Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gibbo]

The LTDP gives a better idea of the future naval projects

- Typhoon contract has been signed for the 12.7mm.http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/news.aspx?FolderID=192

-The LTDP highlights the CIWS upgrade as a priority, noting it should begin ASAP at a cost of 20-25million.

-Torpedos are of a concern, stating the need to replace them ASAP, but that the funding will not be available for until 2012-2015.

I'm hoping National will look upon a couple of corvettes with favournfloorl:

Gee I'm on a roll today :

Yes good to see mini-tyohoon on the way. Makes me wonder tho' why they (govt) don't pull finger & do the full FIAC capability ASAP by hurrying up the block 1B upgrade for CIWS. Heck it's only $20-$25M and it's not as if they have to tender for possible option etc - they know what they want! Perhaps the RNZN are so used to being told 'make do' that they've lost all sense of urgency!?! Actually I'm not knocking RNZN - they do brilliantly with what they've got.

For example look at the RAN ANZAC mini-typhoon install. Only 2 RWS - but 2 TopLite Electro-Optic sensors that allows 360 degree day/night capability. Until we get 1B CIWS (2-3 years yet) RNZN ANZAC's will only have 1 TopLite, offering less than 360 degree sensor capability. On the cheap as always!

Another aspect is the Protector vessels - all 7 will get a forward mounted Electro-Optic sensor - what about aft? I've always maintained a real weakness of these vessels is that they should at least have an aft Electro-Optic sensor - even if they don't get an aft mounted RWS.

Some of the types of taskings the MRV (amphib) & OPV (counter-terrorism) have been designated for can quite realsitically carry the risk of FIAC (swarm or otherwise). Surely the risk to a vessel at night (esp. if moored) is SO obvious that the need for 360 degree day/night surveillance capability should be a no-brainer! The extra cost wouldn't be huge either!

Oh yeah & re: Corvettes. No chance now I reckon. When filling the OPV's role they should have gone for lower level Corvettes, but water under the bridge (so to speak!)

 

[Tasman]

Gee I'm on a roll today :

Yes good to see mini-tyohoon on the way. Makes me wonder tho' why they (govt) don't pull finger & do the full FIAC capability ASAP by hurrying up the block 1B upgrade for CIWS. Heck it's only $20-$25M and it's not as if they have to tender for possible option etc - they know what they want! Perhaps the RNZN are so used to being told 'make do' that they've lost all sense of urgency!?! Actually I'm not knocking RNZN - they do brilliantly with what they've got.

For example look at the RAN ANZAC mini-typhoon install. Only 2 RWS - but 2 TopLite Electro-Optic sensors that allows 360 degree day/night capability. Until we get 1B CIWS (2-3 years yet) RNZN ANZAC's will only have 1 TopLite, offering less than 360 degree sensor capability. On the cheap as always!

Another aspect is the Protector vessels - all 7 will get a forward mounted Electro-Optic sensor - what about aft? I've always maintained a real weakness of these vessels is that they should at least have an aft Electro-Optic sensor - even if they don't get an aft mounted RWS.

Some of the types of taskings the MRV (amphib) & OPV (counter-terrorism) have been designated for can quite realsitically carry the risk of FIAC (swarm or otherwise). Surely the risk to a vessel at night (esp. if moored) is SO obvious that the need for 360 degree day/night surveillance capability should be a no-brainer! The extra cost wouldn't be huge either!

Oh yeah & re: Corvettes. No chance now I reckon. When filling the OPV's role they should have gone for lower level Corvettes, but water under the bridge (so to speak!)

I don't understand why only one director is being fitted for the mini-typhoons. As I understand it from an earlier post the RAN vessels would be able to control two more RWS per ship so one console and one director would presumably be mated to a pair of RWS if the extra guns were fitted. It will be interesting to see if the RAN do add another pair as the ships I've observed seem to deploy with 4 x 0.5" MGs, 2 in RWS and 2 manual. Unlike the RAN vessels though, The RNZN Anzacs do have the Phalanx CIWS which gives another system which could be used against fast motor boats, etc, once the Block 1B upgrade is carried out. I still think that two directors, to ensure 360 degree coverage, would be sensible and it would surely not cost much.

Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

I don't understand why only one director is being fitted for the mini-typhoons. As I understand it from an earlier post the RAN vessels would be able to control two more RWS per ship so one console and one director would presumably be mated to a pair of RWS if the extra guns were fitted. It will be interesting to see if the RAN do add another pair as the ships I've observed seem to deploy with 4 x 0.5" MGs, 2 in RWS and 2 manual. Unlike the RAN vessels though, The RNZN Anzacs do have the Phalanx CIWS which gives another system which could be used against fast motor boats, etc, once the Block 1B upgrade is carried out. I still think that two directors, to ensure 360 degree coverage, would be sensible and it would surely not cost much.

Cheers

Why only one director? I'd put it down to the usual 'human factors' (ie: ignorance; politics etc - you get the picture).

Plan is I believe to mount mini-typhoons on RNZN ANZACs forward, unlike RAN. The long term plan is forward mounted mini-typhoon & 1B CIWS covering aft. With 1B CIWS sensors mounted on the radar pod itself this means rotating whole CIWS unit simply to utilise on-board sensors for surveillance - yes totally crazy why a rear mounted director still isn't planned. Cost? - minimal!

RNZN ANZACs carry 6 manual HMG stations (2 on forward 'chaff' deck - rest same positions as RAN).

 

[Tasman]

RNZN ANZACs carry 6 manual HMG stations (2 on forward 'chaff' deck - rest same positions as RAN).

I guess this area would be a bit crowded for HMG mounts on the RAN units that carry Harpoon canisters as well as chaff launchers on this deck!

When you talk about the mini typhoons being mounted forward in the NZ ships are you talking about the chaff deck or the midships HMG positions? Mounting them on the chaff deck would preclude mounting Harpoon there if the Kiwi units get this system in the future. In the RAN units the Harpoon installation was relocated from its planned position on 02 Deck to the position forward of the bridge, I think for reasons to do with the electronic environment.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Re: History of HMNZS Canterbury.

Does anyone remember an incident about the HMNZS Canterbury being in East Timor waters during the first East Timor conflict and where "Canterbury" was on patrol, when an Indonesian Sub sailed under neath? Did this actually occur or was it detected before it went underneath, or after it had sailed by and was picked up later either by another ship or the Canterbury.

If someone knows can they reply, cheers.

 

[Gibbo]

I guess this area would be a bit crowded for HMG mounts on the RAN units that carry Harpoon canisters as well as chaff launchers on this deck!

When you talk about the mini typhoons being mounted forward in the NZ ships are you talking about the chaff deck or the midships HMG positions? Mounting them on the chaff deck would preclude mounting Harpoon there if the Kiwi units get this system in the future. In the RAN units the Harpoon installation was relocated from its planned position on 02 Deck to the position forward of the bridge, I think for reasons to do with the electronic environment.

Cheers

Navy News from last year had an article which 'suggested' the weapon ststaion was to be installed on the 'bridge top sponson' - which isn't immediately obvious - although there is a small structure above & slighty back from the bridge top - although there is already something in that space. Short answer - I'm not certain.

p.s. Given that anti-ship missiles for the RNZN ANZACs have never been mentioned in LTDP then this won't be an issue with RWS placement (the only such project is misiles for P-3K).

 

[Whiskyjack]

Does anyone remember an incident about the HMNZS Canterbury being in East Timor waters during the first East Timor conflict and where "Canterbury" was on patrol, when an Indonesian Sub sailed under neath? Did this actually occur or was it detected before it went underneath, or after it had sailed by and was picked up later either by another ship or the Canterbury.

If someone knows can they reply, cheers.

Found this:

'The submarines shadowed the Interfet fleet, with one of them detected by the frigate HMNZS Canterbury close to the landing of New Zealand soldiers at Suai.'

