Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gibbo]

There are many patrol boats in the US Coast Guard that don't have a 76mm or 57mm gun either. With the new long and medium enddurance cutters being built, all will be downsized to a 57mm gun from the 76mm before. Coast Guard type vessels, such as OPVs and IPVs, don't need a larger gun in today's world. All the merchant and fishery ships I have ever confronted stopped when the first shell was fired in front of their bow, even the drug runners.

Yes the upcoming RNZN IPV's & OPV's are 'Coast Guard type vessels' - albeit it grey & run by the Navy! I don't have a problem with the IPV's as designed - but I do think the OPV's would struggle with a multiple small boat attack (sceanrio is S. E. Asia anti-terrorist patrol / merchant escort where a 25mm burst across the bows does NOT stop them).

Sea Toby you're ex USCG - how would a vessel armed like the OPV's cope in that sort of situation - what's the 'standard' response? What would USCG do? Lock down each deck, - post multiple sentries etc? Are sentries effective - shouldn't they be in coom's with bridge/weapons officer/radar ops etc? Are weapons stations better???....

I'm convinced the OPV needs at least a rear facing 25mm & the two-cell Simbad launcher (for ship-launched Mistral). With so few hulls surely the RNZN shouldn't limit a vessel to constabulary tasks only?

And as for MRV - I really like the vessel but I'm not pleased with the lack of full redundant systems; less than military spec damage / flood control in hull; lack of serious self-defence capability.Still - she'll prove to be excellent for low threat taskings.

 

[Sea Toby]

If the shot across the bow don't work, eventually with the rules of engagement we'll end up attempting to knock out the propulsion system. Many small boats which terrorist may have ascounted have outboard motors, these are easily knocked out with 12.7mm machine guns. Shoot at the engine, put enough holes into it, and the motor will seize up, if you hit their gasoline lines, they will catch on fire. Inboard motors are a bit more tricky, but they'll end up the same. We cannot gather evidence for court cases sinking the boat.The key is to stop the boat, not necessarily sink it. Engines don't like quickly leaking oil and gasoline. Rest assured, with a 25mm Bushmaster we'll stop the boat. Of course the rules of engagement change considerably if they are shooting at us, we can shoot to kill and/or sink the boat.

However, shooting don't happen often in real life, this isn't an action flick, its the real world. Even the guilty ones will stop upon request, and attempt to smuggle anyway hoping we don't find their illegal caches. Their boats cost them a lot of money, are their bread winners, why do they want to be shot at? And if they don't stop upon request, even if they reach port, we'll confiscate their boats and arrest them for obstructing justice.

Frankly, without intelligence, there is no way to pick which ones are terrorist boats, drug runners, etc. I can guarantee the quilty don't advertise their guilt.

 

[Gibbo]

....
Frankly, without intelligence, there is no way to pick which ones are terrorist boats, drug runners, etc. I can guarantee the quilty don't advertise their guilt.

Yes, totally agree with the above statement - and completely follow the ROE you stated. Granted drug runners; pirates etc will generally stop with a few shots across the bow - but there's now a far more sinister possibility - the terrorist small boat that will not stop without being taken out & is happy to die 'for the cause' - USS Cole is the best example, but other's have tried! What about those idiotic pirates of Somalia recently that tried it on with 2 x USS destroyers!?!:crazy

I'm curious about the ablility of the RNZN OPV's for patrol where the 'terrorist' threat exists. Given that these 'crazies' MO is to approach from multiple directions simutaneously & get close enough to detonate, will the OPV's & MRV be able to cope with this sort of thing?

What I'm getting at here is that I think the RNZN needs to be able to assist regionally whereever possible but are these new vessels going to be capable of making a 'meaningful' contribution!?! Neither larger vessel type has rear facing weapons stations & rely on the MK1 'eyeball' for taking out small boats day & night.

 

[Sea Toby]

Its simple to add a 12.7mm machine guns about the ship, adding more in dangerous seas shouldn't be a problem. It seems all of the Project Protector fleet have two of them flanking the bridge area. But will the IPVs and OPVs be deployed outside the South Pacific? The government bought them to patrol New Zealand seas. They aren't frigates, which in my mind is the smallest useful warship to be deployed abroad.

Adding more weapons and control systems on a ship the size of a OPV turns them into warships, corvettes. These weapons and control systems add weight beyond its planned displacement, to lose weight, fuel weight has to be reduced, usually ending up with a ship with much less range in the design process.

