Its exactly the sort of ship the RAN should be procuring instead of the aluminium foil origami boats we use at the moment. Here's hoping the design ticks enough boxes soon enough to be considered as an ACPB replacement over another WA sourced aluminium debacle. Maybe a joint RAN, RNZN buy from a proper shipyard rather than a luxury yacht and ferry factory?
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Zero Alpha
New Member
When has a reserve or TF unit ever been deployed as a single entity from NZ?
I don't doubt they could be, if properly trained and equipped, but I seriously doubt there is a pressing need. A unit or sub-unit level of investment is simply too high relative to the low return.
I believe the TF deployed composite TF units to the Solomons CD can confirm that. From a VR prespective the units were never designed or planned to deploy as a whole. The VR did deploy from individual units when they had IPC's on various operations, some of which were under the glaze of the media.
I disagree with the view of 'low return' for investment especially if you had seen the VR at work with the IPC, or the TF that deployed to ET, whether as specialists or grunts etc. The TF and VR provide very good value for money, what they lack is support.
Zero Alpha
New Member
The Solomon deployment was a collection of individuals formed into a platoon, not a 'standard' structure.
Setting aside the old IPVs(they're long gone), if you look at the capital cost of a new vessel will mean the asset will cost over a million dollars of capital cost and depreciation before one day at sea occurs. Those standing charges over the asset base means that for every day they're sitting idle, the overhead cost per sea day is higher. Platforms and equipment are too expensive to use on a part-time basis.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
On a different note, the Protector OPVs have just gained an Irish half-sister, with another to follow next year.
The aging 80m LE Roisin is said to be the basis of the 85m Protector OPV design. Now Irelands exiting patrol vessels are being replaced with a 90m successor built by Babcocks in the UK. Reading between the lines I suspect a fair bit of equipment is being carried through from the old vessels including the 76mm main gun.
Interestingly, despite the extra size they haven't incorporated a flight deck. However, they do have dynamc positioning, space for an underwater ROV and a decompression chamber. Interesting equipment, given NZ's need for a littoral warfare vessel, and the suggestions around a third OPV?
Finally, the decison to name them after a pair of drunken writers who left Ireland at the first available opportunity has been greeting with more than a little criticism, to the dismay of the unfortunately-named Defence Minister Shatter.
A few links follow.
Samuel Beckett-class OPV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Navy ship LE Samuel Beckett on way after sea trials - Ireland News Headlines | Latest News Ireland | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 29, 2014
LÉ Samuel Beckett - Think Defence
The aging 80m LE Roisin is said to be the basis of the 85m Protector OPV design. Now Irelands exiting patrol vessels are being replaced with a 90m successor built by Babcocks in the UK. Reading between the lines I suspect a fair bit of equipment is being carried through from the old vessels including the 76mm main gun.
Interestingly, despite the extra size they haven't incorporated a flight deck. However, they do have dynamc positioning, space for an underwater ROV and a decompression chamber. Interesting equipment, given NZ's need for a littoral warfare vessel, and the suggestions around a third OPV?
Finally, the decison to name them after a pair of drunken writers who left Ireland at the first available opportunity has been greeting with more than a little criticism, to the dismay of the unfortunately-named Defence Minister Shatter.
A few links follow.
Samuel Beckett-class OPV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Navy ship LE Samuel Beckett on way after sea trials - Ireland News Headlines | Latest News Ireland | The Irish Times - Tue, Apr 29, 2014
LÉ Samuel Beckett - Think Defence
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
This gets back to what I mean about being properly tasked. A small coastal patrol vessel like a USCG Marine Protector-class Cutter or perhaps even smaller vessels, could be crewed by the VR. This could provide a harbour patrol/defence capability, as well as local patrolling and SAR. With a crew of only ten or so, a decently sized VR unit should be able to manage sufficient properly skilled crews to fufill the various positions for a few days at a time. The crews themselves might only be "part time" but with several qualified crews, the vessels might see full time usage.
Now having looked over the RNZN site, one OPV and IPV are home ported in North Island, with the same in South Island, and the other two IPV's are not mentioned as being home ported anywhere. Given the 15,000 km of coastline, it would seem sensible to have a few more patrol vessels available, especially if the closest naval presence might be hundreds of km's away.
-Cheers
East Timor & Solomon Island to be exact not individuals but a formed sub unit for Timor & the Unit for Solomons, by the end of PDT there was no difference in training standards between regular and reserve forces...you display the same lack of respect that is very common in the Regular force. Reserves are a valued and integrated part of Army because now both forces have the same Operational Outputs.
Navy could do the same to a certain extent all it takes is the will to make it happen.
CD
Zero Alpha
New Member
The facts just don't support your position. A review of the reserve forces concluded that most of the personnel likely to deploy are privates, the maximum deployment effort sustained by reserves totalled around 5% of their total nominal size, and the cost of maintaining them was equivalent to a regular force infantry battalion. That simply isn't value for money by any objective measure.
You've referenced operational outputs. There isn't any funded output that requires any form of reserve contribution to meet.
None of this takes anything away from the contribution individuals make, it just means that Defence needs to adapt and innovate and address the realities of the employment market.
Zero Alpha
New Member
Patrolling for what and defence from whom? Auckland and Wellington have Police units that patrol locally (and support fisheries,customs, biosecurity officials).
SAR requires rapid response and experienced crews. The costs of providing a service even remotely comparable to volunteer coastguard units would be prohibitive, and put community volunteers 'out of work.' Not exactly a clever PR move, and for what gain?
