Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Lucasnz]

I'm going to disagree with the view that NZ does not need more lift capability. I am open however to how its acheived.

Absolutely, of course we need to keep the exisiting two OPV's (accept certain operational limitations).

Yes I agree were stuck with them, it just a matter of maximising their capability in light of their weight restrictions.

But remembering that the maritime patrol review advocated 3 or 4 OPV's to meet govt objectives, we are 1 or 2 short, hence the suggestion to build another two. Maybe a Thetis or "ANZAC/Meko OPV" variant could be an option for another two ships and give NZ a much needed capability boost (and backup for the ANZAC Frigates).

.

I think the backup to the ANZAC's need to be considered in conjuction with the OPV's. Going back to the original spec's for the ANZAC project, as follows....

• 6000nm @ 18kts with a top speed of around 24kts
• Medium Cal gun
• Point defence missile system
• ASW capability

The Thetis could meet all but the top speed and be modified to take Sea Ram.
The MEKO 100 could also do these but loses on the crucial range factor. I don't think building MEKO 200 ANZAC hulls are an option, given the Gas Turbine etc. If you're going to go down the Patrol Frigate route then I think you need to drop the option for additional "Protector Class OPV" on cost grounds, when you factor in Endeavours replacement. Buying two Thetis class (which I like for a number of reasons, but dislike for speed) would give NZ 2 High Capability x 2 Mid Capability x 2 Capabilty ships. When the replacement ANZAC program comes round then we move to a 3 x 3 x 3 concept.

An ideal fleet of 4 Frigates, 4 OPV's and support vessels seems like a prudent and basic minimal RNZN fleet to me!

I agree the 4 Frigate option would be nice, but it was based on the concept that one ship would also be in refit, leaving three ships operational. The ANZAC's don't really do refit's the way the Leander's did, the equipment is changed out or overhauled during maintenance periods. So 3 ANZAC hulls can do most of the work, but not all of the work of 4 Leanders. 3 I think is the min (1 in Mainteance / Training)(1 @ DLOC)(1 @ OLOC).

 

[greenie]

I cant remember which mag I saw it in where Rolls Royce were offering up a modified container ship as a lower cost RFA for Australia. The idea around the container ship was that everything was modular and already designed around the 20ft container and very simple to modify from new or second hand.
I will try to dig it out , it made many comparisons against converting a liquid carrier and seamed to make alot of sense when I read it.
Sorry not much else to report.

 

[Gibbo]

Tentative dates for IPV / OPV delivery

Very last paragraph states ..."The two OPVs and four IPVs have successfully completed sea trials and are in the final preparation stages for delivery. BAE Systems Australia is expected to offer them for acceptance by the Crown between February and April 2009".

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/project-protector.html

From all accoounts the sea-trials showed these 6 vessels to be good-performers so it's not all bad news! Granted OPV's might have weight issues but I'm quitely confident all 6 PV's will be generally successful, and popular with crews. :unknown

 

[Sea Toby]

New Zealand has done well with these ships for the very low rock bottom price paid. Sure, there were better options with better ships, but not for a similar low price.

 

[Aussie Digger]

.

I think the backup to the ANZAC's need to be considered in conjuction with the OPV's. Going back to the original spec's for the ANZAC project, as follows....

• 6000nm @ 18kts with a top speed of around 24kts
• Medium Cal gun
• Point defence missile system
• ASW capability

I think a close in anti-surface defence capability is also an absolute MUST have these days, with Mini-Typhoon/12.7mm or equivalent as the BARE minimum for such a capability...

A 12.7mm/25mm combo would be the superior solution I would suggest...

 

[Gibbo]

I think a close in anti-surface defence capability is also an absolute MUST have these days, with Mini-Typhoon/12.7mm or equivalent as the BARE minimum for such a capability...

A 12.7mm/25mm combo would be the superior solution I would suggest...

Totally agree, mini-typhoon (.50cal) & 25mm bushmaster or similar with Toplite EO sensor turret. The key is to ensure there is all-weather/day-night cover for 360 degree angle of surface approach against FIAC. Given the PV's are tasked with counter-terrorism as a secondary role then the above is essential. Pirates might not fight back (well the thick ones do breifly!) - but terrorists most certainly do! But that's as far as I'd up-arm these particular PV's.

RNZN ANZACs will almost be there (soon) - mini-typhoon forward (above bridge) with Block 1B Phalanx above hangar. Trouble is there is only currenty 1 Toplite turret forward, unlike RAN ANZACs that have Toplite forward & aft.

 

[alexsa]

I cant remember which mag I saw it in where Rolls Royce were offering up a modified container ship as a lower cost RFA for Australia. The idea around the container ship was that everything was modular and already designed around the 20ft container and very simple to modify from new or second hand.
I will try to dig it out , it made many comparisons against converting a liquid carrier and seamed to make alot of sense when I read it.
Sorry not much else to report.

