Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[anzac3]

The bangladesh navy is starting to look better with its second hand and new purchases, why didnt nz do this ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_Bangladesh_Navys??

We have alot to learn from the 3rd world:



]

 

[RegR]

Why would it matter if the protector ships are built to commercial standards therefore be a mistake to fit CIWS and other forms of protection? Is'nt that the point to avoid damage control in the first place via a protective umbrella. Thats like saying you only need a helmet on a motorbike not a bicycle so don't worry about it, you would still face the same dangers(even if at a lesser degree) so why not try to minimise them if you can. The ship will still be exposed to the same risks bar full combat contact but even then is not guaranteed so its only a added bonus to have these measures fitted.

 

[Sea Toby]

I think if I was on canterbury, or had friends and loved ones onboard , I would hope that there would be some kind of defence in the form of a permanant CIWS.:rolling

I may disagree with a permanent mounting of CIWS. Since only one Anzac is most likely available and fully battle ready, the other Anzac's CIWS can be transferred quickly...

However, if both Anzacs are battle ready, a CIWS could be ordered from US or another navy's stock for installation on the Canterbury... Since NZ is familiar with the CIWS, adding another would be easy to install and operate... A Hercules could fly a CIWS mount in quickly...

New Zealand wouldn't be the only nation that cross deck CIWS.... Many nations do...

 

[1805]

Unfortunately the Canterbury doesn't have the damage control of a warship, she was built to commercial standards... The same applies to all of the Project Protector vessels... None of the Project Protector vessels were designed as warships... It would be a large mistake to place warship weapons on commercially designed ships. As much so as the British placing battle cruisers into battle groups facing battleships. HMS Hood is a great example, a battle cruiser with battleship weapons which blew up facing a battleship.... At least HMS Hood was a warship, just poorly armored... Now you wish to repeat this same colossal mistake with commercial shipping....

The British were successful using commercial ships without much weaponry in the Falklands with Canberra, Norland, and others. Much of the Pacific is without a serious air threat similar to Argentina. While the British may not have won air superiority, they were operating at the extreme range of Argentine aircraft. And I doubt seriously the Canterbury would be used in a landing operation with a serious air threat without allied air forces winning air superiority first...

Frankly, New Zealand doesn't have the forces to mount a serious opposed landing against a nation with a serious air threat alone... New Zealand doesn't even have an air combat force... And surely, the US wouldn't proceed with a landing without winning air superiority first anyway, much less the Australians...

Having said that, a Phalanx CIWS could be transferred to the Canterbury at short notice, probably mounted on the stern flight deck to provide a good ring of fire. I don't see any other realistic air defense improvements to the Canterbury...

I am not completely sure I follow you HMS Hood analogy or for that matter the British use of merchant ships as transports in the Falklands. The Canterbury as with any logistics ship would expect to go into an operational area as would many other unarmed merchant and support ships I think there is a valid reason why these ships should have self protection from CIWS and/or SAMs.

As to the broader point about warships built to commercial standards there are plenty of examples, the WW2 RN Lochs and the RN wartime designed but post war commissioned Colossus & Majestic class carriers and nearly all of the wartime escort carriers? When in total war, views on standards are more flexible as it is a race to get weapon in to action in numbers. Wartime designs trend to be far more functional.

The airpower imbalance between shall we say the tier 1 & 2 powers and the rest is now so great it is very unlikely they would not have air superiority, however if in the almost inconceivable situation that the USN didn’t have complete air superiority, I am quite sure its fighting traditions would mean that it would not shirk from is responsibility, as the RN had to in the Falklands.

The role of the Canterbury as I understand it is not to undertake opposed landing it is to transport NZ military assets to an operational areas, installing ESSM and Phalanx does not seem a bad idea, why restrict these systems to just the escort? Particularly if you only have 2 ASW focused escorts, without a guarantee of the presence of a friendly AWD.

As an outsider there seems to be so many other things I would spend the money on in preference to a 3rd Frigate, that I could never justify it. Just a few examples the NZ Artillery chain needs a complete overhaul, say 4-6 each of: MLRS, 155mm SPG and M777 or 4-6 attack helicopters and replacement transport aircraft have to come soon?

 

[Sea Toby]

The role of the Canterbury as I understand it is not to undertake opposed landing it is to transport NZ military assets to an operational areas, installing ESSM and Phalanx does not seem a bad idea, why restrict these systems to just the escort? Particularly if you only have 2 ASW focused escorts, without a guarantee of the presence of a friendly AWD.

As an outsider there seems to be so many other things I would spend the money on in preference to a 3rd Frigate, that I could never justify it. Just a few examples the NZ Artillery chain needs a complete overhaul, say 4-6 each of: MLRS, 155mm SPG and M777 or 4-6 attack helicopters and replacement transport aircraft have to come soon?

NSSMs and if the Anzacs are upgraded to ESSMs have sufficient range to protect the Canterbury, but I agree in an opposed landing having a CIWS could and would help. Don't underestimate the range of the ESSM. As I mentioned before, CIWS can be bought and flown in literally overnight and installed the next day when the time comes. Or cross decked from an Anzac...