Tell that to the RF Section Commander or Platoon Commander who is or was on his 5th deployment, I am well aware of that report which was one sided and designed to get rid of the Reserves and failed for the simple fact the costing did not take into consideration that Reserve Force pay has factored into it holiday pay that is why the hourly rate for TF is always higher than RF.
Have a look at 1 Brigade Op outputs Reserves outputs are now the same as RF, 3/6 outputs are aligned to QAMR, 5/7 are aligned to 1RNZIR, 2/4 the same as 2/1 RNZIR do I need to go on for CSS etc.
Well Army adapted what holding up Navy not to long ago JFNZ were thinking of opening slots on ships to Army glad that one fell over.
You have the same view point of someone who has never trained or commanded reserve force personnel I should know because I would there the same arguments from my RF RNZIR brothers using the same logic, you can quote facts all you like but your words speak volumes on how you look down on the Reserves & the same misguided thinking that the money should and could be spent only on the RF. I am dammed grateful that the Reserves Forces stood up to give the 2 x RF RNZIR Bn groups a well needed break when we most needed it.
Im not going to pollute an RNZN thread ref Op outputs for Land based forces
but you asked and I gave you an answer Reserves have deployed as sub units or as a Unit Operationally and did the Job well.
Zero Alpha
New Member
I'd prefer you actually focused on the point rather than going on, but whatever.
I return to my point - it's the individuals that matter, not the traditional 'volunteer reserve' or 'territorial' construct. The historic framework is inefficient and outdated. The report you're so quick to criticise was commissioned by a defence minister who spent a significant amount of time in reserves. If that's the environment the cynicism is coming from, why shoot the messenger?
Pretty sure Reserves have served in most if not all of NZDFs major recent deployments, pretty much owned Solomons in the end (bar a few key roles) and continue to serve today(ie around 25% of Sinai contingent, where they excel as drivers, DIs, EngOs etc due to civ quals) so to say they have had their day is alittle off mark to say the least. The us vs them culture is not just confined to regular/reserve but can be found service/service, camp/camp and unit/unit, it can even happen within the same corp so is nothing new. The only thing that varies is the seriousness and severity and sometimes it's even a good thing as it breeds competition to be the 'best' in certain areas which equates to invariable up-skilling and development.
Interesting article on the RAN helo trainer (the fact they will even dedicate a ship to this is beyond us) that may even be a pre-cursor to future RAN OPV requirements, good looking ship. No doubt it would be advantageous of RNZN to follow closely for a possible LSWV/OPV soloution and along with End replacement could pave the way for another ANZAC project(s).
Isn't this why they have changed from the traditional Territorial structure to the more trade aligned Reserve format? They are now under the direct umbrella of their respective parent corps dependant on trade and aligned to their closest regular unit. This should in turn provide for even better training, access to equipment and 'RF/TF' cohesion as they will work with their peers directly a lot more often.
In saying that they still need a place to call home with other like minded individuals in the same boat (and area code) so only natural to maintain their own 'unit' and who's to say they won't get the next Solomons type op again as said unit.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Missile systems, defence systems - MBDA missiles
I haven't seen it stated anywhere, but strongly suspect we are piggy-backing on a larger British order to reduce costs, as with the MAN truck purchase.
The sale of SeaCeptor to NZ for the ANZAC upgrade has been confirmed. No great surprise following the announcement late last year, but good to see things progressing.
I haven't seen it stated anywhere, but strongly suspect we are piggy-backing on a larger British order to reduce costs, as with the MAN truck purchase.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
RNZN's maritime helicopter flies with Penguin missiles in test flight - IHS Jane's 360
Also in the news, Janes has a couple of nice shots of a Seaprite loaded with Penguins.
Also in the news, Janes has a couple of nice shots of a Seaprite loaded with Penguins.
Good fine. In that attached photo on the website (my fading eyes might be deceiving me) but that is a blurred ANZAC frigate in the background. If it is its missing its CIWS.
Nice to finally see a more effective Anti Ship weapon coming into service, its only taken NZ 20 years plus.
Background looks like one of the upgraded Aussie ANZACs - but it's only a publicity shot, wouldn't read anything into it.
p.s. HMAS Choules in Auckland yesterday, tied-up city side!
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
Does anyone know if the ANZAC frigates can still accommodate a second 8 cell VLS ?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The answer is a bit of maybe yes and no...
The RAN found that there was not enough of a top weight margin in the ANZAC-class FFH once the Harpoon AShM and mini-Typhoon mountings were fitted, and the existing Mk-41 VLS loaded with quad-packed ESSM, for a 2nd Mk-41 VLS to be included (or at least be included and loaded with anything...)
The RNZN situation is slightly different, because no Harpoons or Typhoons are fitted, but a Mk 15 Mod 1b Phalanx is. Another major difference is that the RNZN is replacing the RIM-7 Sea Sparrows with Sea Ceptor, which is a smaller, lighter missile which has an active radar seeker, vs. the semi-active radar seeker of the Sea Sparrow/ESSM missile family. This means that the RNZN frigates will not need to have an illuminator which can further reduce the topweight. Something else significant is that each quad-packed ESSM cannister weighs ~ the same as 11 Sea Ceptor missiles. The real issue though is that a 2nd VLS weighs ~12,000 kg (assuming the self-defence length)
Based off the weight of a VLS, it would seem that the RNZN also could not afford to add a 2nd Mk-41 VLS, at least not without removing the Mk-15 Phalanx.
Now the RNZN could opt to remove the Mk-41 VLS and add in the Sea Ceptor launcher which I believe is smaller/lighter, but I am uncertain what the exact impact would be in terms of weight reduction, as well as max missile loadout.
-Cheers