Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
The Seasprite has an overall length of 16.01 meters, height of 4.6 meters, overall length with nose and blades folded 11.45 metres, height with blades folded 4.1 meters.
The NH90 has an overall length of 19.6 meters, height of 5.4 meters, overall length with tail pylon and blades folded 13.5 meters, height with tail pylon and blades folded 4.1 meters.
The Australians have been operating Seahawk helicopters from the Anzacs. The Seahawks have a overall length of 19.76 meters, height of 5.18 meters, overall length with tail pylon and blades folded 12.47 meters, height with tail pylon and blades folded 4.04 meters.
Since both have the same height with blades folded, its a matter of how long the hangar is, the Seasprite qualifying length is 11.45 meters, the NH90 is 13.5 metres. The hangar on the MRV/OPVs are supposed to be similar to the Anzac frigates. With Australia thinking about acquiring NH90s to replace Seasprites, one may assume a NH90 will fit into an Anzac hangar.
The NH90 has an overall length of 19.6 meters, height of 5.4 meters, overall length with tail pylon and blades folded 13.5 meters, height with tail pylon and blades folded 4.1 meters.
The Australians have been operating Seahawk helicopters from the Anzacs. The Seahawks have a overall length of 19.76 meters, height of 5.18 meters, overall length with tail pylon and blades folded 12.47 meters, height with tail pylon and blades folded 4.04 meters.
Since both have the same height with blades folded, its a matter of how long the hangar is, the Seasprite qualifying length is 11.45 meters, the NH90 is 13.5 metres. The hangar on the MRV/OPVs are supposed to be similar to the Anzac frigates. With Australia thinking about acquiring NH90s to replace Seasprites, one may assume a NH90 will fit into an Anzac hangar.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
I agree. The NH-90 is supposed to be able to land and be housed in the hangar on ships the size of our Cassiopea OPVs, 80-meter 1500 ton. Taht's smaller than the 85-meter 1600ton Otago & Wellington OPVs.Sea Toby said:
cheers
Sorry to jump of the topic of Helicopters for a moment,looking through the NZDF PDF on their site, 2006 Statement of intent Page 180 . NZDF is manging some $251m of capital (smaller item spending) during 06/07 . Among the projects individually ID'd over $3m is $4m (net of GST)set aside for Frigate short-range self protection capability. Enough dosh for 4 MK38 25mm RWS or similar? any thoughts.
On the LTDP the Anzac defence ESSM upgrade is supposed to cost around $300 million (NZ) for both frigates. This does not include surface to surface missiles or new ASW torpedoes. The Anzac defence upgrade is the most expensive item left of the LTDP not yet funded.
Continuing my previous post, the AB 109 light helicopter has an overall length of 13.04 meters, a height of 3.5 meters. The EC135 light helicopter has an overall length of12.16 meters, a height of 3.51 meters. Both light helicopters will fit in the hangars of the Anzac frigate, the MRV, and the OPVs.
Continuing my previous post, the AB 109 light helicopter has an overall length of 13.04 meters, a height of 3.5 meters. The EC135 light helicopter has an overall length of12.16 meters, a height of 3.51 meters. Both light helicopters will fit in the hangars of the Anzac frigate, the MRV, and the OPVs.
With regard to whether LUH once selected will be embarked on RNZN vessels - isn't the ability to fold blades a key factor? How practical is it to embark a chopper that has to be moved from the hangar onto the flightdeck to have blades re-attached? Won't this factor answer the question of the LUH being embarked?Sea Toby said:
HMNZS Canterbury (the Frigate - F421) in her final years undertook at least one EEZ Patrol / Training tasking without any chopper due to unavailability of serviceable SeaSprites....so I guess if the RNZN find they run short of choppers they'll simply send vessels off without them. It'll all be done according to priority of tasking I guess.
Granted the NH-90 will be embarked on the MRV for aircrew training & Army exercise etc etc, so it could be argued one be carried on EEZ Patrol / Training taskings if there aren't SeaSprites available!?!...but then there's going to be precious few NH-90 airframes to go around as well!
CJohn
Active Member
This is only speculation, but it could indicate the addiction of something likeNorm said:
Rafael's mini typhoon stabilized remotely operated machine gun systems.
