John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, an additional P-8 should be in the plan. WRT new naval vessels, an accelerated requirement definition combined with an assessment of what/where vessels can be realistically built asap would be nice.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
Wouldn't we all love to be a fly on the wall during those meetings.
I think that two additional P-8A would be doable now, along with the LRASM and NSM. However FFG are a different kettle of fish. Apparently they started a frigate replacement study a couple of years ago or so, but it is unknown when the study was or will be completed. I think that events since New Year will have changed what kind of FFG capabilities that they will consider. IMHO running around like a headless chook and panicking about FFGs at the moment isn't going to achieve anything. They will wait until the Australian government makes its choice between the MEKO 200 and the Mogami before the make a decision about FFG acquisition.
In the meantime they can acquire and fit the NSM to the two Anzac FFG, the same way and time that the RAN does. They will also have to have the NSM integrated into the CMS. I did think that they could take the opportunity to change the CMS from the current LMC (Lockheed Martin Canada) CMS330, but upon reflection they would have to have the SeaCeptor SAM integrated into and I don't have a lot of faith that Australian Defence could deliver such an integration on time and within budget. The RAN has a history of problems with the integration of complex capabilities. However Saab is a different story and they may be able to undertake the integration on time and within budget.
The RCN are integrating SeaCeptor into the CMS330 and that will also have NSM integrated into it. It might be wiser for us to stay with our current CMS and not don't consider a change of CMS until the new FFG. However in saying that there might be advantages to us staying with the LMC CMS330 upgrading to the newer version when it goes into service with the RCN because it will already have all the weapons we are liable to use integrated into it enabling us to use both SeaCeptor and ESSM Blk II, plus SM2 etc. The only difference is that the RCN is adopting the Leonardo 127mm gun, rather than the US Mk-45 Mod 4 5in gun currently used by the RAN and RNZN.
I would like a third FFG sooner rather than later and once the RAN makes its decision we should order one of the same from the OEM shipyard to the same specs as the RAN ships. I,would suggest not fitting SeaCeptor to this and subsequent new FFG, instead adopting the ESSM Blk II and fitting the SeaCeptor on Aotearoa and whatever vessels replace Canterbury. SeaCeptor is ExLS launchable and ExLS is not a deck piercer, being able to be fitted just about anywhere.
Nighthawk.NZ
Well-Known Member
Wonders will they actually fit the Phalanx CIWS to HMNZS Aotearoa instead of this silly idea of "fitted for but not with"
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Depending on how FFBNW is handled, it can be a sensible approach, particularly for something like the Mk 15 Phalanx. If NZ (or some other user for that matter) maintains Phalanx systems in a pool, then instead of the NZDF needing to purchase a unit for every potential mounting, a somewhat smaller number might be owned/maintained and fitted on a rotating basis depending on what the threat conditions are perceived to be for potential deployments.
The advantages of such an arrangement could be slightly lower costs since not every vessel would need a system purchased, and potentially greater operational availability if/when needed. After all, if Aotearoa never ends up deploying to an area where a hostile could fire upon, then any permanently fitted CIWS (if that ever happens) would just have ended up being an extra, unneeded expense.
Now me being me, it might be nice if the RAN and RNZN would run their respective Phalanxes in pool configurations that are shared, so that if the RAN has an upcoming deployment but no available Phalanx to fit, a RNZN one could be installed instead, and vice versa.
I would also like to see more/additional options to fit modular capability systems which could be shared/pooled across the Tasman Sea, but that might just be me.
Who knows? my own opinion of "fitted for but not with " is that if you don't have the gear to fit when needed the the term is just hot air, the procurement of such items is usually some time away when needed. In the case of Aotearoa I think getting the necessary equipment would be a good idea but keeping it in storage until needed would make sense as it's location on the ship is very exposed and could lead to high maintenance.
My understanding is that the RNZN has a pool of the Phalanx CIWS so would only fit as required.
From memory we only purchased 2 and when they were sent for upgrade to block 1a the ship had none. the info on the internet suggests only two.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If this is accurate, then expand the pool if a the decision is made to retain Phalanx and see it fitted to further RNZN vessels. OTOH it also might get decided that Phalanx as a capability has had it's day, and more capable alternatives should be sought.