Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
And the French P400 is a patrol ship much like the IPVs, their largest gun being a 40-mm mount, nor do they have a helicopter hangar. I would consider them similar to New Zealand's IPVs, except designed for at sea patrols. Thus they are slightly larger than NZ's IPVs to carry more fuel. I believe NZ's IPVs were designed for 3,000 miles of range.
We can go about this all day. Its true the smaller ship can go as far as a frigate, but not with a frigates weapons and sensors, nor at the same speed. Even NZ's IPVs have considerable range for their size.
New Zealand has done wonderfully in my book, buying as many Project Protector ships as they did, and with the ranges these ships have. Unfortunately, I wouldn't consider any of these ships warships, they are what they claim to be, PATROL SHIPS. You don't need a huge gun mount for a patrol ship.
We can go about this all day. Its true the smaller ship can go as far as a frigate, but not with a frigates weapons and sensors, nor at the same speed. Even NZ's IPVs have considerable range for their size.
New Zealand has done wonderfully in my book, buying as many Project Protector ships as they did, and with the ranges these ships have. Unfortunately, I wouldn't consider any of these ships warships, they are what they claim to be, PATROL SHIPS. You don't need a huge gun mount for a patrol ship.
Last edited:
The question I think should be asked is if the ships can do what they were intended for. And the OPV or IPV designation says it all in my opinion.
I mean the Dutch are buying new OPV's that are 3750t. But their armament reflect OPV tasks and not frigate tasks. No CIWS and no VLS, because an OPV doesn't need them. And because it wasn't designed for it, the goalkeeper the Dutch use can't be fitted afterwards (without serious modifications), even though the ship is HUGE for an OPV.
The boxer-engine of the volkswagen transporter t3 (a van) can be replaced by the turbo boxer-engine of the old subaru impreza (a sedan), which is more than 3 times as powerful. But I don't want to drive it. If you wanted a fast and big car, you would have been better off buying a volvo XC90. (And if you wanted to go from A to B in Rome, I'd say a nice Vespa is the best choice. Again a question of the task your vehicle has.)
I think the same is true for ships. If it was designed as an OPV it will never function as good as a real frigate that was designed for it's specific tasks.
I mean the Dutch are buying new OPV's that are 3750t. But their armament reflect OPV tasks and not frigate tasks. No CIWS and no VLS, because an OPV doesn't need them. And because it wasn't designed for it, the goalkeeper the Dutch use can't be fitted afterwards (without serious modifications), even though the ship is HUGE for an OPV.
The boxer-engine of the volkswagen transporter t3 (a van) can be replaced by the turbo boxer-engine of the old subaru impreza (a sedan), which is more than 3 times as powerful. But I don't want to drive it. If you wanted a fast and big car, you would have been better off buying a volvo XC90. (And if you wanted to go from A to B in Rome, I'd say a nice Vespa is the best choice. Again a question of the task your vehicle has.)
I think the same is true for ships. If it was designed as an OPV it will never function as good as a real frigate that was designed for it's specific tasks.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
The problem is the Canterbury: Army is supposed to be able to go into combat, and to get their gear anywhere they have to go by sea, if the army is in a combat zone one would have to consider the sea zone to also be a possible combat zone, would be nice if the MRV had a point defence weapon. Mind you, not having one is a nice 'out' for a politician.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
You are, of course, correct, trouble is that everyone want a combat force as well and so are trying to work out how to do this with the OPV's. I understand from a reliable source that this topic is also one that occurs around the water-cooler wherever RNZN type's congregate, but goes no further than that.
Oh for a defence policy that looked further than the South Pacific a bigger budget that reflected it!
Canterbury is only supposed to be able to undertake what are essentially administrative offloads, not tactical ones. Big difference
The Australians are buying Canberra class LHDs with similar 25-mm gun mounts as the Canterbury. Do the Australians think their new sea lift ships are under gunned? The Canterbury's gun is the same 25-mm Bushmaster guns of the New Zealand Army's LAVIIIs. If the army thinks they are good enough, the navy should too.
I have searched for the smallest ship with a five-inch gun mount. The smallest I have found is the Italian Lupo class. A frigate.
Fortunately, the navy has 5-inch guns on their Anzacs. If the situation warranted a larger gun, I am sure the Anzacs could escort the Canterbury and provide the needed larger gun. I am sure if the Canterbury was facing an opposed landing, New Zealand would send a task force of a fleet, not just one ship. And I would suspect an allied fleet, an Australian fleet would probably be in the lead.
Last edited:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Oh, ok, I wasn't aware that such ships were off limits in a war, thanks for telling me.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
And yet US amphibs have CIWS, is there something they are not telling the rest of us? Or more probably the Aussies had a budget to stick to.
Well that would be relevant if the Canterbury is expected to fight on land.
If you can show that 5' guns have shot down missiles that might be relevant to what I said about a need for a CIWS.
Which has what to do with the need for CIWS in a warzone?
You know, maybe you want to address what I said instead of building up such a blatant strawman about opposed landings and NGFS? Just in case you missed it, I said "Point Defence Weapon" Since when does "Point Defence Weapon" become a 5' gun?
That's a really useful contribution Stuart, thanks.
The point is that Canterbury isn't designed for an employment context where it is likely to be shot at.