Just for clarification are you suggesting modifying a container ship to a tanker?

Sorry it is not simple to modify a container ship to a tanker. The vessel structures are completely different not to mention issues such as pipe work being intergral to the design. Container ships are built around a side tanks and torson box structure and would need quite a bit of work to build in tankage. This does not mean it is not possible, jsut difficult and I struggle to see how this would be economically viable.

RR do have high speed support vessel designs but these are new build

http://www.rolls-royce.com/marine/about/market_sectors/naval/naval_auxiliaries/index.jsp

 

[Sea Toby]

Totally agree, mini-typhoon (.50cal) & 25mm bushmaster or similar with Toplite EO sensor turret. The key is to ensure there is all-weather/day-night cover for 360 degree angle of surface approach against FIAC. Given the PV's are tasked with counter-terrorism as a secondary role then the above is essential. Pirates might not fight back (well the thick ones do breifly!) - but terrorists most certainly do! But that's as far as I'd up-arm these particular PV's.

RNZN ANZACs will almost be there (soon) - mini-typhoon forward (above bridge) with Block 1B Phalanx above hangar. Trouble is there is only currenty 1 Toplite turret forward, unlike RAN ANZACs that have Toplite forward & aft.

Aren't the Phalanx CIWS being updated for lower surface shooting? The Phalanx will more or less substitute for the rear mounted Aussie Topflight. The Aussie Anzacs most of the time don't carry Phalanx CIWS, unless they are being deployed to the Persian Gulf.

 

[Todjaeger]

Aren't the Phalanx CIWS being updated for lower surface shooting? The Phalanx will more or less substitute for the rear mounted Aussie Topflight. The Aussie Anzacs most of the time don't carry Phalanx CIWS, unless they are being deployed to the Persian Gulf.

I was under the impression that the RAN Anzacs never carried the Phalanx, having never been fitted with them (IIRC due to topweight issues). Rather the RAN Phalanxes are pooled together for use & deployment from the various Adelaide-class FFGs, as well as the Tobruk, Manimbla, Kanoora and Success...

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Strange, just about every other Meko 200 does carry some sort of CIWS, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, and South Africa. Never-the-less, many navies are improving and updating the CIWS for sea surface shooting too. 20-mm is a bit more gun power than a 12.5-mm mount.

 

[Lucasnz]

Totally agree, mini-typhoon (.50cal) & 25mm bushmaster or similar with Toplite EO sensor turret. The key is to ensure there is all-weather/day-night cover for 360 degree angle of surface approach against FIAC. Given the PV's are tasked with counter-terrorism as a secondary role then the above is essential. Pirates might not fight back (well the thick ones do breifly!) - but terrorists most certainly do! But that's as far as I'd up-arm these particular PV's.

RNZN ANZACs will almost be there (soon) - mini-typhoon forward (above bridge) with Block 1B Phalanx above hangar. Trouble is there is only currenty 1 Toplite turret forward, unlike RAN ANZACs that have Toplite forward & aft.

Yes quite right about the need for a system mini-typhoon. IMHO I think the reason the RNZN one has one toplite director is because of the Phalanx aft.

I think 20-25mm is the way to go if you're looking at effectively countering FIAC.

 

[recce.k1]

The first of the RNZN's (two) Phalanx Block 1B upgrades has commenced according to the MoD.

I suppose the ideal would be to also have a Phalanx CIWS mounted fore and aft on the RNZN ANZAC's, like this Greek Meko 200 to give all round coverage against missiles, FIAC, helos and mines etc.

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/phalanx/
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilitie...ts/content/rtn_rms_ps_phalanx_ciws_datash.pdf

And have the two Mini-Typhoons mounted port and starboard specifically for FIAC threats (which they more-or-less give now, mounted above the bridge etc).

I wonder, as a layman, that another toplite mounted aft, like the RAN's ANZAC's, would give better all-round coverage for the RNZN Mini-Typhoon system, but I suppose the proposed Phalanx Block 1B's FLIR (etc) will integrate into the ANZAC's combat system hence I suppose the proposed configuration of toplite/mini-typhoons fore and Phalanx aft will be just as good as having two Toplites etc. With the added advantage of the Phalanx being able to take on a wider range and scale of threats over the Mini-Typhoon.

Not seen any detail of the range of Phalanx v Mini-Typhoon's detection systems etc to be able to make any comparisons (I suppose it's confidential etc), so I guess only an enlightened defence professional here would be able advise on the ideal set-up for the RNZN's Frigates. No doubt the RNZN and MoD of course have evaluated all this quite naturally and have made a good decision.