The Australian Navy has recently purchased a number of these systems for
use on their front line ships. Several of these systems would be usefull on
the MRV, me thinks!
http://www.defence.gov.au/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20060705a/20060621adf8109730_110_lo.jpg
Last edited:
Yeah I'd be keen to see the mini-typhoon to replace all current .5cal HMG installations across the entire fleet - but have no idea what these cost. They offer far superior accuracy (thru stabilsation) & better night capability...also prevents a gunner standing prone & becoming a target themselves!CJohn said:
Haven't heard any talk of RNZN getting them but they'd be particularly ideal for the .5cal HMG main armament on the upcoming IPV's, even if the 2 sdie mounted HMG's remained fully manually operated.
Wonder of the RNZN have twigged to the benefits of these mounts yet - or have they been told 'shut-up & be thankful for what you're getting'!?!
New Zealand's MRV and OPVs will carry 2 x 12.7mm (50Cal) Machine Guns along with a 25-mm Bushmaster gun mount. For a ship that will spend ninty percent of its time as a patrol and training vessel, why would anyone want more armament? As long as its escorted by a proper frigate the ten percent of the time its used as a sealift ship, and the Anzacs will be better escorts with the installation of Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles in the future, I don't see a need for more armament for peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. On the other hand the MRV was not designed to the military standards to participate in opposed amphibious landings without an escort.
The Canterbury is designed with civilian standards, not military standards. While she appears to be a landing ship, and she fills most of the roles of a landing ship, she was not built to military standards for an opposed amphibious landing. This is why she cost so much less than other amphibious ships, she is more a ferry than a amphibious ship.
For clearification, the Canterbury could hug the coast to discharge her army and its equipment in a peacekeeping and/or humanitarian mission. In many instances she could dock and use her roll-on roll-off ramps instead. For an opposed amphibious landing, I doubt whether it would be proper for her to close within the 20-25 miles of artillery and/or mortar range of a landing. Her LCMs are quite capable of carrying the army's equipment for over the horizon landings, as are her five helicopters. In an opposed landing, she'll need an escort for air, surface, and under surface defence.
The Canterbury is designed with civilian standards, not military standards. While she appears to be a landing ship, and she fills most of the roles of a landing ship, she was not built to military standards for an opposed amphibious landing. This is why she cost so much less than other amphibious ships, she is more a ferry than a amphibious ship.
For clearification, the Canterbury could hug the coast to discharge her army and its equipment in a peacekeeping and/or humanitarian mission. In many instances she could dock and use her roll-on roll-off ramps instead. For an opposed amphibious landing, I doubt whether it would be proper for her to close within the 20-25 miles of artillery and/or mortar range of a landing. Her LCMs are quite capable of carrying the army's equipment for over the horizon landings, as are her five helicopters. In an opposed landing, she'll need an escort for air, surface, and under surface defence.
Last edited:
When talking an amphibious landing, doesn't it really depend on who is potentially opposing the landing, and what equipment they could bring to bear?Sea Toby said:
For instance ET in ’99 where NZ went into Suai (sorry unsure of spelling) the Indonesian military had left and the only opposition was potentially the militias with no heavy weapons.
This would be true of the majority of Island nations to NZ’s north as well.
For most of the islands north of New Zealand you are correct, but its not beyond their capability in the future for these island nations to acquire artillery and/or mortars. Plus many of the nations of SE Asia are currently acquiring submarines, OPVs, and small frigates/corvettes with anti-surface missiles. In an opposed amphibious landing surely New Zealand will have enough sense to provide a frigate escort. Of course, in an unopposed peacekeeping or humanitarian mission, the MRV appears to have enough defences to participate in the mission unescorted.
Its the same with most of the American navy's amphibious ships. At most they have either Nato Sea Sparrow or RAM surface to air missiles, many have CIWS and small arms, none of these amphibious ships have a five or three inch gunmount, and all of them were designed to military standards.
You'll notice in most of the world's navies, LCMs and LCUs have a range around 200-250 miles at 10-12 knots. They can easily run 8 round trips to shore from 25 miles out to sea. You'll also notice the newer LCACs America has been building lately have a range of up to a 1000 miles at 10-12 knots. These larger landing craft can also cross a beach into the trees, if necessary, which would not require leaving the troops on their own at the waterline of a beach.