On the other hand NSSM or ESSM would take much longer to install, nor would it be as cheap. Like you I can think of a large number of other weaponry I would prefer to buy before buying NSSM or ESSM for the Canterbury which most likely would never be needed. Notice how long it took to upgrade the Anzacs and FFGs for Australia. Upgrading both took much longer than a month...

The only nearby Pacific nation with a considerable air combat force is Australia and Indonesia. I doubt seriously Australia will ever be a threat to NZ, and Indonesia does not in the foreseeable future have much of an offensive military capacity...

 

[anzac3]

Theres alot of things that you unfortunately havent considered. The most likely is a nuclear disaster in the northern hemisphere. Either a china, korean or other war or accident involving nuclear weapons.
And where do you think they will flee too??
Have you got billeting for a billion?
Nayy :dunce:dunce

So one must be prepared..........like a boy scout, and have a navy that is ready to defend new zealand. And an airforce wouldnt hurt either ( I understand John Key is going to address that very soon).

NSSMs and if the Anzacs are upgraded to ESSMs have sufficient range to protect the Canterbury, but I agree in an opposed landing having a CIWS could and would help. Don't underestimate the range of the ESSM. As I mentioned before, CIWS can be bought and flown in literally overnight and installed the next day when the time comes. Or cross decked from an Anzac...

On the other hand NSSM or ESSM would take much longer to install, nor would it be as cheap. Like you I can think of a large number of other weaponry I would prefer to buy before buying NSSM or ESSM for the Canterbury which most likely would never be needed. Notice how long it took to upgrade the Anzacs and FFGs for Australia. Upgrading both took much longer than a month...

The only nearby Pacific nation with a considerable air combat force is Australia and Indonesia. I doubt seriously Australia will ever be a threat to NZ, and Indonesia does not in the foreseeable future have much of an offensive military capacity...

 

[Sea Toby]

Theres alot of things that you unfortunately havent considered. The most likely is a nuclear disaster in the northern hemisphere. Either a china, korean or other war or accident involving nuclear weapons.
And where do you think they will flee too??
Have you got billeting for a billion?
Nayy :dunce:dunce

So one must be prepared..........like a boy scout, and have a navy that is ready to defend new zealand. And an airforce wouldnt hurt either ( I understand John Key is going to address that very soon).

Are they going to swim to New Zealand? A nuclear war would most likely destroy their airfields and ports.... Flee, how? A billion? That is a lot of air flights and cruise ships... Or are they going to use a Star Trek transporter? A lot of transporters...

 

[StingrayOZ]

A more likely situation is complete collapse of Fiji by political, military or natural disaster. You have a country of nearly a million with refugees fleeing anywhere close. Samoa, New Calidonia or Vanuatu would/could be in simular situations with slightly smaller populations. Depending on prevailing winds, etc these could be arriving on NZ front door step, directly.

Given the size and locations you could be looking at a chain reaction where refugees/military/criminals would cause chaos on these nearby micronations. Not to mention any out of region conflict would send refugees to these countries cause all sorts of trouble.

NZ would be a major destintation for refugees/fishing boats/pirates as Australia is getting pretty tough on the whole situation and would be able to deploy assets to arrest/tow them out of our area.

East Timor demonstrated another highly realistic situation where real naval assets need to be deployed in a real potential conflict. Replace East Timor with the far larger and more complicated EI/PNG and you have something that would be a major regional concern.

Some weak NZ asset would seem like a good target to extremists, milita or military looking at hitting against western members of the alliance. NZ undefended EEZ, resources etc could mean a strong (or even middle weight) power practicing impolite diplomacy would leave NZ unable to even send a feeble message of presence (see Cod wars).

Add to that UN and other obligations. To run a proper navy, you need 3 frigates and suitable vessels. NZ needs a functioning navy more than they need a large standing army or an airforce of fighters or bombers.

 

[Gibbo]

.....And an airforce wouldnt hurt either ( I understand John Key is going to address that very soon).

Ah - I wouldn't get too excited about what John Key's Govt is going to 'address' - all main political parties have ruled out the return of a combat air wing. All that his Govt is likely to address is a modest improvement on the status-quo & longer term planning for replacement of air-transport & maritime patrol a/c.

And for Navy also read pretty much status quo.

 

[anzac3]

Ah - I wouldn't get too excited about what John Key's Govt is going to 'address' - all main political parties have ruled out the return of a combat air wing. All that his Govt is likely to address is a modest improvement on the status-quo & longer term planning for replacement of air-transport & maritime patrol a/c.

And for Navy also read pretty much status quo.