At http://www.etan.org/et2001b/june/17-23/22reveal.htm

 

[Gibbo]

Both of your suggestions make a lot of sense Gibbo.

A MCMV can also double as a patrol vessel. The RAN has two of its six MCMVs permanently deployed for patrol work but they would be quickly available for minewarfare if needed.

I guess a multi role replenishment ship would cost more to buy and operate (larger crew for example) than a straight tanker but the benefits would be enormous. A vessel like this could operate without the helos and vehicles most of the time to keep crewing at minimal levels. I also think ships like this should be fitted with defensive weapons, over and above the 0.5" MGs presently carried in this type of vessel by the RNZN, even if they are not mounted in normal peacetime service. The RAN's Success, for example, is fitted to carry 2 x Phalanx CIWS, but they are not mounted when she is not deployed to a hotspot. It would be interesting to look around to see what type of vessel currently being built might meet the requirements you describe.

Cheers

With regard to that last point - after some sniffing around I reckon these generally show the type of vessel I suggest for an Endeavour replacement. I'd suspect the RNZN wouldn't want a vessel so long (simply because 170m would fit but result in a real squeeze at Devonport as there's limited available wharfage once Protector fleet is in service).

http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W269AG8H141INFOEN

 

[Markus40]

Cheers for that. It was just as well it was picked up and could have well have been a different situation if a preemptive stike was made against one of our or Australias Naval assets. I have a feeling the sub would have picked off our frigate before we knew what happened, despite the governments upgrading of the ships systems in the 1980s.

Found this:

'The submarines shadowed the Interfet fleet, with one of them detected by the frigate HMNZS Canterbury close to the landing of New Zealand soldiers at Suai.'

At http://www.etan.org/et2001b/june/17-23/22reveal.htm

 

[Whiskyjack]

With regard to that last point - after some sniffing around I reckon these generally show the type of vessel I suggest for an Endeavour replacement. I'd suspect the RNZN wouldn't want a vessel so long (simply because 170m would fit but result in a real squeeze at Devonport as there's limited available wharfage once Protector fleet is in service).

http://www.marine.de/01DB070000000001/CurrentBaseLink/W269AG8H141INFOEN

Completely agree Gibbo.

This leads to another capability gap. Assuming that a new tanker/support ship comes into service early next decade, the RNZN will have 5 Seasprites and 6 ships to operate them off.

I know that the LUH may have a role on the ships but, will they be equipped for operations overseas?

If the RAN can the their Seasprites, would it be possible to get 2-3 airframes and modify the avionics to RNZN standard? I am not sure the RNZN would even want to go there.

 

[Gibbo]

Found this:

'The submarines shadowed the Interfet fleet, with one of them detected by the frigate HMNZS Canterbury close to the landing of New Zealand soldiers at Suai.'

At http://www.etan.org/et2001b/june/17-23/22reveal.htm

I believe Canterbury was in company of HMAS Success at the time (must check - documented in a book at home about the NZ deployment to ET published 2001). Apparently the old girl's sonar clearly picked up the sub & after repeated attempts to communicate with the sub it disappeared. I'd suggest a friendly chat wasn't on their minds but consisted more of 'warnings'!?!

p.s. Note RNZAF Shyhawks being put on advance notice. They never deployed - pity, if they had we'd probably never have lost the air combat wing. Oh well, ancient history now I guess! National has given it's stongest indication yet that an air combat force is unlikely....read on:

"National seeks ideas on defence policy "
By HANK SCHOUTEN - The Dominion Post | Tuesday, 27 February 2007

The National Party is casting around for a new defence policy - and plans a series of forums to help get its ideas together.

Defence spokesman Wayne Mapp said meetings would be held throughout New Zealand in the next few months. These would essentially be internal party meetings, but people with a good knowledge of defence and foreign policy issues would also be invited.

The move echoes leader John Key's plan to set up a foreign affairs think tank, drawing on a wider group than his caucus.