The only Project Protector ship I'm worried about is the MRV, as it may be deployed abroad in dangerous seas for a UN mission. I'm sure the RNZN will add more machine guns about the ship, plus escort it with at least one frigate. At least it will have a Bushmaster onboard, many of America's prepositional merchant ships don't have any armament whatsoever. I have heard in the past that they'll add some machine guns to them, especially after the USS Cole incident, but I have yet to see them installed.

When the Anzac frigates have been upgraded with ESSM, they will have even better escorting capacity than they do with just Nato Sea Sparrow. ESSMs have much more range against air targets and missiles. Their 127mm guns can shoot up to a distance of 10 miles. The MRVs 25 Bushmaster can shoot up to a distance of 2 miles, its 12.7 mm guns can take out the small boats even closer. There is a surface search radar onboard. You'll be amazed at how well they work.

 

[Lucasnz]

Its simple to add a 12.7mm machine guns about the ship, adding more in dangerous seas shouldn't be a problem. It seems all of the Project Protector fleet have two of them flanking the bridge area. But will the IPVs and OPVs be deployed outside the South Pacific? The government bought them to patrol New Zealand seas. They aren't frigates, which in my mind is the smallest useful warship to be deployed abroad.

Adding more weapons and control systems on a ship the size of a OPV turns them into warships, corvettes. These weapons and control systems add weight beyond its planned displacement, to lose weight, fuel weight has to be reduced, usually ending up with a ship with much less range in the design process.

The only Project Protector ship I'm worried about is the MRV, as it may be deployed abroad in dangerous seas for a UN mission. I'm sure the RNZN will add more machine guns about the ship, plus escort it with at least one frigate. At least it will have a Bushmaster onboard, many of America's prepositional merchant ships don't have any armament whatsoever. I have heard in the past that they'll add some machine guns to them, especially after the USS Cole incident, but I have yet to see them installed.

When the Anzac frigates have been upgraded with ESSM, they will have even better escorting capacity than they do with just Nato Sea Sparrow. ESSMs have much more range against air targets and missiles. Their 127mm guns can shoot up to a distance of 10 miles. The MRVs 25 Bushmaster can shoot up to a distance of 2 miles, its 12.7 mm guns can take out the small boats even closer. There is a surface search radar onboard. You'll be amazed at how well they work.

The OPV's in my humble opinion will be deployed outside the South Pacific. The size of the navy combined with the governments committment to FPDA and other UN operations will force the the issue, given that we only have two frigates. At a min I think the OPV (noting the issues you quoted in relation to range etc) should be fitted with a 57mm plus Mistral.

The MRV is the biggest worry given the likley hood that it will deploy into an ET1 type situation. Even with an escort more can be done to improve its capability - Fit SURBOC (using surplus from Canterbury / Wellington), Fit Dual Mistral / 12.7mm mounts. I don't know that you could fit anything else, except CIWS, Sea Ram, without impacting on accomodation / Lift capabilty.

 

[Whiskyjack]

The OPV's in my humble opinion will be deployed outside the South Pacific. The size of the navy combined with the governments committment to FPDA and other UN operations will force the the issue, given that we only have two frigates. At a min I think the OPV (noting the issues you quoted in relation to range etc) should be fitted with a 57mm plus Mistral.

The MRV is the biggest worry given the likley hood that it will deploy into an ET1 type situation. Even with an escort more can be done to improve its capability - Fit SURBOC (using surplus from Canterbury / Wellington), Fit Dual Mistral / 12.7mm mounts. I don't know that you could fit anything else, except CIWS, Sea Ram, without impacting on accomodation / Lift capabilty.

I agree passive defence systems for the MRV plus a CIWS would be advisable.

As for the OPVs, looking at the plans would the front superstructure have to be modified to place a 57mm plus on the front? It does not look like a lot of space.

I also agree that Mistral would be the ideal for any sort of missile system.

I guess up into SEA the 25mm and 12,7mm would be enough to defeat pirates. In an ET situation it becomes more problematic, but the RAN would also be available and ET itself will be under air cover from Darwin.

My concern is that the most likely conventional threat to NZ is a 'declared' submarine. Which could mean it is there or it isn't, but would have a very real econimic threat to NZ.

I would have liked to see a fitted for but not with policy in terms of ASW for the OPVs.