Hi, Im pretty sure that the govt is going to run a small strike airforce soon.
Possibly only 8 planes,
How could I know this?
Well, just wait and see.


on another topic
also :dunce you should know that a billion people could easily flee northern asia, through indonesia to australia and nz. Just think a little back to ww2 :dunce

 

[Sea Toby]

Hi, Im pretty sure that the govt is going to run a small strike airforce soon.
Possibly only 8 planes,
How could I know this?
Well, just wait and see.


on another topic
also :dunce you should know that a billion people could easily flee northern asia, through indonesia to australia and nz. Just think a little back to ww2 :dunce

New Zealand has enough difficulty supplying electricity to Auckland without shortages, can you imagine a billion refugees or even another million refugees consuming power in Auckland? Blackout city...

But its not just electricity, Auckland would have problems with the water supply as well, much less house another million souls...

Neither Australia or New Zealand have the infrastructure for a billion refugees... The United States of America, some 300 million strong, doesn't have the infrastructure for a billion refugees... Think in terms of India's partition...

 

[Bonza]

Hi, Im pretty sure that the govt is going to run a small strike airforce soon.
Possibly only 8 planes,
How could I know this?
Well, just wait and see.

Are you implying insider knowledge? Because you should know we take such claims seriously, and would expect you to back them up with evidence.

 

[Gibbo]

Hi, Im pretty sure that the govt is going to run a small strike airforce soon.
Possibly only 8 planes,
How could I know this?
Well, just wait and see.

on another topic
also :dunce you should know that a billion people could easily flee northern asia, through indonesia to australia and nz. Just think a little back to ww2 :dunce

I don't doubt the potential for refugees to swamp Aus & NZ - and like most on this forum I'd like to see the NZ Defence budget increased, but it's been clearly signalled by Govt there will be no significant increase.

There will not be a combat air wing - it's been publicly acknowledged many times in mainstream media. I assume the '8 planes' you refer to are the Macchis - yes we're all hoping they are returned to service but they are advanced trainers & will only be used for that. A Macchi fleet does NOT constitute an air combat wing.

You seem to suggest you know something we don't - if that's the case can you elaborate on what is the basis for your claim?

??:dunce?? -

 

[RegR]

What kind of ACF would 8 A/C represent anyway? Never mind the fact that such a small squadron would barely be able to project a credible force let alone allow for type conversion, maintanence and obviously no overseas deployments, 12-14 would be the minimum you would want to go for a fully operational squadron + you will need some advanced trainers to transition.
If the so called 8 strong ACF is actually the machhis making a return in the training role then I suppose it is better then nothing and could at least provide some basic army and navy support to gain exposure for the respective services as well as their main role of advanced pilot training.

 

[aussienscale]

If they did come back, what would be the need for advanced pilot training in NZ ? what would they need to train for ?

 

[lopez]

could the squadron of 8 be used for shooting down hijacked planes.

would it be capable of being kept at a suitable readiness for that?

and how likely is it that the machis will actually return?

 

[Gibbo]

If they did come back, what would be the need for advanced pilot training in NZ ? what would they need to train for ?

Feel free to correct me if I have this wrong but IIRC before the ACF was disbanded the Macchis were used for all advanced pilot training (ie: after the CT4) - that included pilots heading on to rotary; transports & MPA. Why? - c'os that jet training made then damned excellent pilots - you have to think real fast when you're flying fast & agile a/c so if you can pass advanced training in a jet, you've got to be competent from the start.

Those advancing onto Skyhawks spent more time on the Macchis from memory.

Not only would returning Macchis fill the current gap for an Advanced Trainer created by the need to replace the King Airs, it'd also allow the RNZAF to start providing strike training for Army & Navy - somethng those 2 services see precious little of these days.

Anyway, back to Navy....

 

[anzac3]

sorry for my vagueness, I hate typing so things get abit short and vague. The truth is that you cant rely on the media for detailed infomation on the plans, wishes and future policy that gov disscuss as the media only ever take controversial topics and sensationalise them for mainstream consumer consumption.
i often attend nat party public seminars and the thrust is to rebuild what labour gov took away.
:dunce was refered to the one person who responds with "dunce" to my contributions

 

[Sea Toby]

The numbers don't add up. You are going to need more than 8 Mecchis to do much more than pilot training. If you are going to advocate the return of the air combat force, you will need new fighter jets and the training jets to accomplish your goal. If you are going to do it, do it right, not tripping over yourself being cheap without fully funding the job. Ever heard of the phrase, you get what you pay for...

Stop grasping for straws when you need a fully filled cup.... The cup isn't worth much if its not filled...

How did the Macchis end up in a RNZN thread?

 

[Gibbo]

The numbers don't add up. You are going to need more than 8 Mecchis to do much more than pilot training. If you are going to advocate the return of the air combat force, you will need new fighter jets and the training jets to accomplish your goal. If you are going to do it, do it right, not tripping over yourself being cheap without fully funding the job. Ever heard of the phrase, you get what you pay for...

Stop grasping for straws when you need a fully filled cup.... The cup isn't worth much if its not filled...

How did the Macchis end up in a RNZN thread?

...sorry - blame me, I responded to a comment about ACF that dragged it all out

With refernce to RNZN, it's interesting to note that RNZN were using 'commercial' jets (LearJets) even while RNZAF still had an ACF - IIRC apparently the commercial jets were cheaper - go figure!