All pilots used to train in them when we had them, jet, prop even rotary, never really understood why I suppose it just exposes them to more varying flying fundamentals and base skills.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Deploying attack helicopters on Canterbury would be at the expense of the the NH-90, in order to get a viable formation. Use Seasprite of the frigates and one on Canterbury in conjuction with each other. The NH-90s also offers more flexibility.
Attack helicopters have the place in the Order of Battle but an Air Combat force offers better value for money in terms of the wider roles, longer range and time of station and heavier payload, not to mention they can self deploy, whereas Attack Helicopters would require an increase in transport capability.
I'd have an ACF, even with Macchis, before an Attack Helicopter Sqn.
I didn't see the attack helicopters operating from the Canterbury but transported by her. HIMARS, M777 and attack helicopters can deploy with NZ ground forces and work closely with them. They would be easier to operate in forward areas, such as Afghanistan and are compatible with allied kit (Australian at least) and would provide more accurate support. NZ will need to replace the Hercules force soon another priority over Macchis.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the chances of seeing the NZ armed forces operate rocket artillery any time soon are almost non-existent? Anyway this is a Navy thread, let's try to keep it as such. No harm in taking the discussion over to a more appropriate thread. 
i would say these eight aircraft were probably on the table as Anzac3 said as part of the contract that the government didn't get for the singapore deal for training pilots.I don't think you will see jets back in the skies.
Sorry I didn't mean to take the thread off subject, my point was NZ artillery is very dated and rather than dreaming of jets and a third frigate, there would be much better value in buying weapons like M777, HIMARS which would not be that as expensive and easily deployable by Canterbury. Agreed attack helicopters would be expensive and the NH90s would probably be more useful on the limited space on Canterbury.Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the chances of seeing the NZ armed forces operate rocket artillery any time soon are almost non-existent? Anyway this is a Navy thread, let's try to keep it as such. No harm in taking the discussion over to a more appropriate thread.
The RAN uses learjets for taget towing, or at least did back in my day. Not totally sure if they still do ? We used to do night exercises with a glowing target and blow em out of the sky with CIWS ! was awsome to watch...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!
Dont we have rockets in nz army? do we have tank busting gear at all, like bazucas?
Sorry for off topic,
I was talking about artillery rockets that can drop 200lb rounds accurately over 20-30 miles in support of the army/special forces etc. Smaller 6 round versions are now available and at c3m US $. To buy say 4-6 would transform NZ artillery capability and be a much better value/realistic than say a 3rd frigate or returning to fixed wing jets.
The 6 round versions are also much more portable [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Mobility_Artillery_Rocket_System"]High Mobility Artillery Rocket System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
and would be ideal for Canterbury to transport, and would be a massive force multipler
Virtually all professional defence and security experts within NZ are adamant that NZ requires at least 3 frigates / long range surface combatants. HMAR is fine for the NZ Army but does not offer ANYTHING to the strategic security of our maritme-trade centric nation. .
There is no point in having a navy to escort the deployment of a land force if the land force is not capable of doing anything. The absence of attack aircraft to support the army makes the need for an adequate artillery even more important.
If you see 3 frigates as a significant improvement over 2 in defencing NZ homeland against any meaningful threat you are mistaken. The impact of improved artillery would be huge in comparison. What power projection does a frigate have 1 x 127mm gun?
I think you underestimate the capabilities of the NZ army. Compared to the early 1990's or even during East Timor the army is better equipped to conduct operations across the specturm's of combat. What it lacks is a third battalion and supporting units such as artillery to form a regular brigde and to ensure core combat skills are not lost. To that end the lack of air support for New Zealand is a major problem.
That does not undermine the importance of New Zealand being able to provide an escort capability for any deploying army units. This was clearly emphasised and proven in East Timor both during the initial landing and in the deployment of 1RNZIR to Suai.
The 127mm fires 20 rounds a minute compared to around 6-8 rounds for the current 105mm artillery pieces we have - In otherwords a naval gun is the equivlent or 2-3 artillery pieces or half a battery. Some smaller naval guns like the 100mm and 76mm can nearly equal a artillery battalion in their rate of fire. I think you also forget the air defence capabilty that a frigate can use to supplement the low level air defence of the army.
If a significant threat against NZ was to appear over the horzion you would be better to defeat them at sea. If they get within artillery range then I would suggest were to late to stop an attack, ignoring the fact that signifcant attacks aren't always invasion, but could focus on the critical distruction of key infrastructure from missiles etc.
Anyway my 2 cents worth.
I am not anti a 3rd frigate or the need for one, but I could not justify the expense when there are so many other things that should have a greater priority.