 

[Sea Toby]

At the Bornholm ferries web site I found this link showing a diagram of the ferry, a civilian sister to Canterbury. While its not exactly a diagram of the Canterbury, its of the Hammerodde, it does reveal where the helicopter space could be, forward of the hangar on the fifth deck. The hangar area being the smokestack area. There is an old saying a picture says a thousand words.

http://www.bornholmferries.dk/skibene/ho/92we.aspx?_m=6

 

[contedicavour]

I agree passive defence systems for the MRV plus a CIWS would be advisable.

As for the OPVs, looking at the plans would the front superstructure have to be modified to place a 57mm plus on the front? It does not look like a lot of space.

I also agree that Mistral would be the ideal for any sort of missile system.

I guess up into SEA the 25mm and 12,7mm would be enough to defeat pirates. In an ET situation it becomes more problematic, but the RAN would also be available and ET itself will be under air cover from Darwin.

My concern is that the most likely conventional threat to NZ is a 'declared' submarine. Which could mean it is there or it isn't, but would have a very real econimic threat to NZ.

I would have liked to see a fitted for but not with policy in terms of ASW for the OPVs.

Sorry to insist on this point, but both the OPV, IPV and Canterbury are alarmingly poorly armed. 25mm is only for minimal self defence. Yes, the Seasprites can launch 2 Mavs each, but this is still too weak vs an even lightly armed infantry
Not to mention that the 2 Anzacs, despite potential upgrading of Sea Sparrow to ESSM, would still lack Harpoons.
Technically, any enemy OPV with a 76/62 gun and a SAM to shoot down SeaSprites, would be able to sink any NZ ship
Even the last hope, P-3K Orions in the air, lack Harpoons !!!
This sounds a bit too extreme, but this means the NZ Navy is relying way too much on Australian or other Allied support against even basic enemy threats, while it could easily afford Harpoons and larger calibre guns (Otago and Wellington OPVs are 85 metre 1600 tons ships, embarking 76/62 is very easy).

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

At the Bornholm ferries web site I found this link showing a diagram of the ferry, a civilian sister to Canterbury. While its not exactly a diagram of the Canterbury, its of the Hammerodde, it does reveal where the helicopter space could be, forward of the hangar on the fifth deck. The hangar area being the smokestack area. There is an old saying a picture says a thousand words.

http://www.bornholmferries.dk/skibene/ho/92we.aspx?_m=6

Hammerodde ferry...

 

[Sea Toby]

Excellent reasons why the OPVs will never leave the safe confines of the South Pacific. The only warships New Zealand will deploy outside the South Pacific will be their frigates and the MRV, along with their replenishment ship, with the MRV being escorted by a frigate.

If New Zealand wished to have another warship to deploy abroad, they would have bought more frigates. However, New Zealand similar to other navies, have EEZ patrols on their list of tasks to do also. Italy has patrol boats with less armament than New Zealand OPVs. So does the US Coast Guard. New Zealand's EEZ is considerably larger than Italy's.

OPVs are not corvettes, nor are they frigates. Never have been, never will be.

Thanks for the pictures of the Hammerodde. Excellent looking ferries for their size. Here is a link of the Ben My Chree going through some rough seas.

http://www.killey.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

And another link of the Ben My Chree alongside Douglas harbour.

http://www.killey.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=28

 

[contedicavour]

Excellent reasons why the OPVs will never leave the safe confines of the South Pacific. The only warships New Zealand will deploy outside the South Pacific will be their frigates and the MRV, along with their replenishment ship, with the MRV being escorted by a frigate.

If New Zealand wished to have another warship to deploy abroad, they would have bought more frigates. However, New Zealand similar to other navies, have EEZ patrols on their list of tasks to do also. Italy has patrol boats with less armament than New Zealand OPVs. New Zealand's EEZ is considerably larger than Italy's.

OPVs are not corvettes, nor are they frigates. Never have been, never will be.

All that you say is correct. However before recurring to our smallest patrol boats (the Bigliani/Corrubia with 30mm automatic radar-guided gun) we've got several layers of small and large OPVs/corvettes with 76/62 for EEZ patrol.
My point is more like this : how much does it cost to buy (even second hand) 76/62 guns to equip the 2 OPVs and the Canterbury ? Less than the cost of one more new inshore patrol vessel building for NZ.

cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Since about 90 percent of the time the MRV will be used as a patrol boat and training ship, New Zealand bought SEVEN much needed patrol vessels for the price of one frigate. Keep in mind $500 million NZ is approximately $250 million US.