It's relevant because it's considered adequate to deal with soft targets. Your average light armoured vehicle target, like the LAV is designed to shoot at, is considerably more technically challenging to disable than a RHIB or a Haines Hunter speedboat.Stuart Mackey said:
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Well that's what you get when you suggest that a military transport is somehow off limits to enemy action by fiat of its unloading method.
Neither were the Merchant ships sunk in WW2, but sunk they were. Those ships were still armed because, despite their "Employment Context", I guess somebody felt the enemy might like to deprive the allies of valuable war material before it was used against them, and self protection might be a good idea. Or perhaps you want to tell me that they were off limits because of their "employment context", or just their method of unloading?
But not a missile, in a combat zone, aimed at the ship.
Given that Canterbury is the RNZN's only transport ship, a basic point defence gun is but prudence, when its transporting troop and equipment into a warzone.
What's next, you going to tell me that sinking transports in a war is 'unfair'?
I am sure New Zealand would add CIWS to the Canterbury if the government ever felt threatened by an armed aggressor in the South Pacific. Unfortunately, the government doesn't feel threatened. If the government did they would never have casually dismissed the Anzus pact or its air combat force. And rightly so, there are no evil presidents or tin horn dictators in the vicinity of New Zealand.
Stuart Mackey
New Member
Ahh, finally! Some one who seems to grasp the concept of how world view drives policy drives purchases! Best response to a comment I have seen in weeks.
Of course, that begs the question of is this 'South Pacific view' realistic given given the nature of New Zealand's worldwide interests and that NZ's way of life, standard of living and political independence are not determined within the South Pacific?
battlensign
New Member
Definately not.......but don't let that get in the way of defence cuts...(besides, Aus will pay).Ahh, finally! Some one who seems to grasp the concept of how world view drives policy drives purchases! Best response to a comment I have seen in weeks.
Of course, that begs the question of is this 'South Pacific view' realistic given given the nature of New Zealand's worldwide interests and that NZ's way of life, standard of living and political independence are not determined within the South Pacific?
Brett.
The Canterbury was bought to transport an army company group, to be useful as a tactical sea lift ship, to be able to embark and disembark the force over a beach when a pier is unavailable for benign unopposed operations, patrol New Zealand's EEZ, to train crews as a training ship, and be available for evacuations and humanitarian missions. She was called a multi-role ship for a reason. All of a sudden she is expected to do opposed landing operations. One doesn't buy a multi-role vessel to do this, one buys a proper amphibious ship, not a converted ro-ro passenger ferry.
battlensign
New Member
Agreed.
Canterbury will be an immensely useful ship for the RNZN as is. She ought not to be expected to perform unrealistic roles. (2 would be better
)An opposed landing would not be made using a company group. Supporting assets would be required. NZ also lacks the doctrines for that sort of operation. Even a contribution to such a coalition action - which it would surely be - would probably not be made as a company group in an opposed landing. A contribution to following-on forces may be more realistic.
Brett.
What bothers me more is the navy having a shortage of technical personnel currently. From what I have read the Anzac frigate not being deployed is more or less laid up, her technical personnel being used to provide the personnel for the Project Protector ships. I do hope their navy is able to overcome this shortage quickly and as soon as possible. Many wish to turn these patrol ships into warships, but there is a bigger fish to fry in my opinion, manning the crews for all their ships.
I have not caught up with any Kiwi sailors recently but I have been on course's with them before and chatting about pay it becomes clear that they get paid a pittance compared to Aussie sailors doing the same job and nowhere near to be competitive with private industry in a resurgent NZ economy.
I don't know if it has changed but a mate of mine said that they only get paid sea going allowance when they are actually at sea (opposed to just being posted to a commissioned ship in the RAN). When they did get seagoing it was stuff all and is not tiered like is is across in the "West Island" (which gives real incentive to be a seagoing sailor not a depot stanchion).
Also they didn't have rental allowance (which is a huge amount if your a sydney sailor).
The Kiwi's are better of in the fact that the still mainly do "Jollie" trips compared to RAN, in which Jollies have become very very.....very scarce due to op tempo.
However Jollies are not going to keep a young techo sailor in forever when he could easly make twice as much on the outside and still go home at night.
If the RNZN wants to be able to crew its smick new fleet they need to get serious about paying realistic wages to not just the techo's but all their sailors.
I don't know if it has changed but a mate of mine said that they only get paid sea going allowance when they are actually at sea (opposed to just being posted to a commissioned ship in the RAN). When they did get seagoing it was stuff all and is not tiered like is is across in the "West Island" (which gives real incentive to be a seagoing sailor not a depot stanchion).
Also they didn't have rental allowance (which is a huge amount if your a sydney sailor).
The Kiwi's are better of in the fact that the still mainly do "Jollie" trips compared to RAN, in which Jollies have become very very.....very scarce due to op tempo.
However Jollies are not going to keep a young techo sailor in forever when he could easly make twice as much on the outside and still go home at night.
If the RNZN wants to be able to crew its smick new fleet they need to get serious about paying realistic wages to not just the techo's but all their sailors.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Unfortunately that is a problem across the board in the NZDF, last time I checked Riflemen got paid well under 30,000 a year, and yet the Gov wants to make recruitment a priority.