Its the same with most of the American navy's amphibious ships. At most they have either Nato Sea Sparrow or RAM surface to air missiles, many have CIWS and small arms, none of these amphibious ships have a five or three inch gunmount, and all of them were designed to military standards.
You'll notice in most of the world's navies, LCMs and LCUs have a range around 200-250 miles at 10-12 knots. They can easily run 8 round trips to shore from 25 miles out to sea. You'll also notice the newer LCACs America has been building lately have a range of up to a 1000 miles at 10-12 knots. These larger landing craft can also cross a beach into the trees, if necessary, which would not require leaving the troops on their own at the waterline of a beach.
Last edited:
I agree, the issue for the MRV is that if it has 2 LCMs moving at 12 knots it will take roughly 2 hrs each way with time to load and unload at each end, so we are talking 5 hrs return trip. Each LCM will hold 2 LAVs and an LOV? So the landing force would have an initial 4 LAVs and 2 LOVs...then have to wait 5 hrs.Sea Toby said:
Meantime the NH90s would be able to rotate, with two NH90s landing at a drop zone and two NH90s picking up.
Until the arrival of the LHDs, the RAN has a similar issue IMO.
Of course that is only if the expected/possible opposition has arty with a range of 40kms, an ability to locate the ships in question etc…, and in the Pacific I think that that will be a tall order for many years to come!
More likely the MRV would come within 10nm (or even closer) with the SAS providing real time intel on the landing site. Future additions of a small tactical UAV would also help in this area.
If NZ were serious about landing over the beach the possible addition of surplus AAV7s (?) or future EFVs, with only 15-20 needed to ensure enough are available to land and move a reinforced company inland.
I guess this is the issue with the MRV's armament - it will only ever allow for constabulary EEZ tasks & potentially self-defence from smallboat pirate/terrorist attacks (remember USS Cole).Sea Toby said:
As you point out the USN Amphib vessels have SeaSparrow; CIWS or SeaRam - that's a significant advance over what the MRV will offer. I fully appreciate the MRV is designed primarily for EEZ patrol; Training & PeaceKeeping operations, and yes will rely on Frigate escort on 'higher-threat' deployments.
I just think that the MRV should be capable of providing some assistance to it's own self-defence & not rely entirely upon the escort....and until RNZN's frigates get ESSM & (maybe one day) anti-ship missiles, the Aussie ANZAC's would be the most immediately available suitable escort.
Yes I'd like to see MRV with 57mm/76mm plus CIWS; decoys etc but I also accept that's not going to happen. The MRV is a great compromise & will prove itself a very valuable asset.
I guess the same needs to be remembered about the rest of the PP fleet - they are all first & foremost for EEZ Patrol & in the case of the OPV's a secondary role of Counter-Terrorism. They are not designed for combat operations, and much discussion around PP has tended to forget that.
The rationale behind the PP fleet is that the RNZN had all but lost it's patrol fleet over the past 2 decades & played very little part in policing our own EEZ & those our the Sth Pacific states we're obliged to assist.
Ultimately it is cost that has resulted in lightly-armed, commercial spec vessels but this is a common trend worldwide now & I think the RNZN has a bright future ahead of it.
Yeah I'd like to see another Frigate & a MCMV. The former is unlikely to happen in the forseable future & the latter is being met by additions to HMNZS Manawanui (an excellent dive tender) & the dive team who are receiving new MCM optimised dive suits; REMUS AUV's; and a new handheld system for use underwater that provides divers with a shart range navaigation & sonar capability - latest RNZN news (Aug06) refers to all the above. Still would like to see a MCM disposal vehicle though!
http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/navy-today.htm
Anyway...I digress!
Keep in mind the typical company group on the MRV would consist of 16 LAVs, 14 LOVs, 7 Unimogs, 2 ambulances, 2 flatbed trucks, 7 LOV trailers, 2 rough terrain forklifts, and 4 four-wheel drive vehicles. Much of the men and many of these vehicles can be airlifted to shore. The 16 LAVs which cannot be airlifted would take as you noted 4 roundtrips for both LCMs. At ten miles from ashore, the four roundtrips would take eight hours. I guess it would take another 3 or 4 roundtrips to disembark the Unimogs and trailers. The other equipment should be able to be disembarked by helicopters, and with 5 helicopters onboard, one Seasprite and 4 NH90s, this shouldn't take as long as disembarking the heavier equipment the NH90s can't lift.
