crews are sleeping within close quarters of the torpedo chamber then why couldnt room be made for unarmed Mavs. to be stored within close proximity to the helo in the hanger?
8-To store 4-6 Mavs. then really it would be plausible to argue that the space required to store this weapon wouldnt need to be large. Remember the Mav. is 2.5 meters long and 1 ft wide. So to store say 4 Mavs. wouldnt need much space.


If you have "inside " knowledge that the OPV doesnt have the room well and good, but i would need to see the evidence to make me a believer.

What most of us are going off is this, click the PV85 Protector class, then the brochure. It has a layout of the OPV and design.

www.akermarine.com/ship_patrol.html
cheers to AD for posting earlier,you may have just missed it

By the skematics, the Hanger does look quite crammed without any additional storage. The Tech crew may have trouble working if you try to shove more in, and its not exactly good practice to leave a weapon in a box in the hanger, way too many OHS issues.

There may...i stress my lack of professional knowledge doesn't help...may be enough room in the magazine or small arms storage at the front of the deck. But getting it out looks alot harder then would be worth.

Icelord

 

[Markus40]

Yeah, still lots of speculation, what im after is the real facts of such a topic.
What i have seen by the Specs. on that webpage was that there seems to be quite a bit of room forward of the Hanger for an additional 2 Mavs. We arent talking about big numbers here. We only need to take with us at least 4on a patrol, and im still skeptical about why there shouldnt be the room available close by the Hanger.

What most of us are going off is this, click the PV85 Protector class, then the brochure. It has a layout of the OPV and design.

www.akermarine.com/ship_patrol.html
cheers to AD for posting earlier,you may have just missed it

By the skematics, the Hanger does look quite crammed without any additional storage. The Tech crew may have trouble working if you try to shove more in, and its not exactly good practice to leave a weapon in a box in the hanger, way too many OHS issues.

There may...i stress my lack of professional knowledge doesn't help...may be enough room in the magazine or small arms storage at the front of the deck. But getting it out looks alot harder then would be worth.

Icelord

 

[usakiwi]

Better late than never - Thoughts on the Orions

Guys and gals(?),

Been away from the thread for a couple of days and would like a couple of points on maritime surveillance/ISTAR capabilities.

These days a platform like the P-3 is seen as much more than simple a maritime patrol platform. The US navy has used P-3’s over Afghanistan for some time as a persistent surveillance platform. They undertake tasks such as monitoring convoys and keeping tags on “sites of interest”. The RAF has also operated Nimrods in a similar role, unfortunately losing one with all hands in the process.

With 6 Orion airframes NZ certainly punches above it weight Australia operate just less than one P-3 per million inhabitants and NZ operate 1.5 per million. This before you adjusted for income differences of ~30%.

In any case a couple of simple mods would make the P-3 a fine force multiplier as an ISTAR in local or out of area operations. The easiest way (I suspect as I am not a systems integration expert) would be to simply integrate a Litening type pod onto the kiwi P-3’s. You would gain world class surveillance and targeting capabilities, strong on board analytical capabilities plus the ability to drop LGB/GPS type PGMs from the platform as well. In environments such as Timor or high intensity operations in the Solomon’s an orbiting P-3 with ISTAR capabilities and a load of PGMs would be an invaluable resource to troops on the ground. Let alone the ability to provide a niche capability to international operations. I am fully aware that a P-3 is not survivable in contested airspace however many if not most of recent NZDF deployments e.g. Afghanistan, Timor etc have been in such environments.

The cost of this is also not huge – Litening type pods go for USD ~$1.5 million each and you only need a couple. Unsure as to the cost of integration. LGB’s/JDAM are also relatively cheap on a per unit basis and wouldn’t cost too much to build up a small stockpile. This also has value in traditional maritime tasks. Though I am fully aware not within the airspace dominated by a medium range SAM equipped warship. Add some winged ER JDAM’s and you could give something armed with ESSM type capability SAM’s a real fright though.

In terms of anti shipping missiles (Harpoon or Maverick ER) to be honest I really struggle to see a situation where the RNZAF uses a P-3 to engage with one of them. This would suggest a really hot shooting war that either NZ wouldn’t be involved in the first place (for a host of reasons) or one where we are operating with allies with much better capabilities. Would you really put a RNZAF P-3B+++ in line compared to Aussie P-3C+ or even (soonish) P-8’s or MRA-4 Nimrods? As such I would rather spend the money on the ISTAR package that has more value in the situations we find ourselves in currently. (Similar to Aussie Diggers thoughts)

Now in terms of UAV’s. In previous posts I have noted my bias towards a predator B/mariner type capability. This allows much improved fisheries surveillance (why have a crew of 11+ spend 12 hours a long way from land over water when you can achieve the same surveillance outcome with a couple of guys sitting at Ohakea) as well as providing a niche ISTAR capability for international coalition operations. Finally and again it provides a useful capability for regional deployments. Yet again the ISTAR capability is backed up with a limited strike capability.

These kinds of capability represent a great fit with NZDF goals and importantly budget. I am not advocating a Predator B capability now, more over the next 5-10 years as the Orions age and hours become limited. It will be vital when we come to replacing them entirely as there is no way we can afford a 1:1 replacement with P-8’s. Best case we get 2-3 on the back of an Aussie purchase.

BTW – it never ceases to amaze me the quality and volume of thought on the NZDF on these threads. It is a quality of discussion that surpasses any other thinking on NZ defence capabilities I see back home.

 

[Lucasnz]

Are you in the RNZN? If so i accept your points. If not then your suggestion that there is no room on the OPV for a weapon for the Seasprite is pure speculation. Its not that i dont believe you but i think it would be better to have some hard evidence than to make up observations that dont have proof.

Actually Ex

The questions i would have to ask you specifically and without speculation are these:

1-What gives you the idea that there isnt room in the Hanger for a weapon?

You wouldn't store weapons, unless they're been loaded - for very clear saftey reason. i.e electrical circuts, aviation fuel etc.

2-Why couldnt or wouldnt there be cannisters that could "hold" the Mav. externally? It would seem from the photos that the OPV has room at the rear.

I have mentioned there is room for a container, which is fitted right, could store weapons, but then there are handling issues getting them to the flight deck.

8-To store 4-6 Mavs. then really it would be plausible to argue that the space required to store this weapon wouldnt need to be large. Remember the Mav. is 2.5 meters long and 1 ft wide. So to store say 4 Mavs. wouldnt need much space.

Yes, but the internal changes and saftey requirements all add to the cost. You could do it, but it'd be a major job.

You have to take into account that hangars don't have empty bulkheads (walls). They often carry a lot of spares, for example the Leanders hangar had spare helicopter blades, a spare engine, lockers, firefighting equipment.