Dr Mapp said National wanted to come up with a firmer defence policy than it had at the last election but he said it was unlikely to promise restoration of a combat air force.

National vehemently attacked the government's decision six years ago to disband the air combat wing rather than replace its squadron of old Skyhawk fighter-bombers with F16 jets offered on lease by the United States.

But Dr Mapp said the air combat issue was now probably past.

"The financial situation dictates that. To run an air combat wing properly is a $200 million-a- year exercise and it is not obvious to me that's where we should spend our next $200 million."

But National could look at putting the Aermacchi jet trainers back into use.

National Party policy on some defence issues has been unclear for several years.

Mr Key cleared away confusion when he became leader last year and declared the ban on nuclear-powered and armed ships would continue under his leadership."
(ends)

 

[Whiskyjack]

Cheers for that. It was just as well it was picked up and could have well have been a different situation if a preemptive stike was made against one of our or Australias Naval assets. I have a feeling the sub would have picked off our frigate before we knew what happened, despite the governments upgrading of the ships systems in the 1980s.

Not sure about that, the Canterbury. while an old ship had extensive upgrades through her life. Not to mention that the Indonesian Subs are of a similar age and not as well upgraded.

Also I think the Indonesians were embarking on harassment ops not offensive ops. I don't think their C3 was up to the sort of co-ordination they would have needed. But I guess you can't be to certain and hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Markus40]

There will be a Maritime Helo capability gap coming up once the Protector Class ships come into operation. The 5 Seasprites will be assigned to the ANZACs and the LUH and the OPVs and maintenance? That would leave at least 3-4 still outstanding. Maybe the government will want to see something happen here in the future.

Completely agree Gibbo.

This leads to another capability gap. Assuming that a new tanker/support ship comes into service early next decade, the RNZN will have 5 Seasprites and 6 ships to operate them off.

I know that the LUH may have a role on the ships but, will they be equipped for operations overseas?

If the RAN can the their Seasprites, would it be possible to get 2-3 airframes and modify the avionics to RNZN standard? I am not sure the RNZN would even want to go there.

 

[Gibbo]

Completely agree Gibbo.

This leads to another capability gap. Assuming that a new tanker/support ship comes into service early next decade, the RNZN will have 5 Seasprites and 6 ships to operate them off.

I know that the LUH may have a role on the ships but, will they be equipped for operations overseas?

If the RAN can the their Seasprites, would it be possible to get 2-3 airframes and modify the avionics to RNZN standard? I am not sure the RNZN would even want to go there.

I was thinking of Helo capability on a Endeavour replacement as more a taxi service to allow choppers to be rotated for heavy maintenance during longer deployments (eg NH-90 or LUH), as such a vessel would primarily be tasked with re-supply & support Op's rather than independent extended deployment.

In combat support OP's the escorting force would have capable Helo on hand, for amphib the MRV would have up to 4 NH-90's on board. But granted - enough airframes to allow 'new Endeavour' to embark own Helo would be ideal capability boost.

 

[Markus40]

I think personally my bet would have had to be with the Indonesian sub, for the very reason of stealth and its ability to hit and run. The Canterbury did have significant upgrades in the 1980s mostly with its surface radar and systems replacement, but the sonar equipment wasnt as well upgraded as the new surface radar systems from what i know.

The harrassmet ops could well have turned into a pre emptive strike i guess and things could have been different. I also doubt the sub would have allowed itself to be detected if its intentions by the Indonesian government was to fire on the Canterbury. And quite simply i doubt that the Canterbury would have picked up the sub before it was all over, unfortunatly.

Not sure about that, the Canterbury. while an old ship had extensive upgrades through her life. Not to mention that the Indonesian Subs are of a similar age and not as well upgraded.

Also I think the Indonesians were embarking on harassment ops not offensive ops. I don't think their C3 was up to the sort of co-ordination they would have needed. But I guess you can't be to certain and hindsight is 20/20.