Yes, I would have spent more for at least a 57mm gun mount on the OPVs and MRV. This purchase does show the attitude of the current government towards defence. Keep defence expenditures to around 1 percent of GDP. No more, no less. At least this government hasn't cut defence expenditures significantly to reduce its costs to a half of 1 percent GDP. Many European nations have cut their defence expenditures as a percent of GDP significantly, and are still cutting.

 

[KH-12]

I assume it would be possible at a later date to retrofit a 57mm weapon if that was so desired, may be some structural strengthening required and probably more importantly upgraded target acquisition systems so you can hit stuff, but they were never designed to take on warships and having good seakeeping qualities is more important than a good weapons fit out, upgrades are always possible in the future but the main thing was to get them in service ASAP for the minimum $ spend possible.

 

[Whiskyjack]

Sorry to insist on this point, but both the OPV, IPV and Canterbury are alarmingly poorly armed. 25mm is only for minimal self defence. Yes, the Seasprites can launch 2 Mavs each, but this is still too weak vs an even lightly armed infantry
Not to mention that the 2 Anzacs, despite potential upgrading of Sea Sparrow to ESSM, would still lack Harpoons.
Technically, any enemy OPV with a 76/62 gun and a SAM to shoot down SeaSprites, would be able to sink any NZ ship
Even the last hope, P-3K Orions in the air, lack Harpoons !!!
This sounds a bit too extreme, but this means the NZ Navy is relying way too much on Australian or other Allied support against even basic enemy threats, while it could easily afford Harpoons and larger calibre guns (Otago and Wellington OPVs are 85 metre 1600 tons ships, embarking 76/62 is very easy).

cheers

Because there are no OPVs in the South Pacific that threaten the RNZN! These really are not meant for combat operations they are meant to patrol an environment where they will realistically be the most powerful ships!

For an enemy force to operate in the south pacific to threaten NZ and Australia (I can't see a situation where it would be NZ only) requires the USN to be DEFEATED IMO! The only real naval resource that could operate in the South Pacific is a sub, hence my post above

If the threat environment changes then the ships themselves will be looked at in terms of upgrade or replacement.

If the OPVs operate in the SEA area then it would be anti piracy only in conjunction with the local forces.

So give me a threat scenario and we will discuss further.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

Sorry to insist on this point, but both the OPV, IPV and Canterbury are alarmingly poorly armed. 25mm is only for minimal self defence. Yes, the Seasprites can launch 2 Mavs each, but this is still too weak vs an even lightly armed infantry

But will vastly overpower fish poachers or the odd idiot with an old rifle and a bad attitude, which has beent he major threat in the South pacific for the last 60 odd years. If you want more get a frigate to help, thats what they are there for.

Not to mention that the 2 Anzacs, despite potential upgrading of Sea Sparrow to ESSM, would still lack Harpoons.
Technically, any enemy OPV with a 76/62 gun and a SAM to shoot down SeaSprites, would be able to sink any NZ ship

The ANZAC's have a 5/54 inch gun on the front.

Even the last hope, P-3K Orions in the air, lack Harpoons !!!

True, but they do carry torpedo's and depth charges and will get anti ship missiles in due course.

This sounds a bit too extreme, but this means the NZ Navy is relying way too much on Australian or other Allied support against even basic enemy threats, while it could easily afford Harpoons and larger calibre guns (Otago and Wellington OPVs are 85 metre 1600 tons ships, embarking 76/62 is very easy).

cheers

This might be releivant if you demonstrate what threat it is we are relying on Australia to protect us from.

 

[Lucasnz]

This might be releivant if you demonstrate what threat it is we are relying on Australia to protect us from.

I happen to agree that NZ is relying to much on Australia for its defence. While Australia would probably always help out; New Zealand is a Sovereign and independent country. Reliance on Australia for defence against low level military threats, which is where we are at and this completely undermines NZ's independence. For low level threats I'm thinking mining of ports, interference with shipping etc. The response usually to types of threats is who's the enemy. I think people need to get past that and look at whats going to damage the economy, if something were to happen at short notice. There is a risk that you could get tunnel vision using this process.