The range and hitting power of the 105mm gun are just to light to provide firepower to an army lacking air support/MBT. HIMARS gives you up to 70km 200lb rounds.
An invasion of NZ is so remote its not something you can seriously plan for. However if it was on the horizon you would need subs, anti ship missiles fired from shore batteries or aircraft. Anyone that could get a meaningful force to NZ would be able to deal with 3 frigates.
The largest likely deployment for NZ is a battleground sized force. How much would a third frigate cost US$250-300m? That could get you maybe: 6 attack helicopters, a couple better armed OPV and 12 artillery pieces (6 MIMARS/ 6 M777). If I was in a forward deployed force I know what I would rather have.
NZ has to appreciate if she is confronted with an enemy armed with subs she has to rely on allies or stay at home.
But don't you think it's important to recognise that a frigate has utility outside of armed conflict, which seems to be the only duty you mention (escort landing forces, resisting an attack on the homeland)?
Sure, a third frigate might be of debatable merit in an invasion scenario, but how likely is that? Look at how the current frigates have been used (operations in the Gulf, in addition to more regional duties in the Solomons, East Timor etc), and in that context how would a third not provide a significant gain in capability?
I understand your point re supporting an army that lacks other fire support options, and admittedly I don't know a great deal about how naval responsibilities work, but it seems to me that you're arguing from a strange position if you think a third frigate is limited in its duties to fighting off invaders and escorting landing forces.
I'd also argue that a third frigate is significantly more politically tenable than rocket artillery and attack helicopters, given the nature of NZ politics.
The protection of the 4000-5000km SLOC are NZ's number 1 primary defence and security issue in Peacetime. Yes Peacetime that is the fundamental default position that has to be operationally secured before you even begin to think about deploying a Battaion Group. You have fallen into the same strategic cul-de-sac that the amatuers who came into defence policy positions around the time of the last Labour Government. For trade critical SLOC, well that essentially means that NZ needs its Orions and Frigates. You cannot do that with land based rocket artillery. This is a country that generates 44% of its GDP through trade. 98% of that trade by volume is through surface shipping. At a miminum to have 1 frigate available you need 3 - we have since 2005 only 2 - thus at best a half time frigate force and a semi-secure border. Basic border and maritime security is far more important for a maritime trading nation than any artillery piece. That is where the focus must be. I suggest you get out a world map and actually look at the world and New Zealands place in it in a geo-strategic sense and not some land centric tactical sense.
For your information dedicated attack helicopters were looked at around the time of the 1997 DWP as an alternative and quite rightly quickly rejected as being too expensive and a logistical complication for a small defence force that has to exist in a maritime environment. Fine for the likes of the UK and Australia whose size provides them with critical mass that can cope with them. There is less ethusiasm for them than traditional fast air because of that.
If there is a gap in fire support capability that operationally puts at risk NZ soldiers then that must be fixed - but to say it is a priority above the primary role of protecting the billions of dollars of trade value and essential products that travel long distances to and from our shores is patently absurd.
You talk about rocket launchers as some sort of SDI initiative hugely expensive and ground breaking, it is fairly standard proven stuff. I am well aware of the need for a heavy maritime emphasis on defence, I just feel for a country that is only prepared to allocate a modest amount to defence (I make no call on whether this is right or wrong). Traditional ASW focused Frigates do not represent good value. A well armed OPV even something like a KD Lekiu (maybe, just 16 ESSM instead of Sea Wolf, torpedo tubes and the 57mm gun and a helicopter, slightly slower with a longer range) would be much better value for money. The RNZN could then afford to operate say 6 rather then the current 2 + 2.
My point about HIMARS and M777 were examples of things that should have greater priority than a 3rd frigate, earlier I did point out other such needy cases: the Orion and Hercules which like the artillery are very old and should be priorities for replacement.
Yes the sort of maritime work RNZN needs requires greater numbers, but not hi-end frigates to deal with submarines.
I agree with you, but I was not arguing that frigate should be used to defence against an invasion of NZ, I was saying the opposite; its so unlikely as not to be worth consideration and if it was, frigates would not be the answer.
Agree a frigate has utility outside of hi-intensity combat, (partol is probably 95% of their work) but this could be better done by a heavy armed OPV, and if this allowed for greater numbers more, more effectively.
Possibly, but I'm unsure of how OPVs would be better for Gulf operations and similar to a frigate, even if they were procured in great numbers.
It's also worth remembering that you're not talking about spending the money saved from a third frigate on OPVs - you're talking about spending the money on artillery and attack helicopters.