 

[Tasman]

Found this:

'The submarines shadowed the Interfet fleet, with one of them detected by the frigate HMNZS Canterbury close to the landing of New Zealand soldiers at Suai.'

At http://www.etan.org/et2001b/june/17-23/22reveal.htm

Thanks for the post Whiskjack. Very interesting.

East Timor showed how quickly problems can arise. When they do the armed forces, particularly the navy and air force, have to make do with what they have.

The deployment of the Kiwi Skyhawks to back up their troops, along with the fact that a frigate found itself in a 'hot' situation, demonstrates the folly of NZ abandoning its air combat force and not fitting the Anzacs with the same level of equipment as the Oz vessels (e.g. ESSM and Harpoon).

From an Australian point of view the impact that the possession of a potent strike force (the F111Cs) had on Indonesian planning and the value of the RNZAF strike force (A4K Skyhawks) for possible anti shipping operations are two lessons that ought to be noted, as was the ability of the army to be able to deploy quickly and in force to generate a level of shock to the Indonesians.

Cheers

 

[Whiskyjack]

I was thinking of Helo capability on a Endeavour replacement as more a taxi service to allow choppers to be rotated for heavy maintenance during longer deployments (eg NH-90 or LUH), as such a vessel would primarily be tasked with re-supply & support Op's rather than independent extended deployment.

In combat support OP's the escorting force would have capable Helo on hand, for amphib the MRV would have up to 4 NH-90's on board. But granted - enough airframes to allow 'new Endeavour' to embark own Helo would be ideal capability boost.

The new vessel along with the MRV and Frigates are the most likely to be deployed outside the region, it is therefore IMO ideal, as you say Gibbo, to have a Seasprite available for each. The MRV for example is designed to carry 4 NH-90s AND a Seaprite. The ability to carry a Seasprite enables the MRV and the new 'Tanker' to contribute to force protection and projection in a task force environment.

To have one Seasprite for each of the 4 ships plus training and maintenance, would indicate at least one more airframe, preferably 2.

 

[Markus40]

If anyone is interested the old HMNZS Canterbury is sitting at the Opua wharf in the Bay of Islands for a strip down. Still amazing ship to see and its sad somewhat to see a ex cold war frigate having to go under as a diving reef.

 

[Markus40]

I STRONGLY agree with this comment Tasman. Good to see someone who understands the dynamics of Defence and regional deployment. Good on you.

Thanks for the post Whiskjack. Very interesting.

East Timor showed how quickly problems can arise. When they do the armed forces, particularly the navy and air force, have to make do with what they have.

The deployment of the Kiwi Skyhawks to back up their troops, along with the fact that a frigate found itself in a 'hot' situation, demonstrates the folly of NZ abandoning its air combat force and not fitting the Anzacs with the same level of equipment as the Oz vessels (e.g. ESSM and Harpoon).

From an Australian point of view the impact that the possession of a potent strike force (the F111Cs) had on Indonesian planning and the value of the RNZAF strike force (A4K Skyhawks) for possible anti shipping operations are two lessons that ought to be noted, as was the ability of the army to be able to deploy quickly and in force to generate a level of shock to the Indonesians.

Cheers

 

[Gibbo]

There will be a Maritime Helo capability gap coming up once the Protector Class ships come into operation. The 5 Seasprites will be assigned to the ANZACs and the LUH and the OPVs and maintenance? That would leave at least 3-4 still outstanding. Maybe the government will want to see something happen here in the future.

SeaSprites will be prioritised for ANZAC deployments, with MRV & OPV embarking when available (or as required depending on nature of deployment). I suspect NH-90 will most likely become the most common Helo type embarked on MRV - even for patrol OP's. LUH tender already states a possible future light maritime utility role - I interpret the latter as patrol OP's from MRV & OPV when required due to unavailability of other 2 airframe types.

The above scenarios are likely to rule out purchase of further SeaSprites

p.s. Let it be known - I LOVE SEASPRITES!!!!!!!!:nutkick