The same situation applies to our ability to conduct low level military operations in the Pacific INDEPENDENT of Australia, if we desire. With only two frigates we can get people there on the MRV, but can't support them going ashore because the MRV / OPV lack NGS and an air weapons magazine, making the SH-2G a troop carrier. As example of when that support might be required East Timor (escort to Suai) in a coalition arrangement or Bouginville, independent of other nations where Canterbury was sent to provide an inital presence of strength in the inital stages of the Op. Fitting the OPV / MRV with an NGS capability is cheaper than buying another frigate A 25mm with limited range can't provide this or an effective counter terrorism capability in the face of organisation that use the abnormal (9/11) or acquire more advanced weaponry (say a modern anti tank weapon - range about 2000m)

 

[Whiskyjack]

I happen to agree that NZ is relying to much on Australia for its defence. While Australia would probably always help out; New Zealand is a Sovereign and independent country. Reliance on Australia for defence against low level military threats, which is where we are at and this completely undermines NZ's independence. For low level threats I'm thinking mining of ports, interference with shipping etc. The response usually to types of threats is who's the enemy. I think people need to get past that and look at whats going to damage the economy, if something were to happen at short notice. There is a risk that you could get tunnel vision using this process.

The same situation applies to our ability to conduct low level military operations in the Pacific INDEPENDENT of Australia, if we desire. With only two frigates we can get people there on the MRV, but can't support them going ashore because the MRV / OPV lack NGS and an air weapons magazine, making the SH-2G a troop carrier. As example of when that support might be required East Timor (escort to Suai) in a coalition arrangement or Bouginville, independent of other nations where Canterbury was sent to provide an inital presence of strength in the inital stages of the Op. Fitting the OPV / MRV with an NGS capability is cheaper than buying another frigate A 25mm with limited range can't provide this or an effective counter terrorism capability in the face of organisation that use the abnormal (9/11) or acquire more advanced weaponry (say a modern anti tank weapon - range about 2000m)

I agree, however I would place the argument slightly differently.

I am happy with the OPVs as they are, as I would not deploy them beyond the South Pacific. One of the main reasons for this is that I do not see the design of the OPV as 'military' rather it is para military.

I think that NZ needs a third combatant mathematics on sustainability of a two frigate force make that simple.

This leaves the OPVs and IPVs to managed NZ interests in the South Pacific, while allowing for an ability to maintain one frigate on station, out side the South Pacific, around the clock and the short term deployment of a second in an emergency.

The hull should be completed as cheaply as possible with the systems matching the RAN upgraded ANZACs, then the other two ANZACs need to be placed through the upgrade.

Will this happen.....well no it wont, but IMO it needs to.:goodbad

Well I’m on the issue, I feel the MRV needed to be bigger as well, with an ability to carry 500+ troops.

My two cents

 

[Sea Toby]

I doubt whether an OPV will ever escort the MRV, a proper escort will be an Anzac frigate which will be considerably a better escort after its upcoming modernisation upgrade. The OPV is not an escort ship, its a patrol ship. The SeaSprite helicopter carries Maverick missiles, very useful for land attack missions, embarked on the MRV, Anzac frigates, and OPVs. The Anzac frigates carry a 127-mm or 5-inch gun with a range of 10 miles or 16 km.

If you are so worried about the size of the gun on the MRV and/or OPV, register your resentment of the current government at the next poll. Neither 57mm or 76mm will require much strengthening or appropriation for either vessel.

 

[Stuart Mackey]

I happen to agree that NZ is relying to much on Australia for its defence. While Australia would probably always help out; New Zealand is a Sovereign and independent country. Reliance on Australia for defence against low level military threats, which is where we are at and this completely undermines NZ's independence. For low level threats ...snip)

Now this is more like it, thank you.
What contedicavour was not doing is providing a sound argument, which was what I was annoyed about, you have done this.

Its one of those things that hacks me off with a lot of those who support better equipment and capabilities for NZ, is that they do not support their argument. Instead of doing the research, getting the evidence and providing reasoned arguments to sustain their case, defence supporters seem to assume some sort of connection to the cosmos to provide the public with the information to make a judgement one way or another.
This has given the initiative to those who oppose stronger defences, because their opposition simply hasnt done the work, and the public goes with the perceived stronger case.
It is this failure that has left NZ's armed forces in the condition they are.

 

[mug]

An interesting post. I was wondering earlier (possibly on the NZDF thread) how one would go about 'educating' the general public about defence related issues.

Your suggestion would seem to be a good way to go (in relation to content perhaps, not in relation to delivery) - keep it simple and provide reasons/facts/figures/etc.