However, if the ship was able to use a dock and its roll-on roll-off ramps, the ship could be unloaded in less than a couple of hours, if not one hour. You'll notice in the Falklands, the British were able to disembark their equipment very close to shore, less than a mile away during the night. At a mile's distance from shore, the LAVs would be offloaded in less than an hour. The Falklands Islands aren't that large, I'm sure New Zealand may be able to find an undefended beach in the South Pacific as well.
Yes, the further out to sea the longer disembarkation takes. Close to shore or at a dock, disembarkation doesn't take that much time at all.
While the best minehunters cost as much as a frigate, lesser capable minehunters can be purchased for much less, similar to an OPV. For example, the Sandown minehunters the British use are much cheaper than their Hunt class of minehunters. Since New Zealand is such a long distance from the rest of the world, the best I would expect them to buy would be a Sandown. More than likely something cheaper such as a minehunter equipped OPV or IPV would suffice. Notice the Americans are planning to use their new LCS ships as minehunters and as frigates.
What is needed is a good sonar to identify the mines, and a good remote controlled nonmagnetic submersible to place the charges to blow them up.
However, if the ship was able to use a dock and its roll-on roll-off ramps, the ship could be unloaded in less than a couple of hours, if not one hour. You'll notice in the Falklands, the British were able to disembark their equipment very close to shore, less than a mile away during the night. At a mile's distance from shore, the LAVs would be offloaded in less than an hour. The Falklands Islands aren't that large, I'm sure New Zealand may be able to find an undefended beach in the South Pacific as well.
Yes, the further out to sea the longer disembarkation takes. Close to shore or at a dock, disembarkation doesn't take that much time at all.
While the best minehunters cost as much as a frigate, lesser capable minehunters can be purchased for much less, similar to an OPV. For example, the Sandown minehunters the British use are much cheaper than their Hunt class of minehunters. Since New Zealand is such a long distance from the rest of the world, the best I would expect them to buy would be a Sandown. More than likely something cheaper such as a minehunter equipped OPV or IPV would suffice. Notice the Americans are planning to use their new LCS ships as minehunters and as frigates.
What is needed is a good sonar to identify the mines, and a good remote controlled nonmagnetic submersible to place the charges to blow them up.
Last edited:
Yes I agree, as you will no doubt know by now I have some reservations around the lift capability of the MRV, I like the ship...I just can't help but wish it was around 50% bigger.Sea Toby said:
For peace keeping ops I think it is just what NZ needs, same for disaster/aid use. Just have this niggling doubt, that in the event of a crisis, the NZDF will find it to small. Plan for the worst hope for the best.
If the situation is worst, the old plan to lease other merchant vessels is still available. The Army and the Ministry of Defence decided that moving one company of 250 men and its equipment would suffice for most operations. I agree, the MRV will be used quite often, and be a useful ship for the next 30 years. And in the next 30 years there is a very good chance New Zealand won't have to lease a back up merchant vessel.
Currently Ireland is deciding whether to acquire a MEKO 200 MRV with 200 lane meters of vehicle space or whether to acquire something similar to New Zealand's MRV with 403 lane meters of vehicle space. The MEKO has accomodations for 150 men, New Zealand's MRV has accommodations for 250 men.
Ireland spent up to $3 million dollars, $6 million in NZ dollars, to lease a merchant vessel on the spur of the moment to move one of their companies to Liberia. It will probably cost as much to bring them back. Their OPVs run $30 million US, or $60 million NZ, thus leasing a vessel for the price of five round trips for UN or humanitarian missions will buy an OPV. Is this very probable over 30 years? It wouldn't surprise me if 5 round trips were needed in 5 years, much less 30 years.
Yes, there are larger LPDs which can be bought with twice the accomodations and vehicle space. However, none of them have a beam which will allow a drydocking at the Calliope dock at Devenport such as the Canterbury. And because they are twice as good, they cost twice as much too.
Currently Ireland is deciding whether to acquire a MEKO 200 MRV with 200 lane meters of vehicle space or whether to acquire something similar to New Zealand's MRV with 403 lane meters of vehicle space. The MEKO has accomodations for 150 men, New Zealand's MRV has accommodations for 250 men.
Ireland spent up to $3 million dollars, $6 million in NZ dollars, to lease a merchant vessel on the spur of the moment to move one of their companies to Liberia. It will probably cost as much to bring them back. Their OPVs run $30 million US, or $60 million NZ, thus leasing a vessel for the price of five round trips for UN or humanitarian missions will buy an OPV. Is this very probable over 30 years? It wouldn't surprise me if 5 round trips were needed in 5 years, much less 30 years.
Yes, there are larger LPDs which can be bought with twice the accomodations and vehicle space. However, none of them have a beam which will allow a drydocking at the Calliope dock at Devenport such as the Canterbury. And because they are twice as good, they cost twice as much too.
Last edited:
Yeah I would have liked to seen another 20m length with a full width hangar, but I guess that may have prevented drydocking in the Calliope dock at Devonport.Whiskyjack said:Yes I agree, as you will no doubt know by now I have some reservations around the lift capability of the MRV, I like the ship...I just can't help but wish it was around 50% bigger.
For peace keeping ops I think it is just what NZ needs, same for disaster/aid use. Just have this niggling doubt, that in the event of a crisis, the NZDF will find it to small. Plan for the worst hope for the best.
With respect, if the NZDF is limiting the size of their ships based on a dock over 60 years old then that is a fundamental issue in itself.Sea Toby said:
Ireland is located in a region where amphibious operations of any type are not part of their strategic outlook. NZ on the other hand does have such an outlook.
I agree other ships can be brought into service in an emergency, as they were in the Falklands, but there still needs to be a solid base of amphibious ships in which to conduct the initial landings and act as C&C. And while I respect the MRV, it has two landing craft, as opposed to the Rotterdam with 4 LCMs and 4 LCVPs.
I will always have a place for an MRV in the RNZN given NZ's location, I would also have a 12,000-14,000 ton LPD as well. If it costs $500m then NZ can afford it, if it costs more then it will need to be reconsidered.
The new Interislander Kaitaki has the same beam as the Canterbury, but its 30 meters longer. The Calliope drydock is less than a meter wider than both, but its length is 159 meters, two meters too short for the Kaitaki, but 28 meters longer than the Canterbury. Yes, a ship 28 meters longer will fit, and obviously have more space for vehicles and accomodations. But alas, the maritime review settled for a ship with 390 meters of vehicle lane meters and 250 troops, the Canterbury more than meets the requirements of the review.
And as I said before, there is always the old option of leasing a merchant vessel if necessary, although there is a very good chance in the next 30 years this won't be necessary.
More than likely it will take longer to lease a merchant vessel than it would be for the MRV to return to New Zealand and load a second load. Most of the island nations north of New Zealand are 1000-1500 miles away, a ship going 19 knots in 24 hours can travel 456 miles, it should return after unloading in 2-3 days, and unload the second wave in 4-6 days after unloading the first wave. The question remains will the army be ready so soon?
If the second company will be more infantry instead of motorized infantry, using the Hercules to parachute the troops in
would seem to be a quicker route. Even several LOVs can be transported with the Hercules.
And as I said before, there is always the old option of leasing a merchant vessel if necessary, although there is a very good chance in the next 30 years this won't be necessary.
More than likely it will take longer to lease a merchant vessel than it would be for the MRV to return to New Zealand and load a second load. Most of the island nations north of New Zealand are 1000-1500 miles away, a ship going 19 knots in 24 hours can travel 456 miles, it should return after unloading in 2-3 days, and unload the second wave in 4-6 days after unloading the first wave. The question remains will the army be ready so soon?
If the second company will be more infantry instead of motorized infantry, using the Hercules to parachute the troops in
would seem to be a quicker route. Even several LOVs can be transported with the Hercules.
Last edited:
IMO, which I express oftenSea Toby said:
, an ability to land 500+ troops over the beach with their equipment is what is needed.NZ's geography supports the purchase of amphibious assets, I see the MRV as more like a RFA LSD(A), a fine ship, but not an amphibious ship, a ship that can land equipment and material across a beach, but not in a way that is fast.
Whether it is the MRV or a future LPD, it does not have to be confined to carrying NZ troops, it could be an asset to carry UN/Coalition troops.
An asset that has relevance to NZ security in the South Pacific, but would also be a valuable asset in UN/Coalition operations.
There is nothing wrong with the MRV, I just see an opportunity for NZ to build on its experience with it and build a force that will allow the NZDF to be truly flexible into the future.