In terms of the OPV's with their two 0.5 Cal guns behind the bridge facing port and starboard/aft, an upgrade to Mini-Typhoon's with a Toplite (two?) would be the ideal IMO.

 

[ThePuss]

I wonder, as a layman, that another toplite mounted aft, like the RAN's ANZAC's, would give better all-round coverage for the RNZN Mini-Typhoon system, but I suppose the proposed Phalanx Block 1B's FLIR (etc) will integrate into the ANZAC's combat system hence I suppose the proposed configuration of toplite/mini-typhoons fore and Phalanx aft will be just as good as having two Toplites etc. With the added advantage of the Phalanx being able to take on a wider range and scale of threats over the Mini-Typhoon.

Not seen any detail of the range of Phalanx v Mini-Typhoon's detection systems etc to be able to make any comparisons (I suppose it's confidential etc), so I guess only an enlightened defence professional here would be able advise on the ideal set-up for the RNZN's Frigates. No doubt the RNZN and MoD of course have evaluated all this quite naturally and have made a good decision.


In terms of the OPV's with their two 0.5 Cal guns behind the bridge facing port and starboard/aft, an upgrade to Mini-Typhoon's with a Toplite (two?) would be the ideal IMO.

A couple of points

The FWD Toplite on RAN ANZACs is purely used as a EOD as the fwd two 50 cal mounts are still crew served. So the only difference between the aussie and kiwi Mini-T / Toplite set up is the aussie's mount their system aft while Kiwi's have it Fwd. Also dont forget that Mini-T can be fired independently from Toplite as it has it's own onboard day/night camera (it can also be fired manually).

RAN ANZACs can not mount CIWS as the space is taken up by the two Aft Nulka launchers (on top of which is the Aft Toplite). Also CIWS can not be intergrated into a ANZAC combat system or any other CS as it is a stand alone system.

To answer you question about ideal setup, two Mini-T's Fwd with a block 1B CIWS aft all backed up by the good old 5" 54 Cal gun and a couple of crew served 50cal's the RNZN ANZACs are going to have excellent close in defence against asymmetric threats.

On another point I wonder why RNZN went with MSI DS25 gun for the Protector fleet instead of Typhoon? If they went with Typhoon there would be a common supply chain and it would allow you to "plug and play" with Mini-T, Typhoon and Toplite between your ships.

 

[Lucasnz]

On another point I wonder while RNZN went with MSI DS25 gun for the Protector fleet instead of Typhoon? If they went with Typhoon there would be a common supply chain and it would allow you to "plug and play" with Mini-T, Typhoon and Toplite between your ships.

I believe one reason given (I think it was in Navy Today) was that the LAV's are fitted with the M242 Bushmaster gun as well, so there's savings in logistics, ammo. I agree the Kiwi ANZAC's have a good asymetric capability. I can't wait to see what the rest of the upgrades will bring. A written response to a parliamentry question in 2007 estimate a total upgrade cost CIWS, Platform and Self Defence at 535 million.

 

[recce.k1]

ThePuss - thanks for your reply. I wrongly thought the Phalanx 1B could be integrated into the ANZAC's combat system from the info on the Raytheon PDF link, where at the bottom of page 2 it said "Interface and control to provide fire-control and search-sensor capability for other shipboard gun and missile systems", which in the context of your explaination means I guess no it can't intergrate into a combat system, it simply means the Phalanx can integrate other systems into itself eg RAM etc.

Good question about the OPV gun set-up, I've wondered that myself and thought perhaps the reason is the MSI guns were evaluated before Mini-Typhoon systems and FIAC threats became an issue for the RNZN. The Govt here a couple of years ago said that the RNZN Mini-Typhoon purchase came about after the RAN's experience in the Gulf (presumably since Op Enduring Freedom) hence the RNZN would also follow suit etc.

PS what does EOD mean?

 

[ThePuss]

I believe one reason given (I think it was in Navy Today) was that the LAV's are fitted with the M242 Bushmaster gun as well, so there's savings in logistics, ammo. I agree the Kiwi ANZAC's have a good asymetric capability. I can't wait to see what the rest of the upgrades will bring. A written response to a parliamentry question in 2007 estimate a total upgrade cost CIWS, Platform and Self Defence at 535 million.

Medium calibre naval mounts are normaly able to be fitted with a range of guns anywhere between 20mm right up 35mm in some cases. The Typhoon mounts on the RAN's Armidale class PB (ACPB) are fitted with M242 Bushmaster so the RAN enjoys the same commonality with weapon and ammo used by our armys LAV fleet as the RNZN.
Unfortunately we also have on the Huon class minesweepers (2 of the 6 are currently used as PB's) the same MSI mount as the Protector fleet but with a 30mm gun so we have six orphan guns used no where else in our defence force.

 

[ThePuss]

ThePuss - thanks for your reply. I wrongly thought the Phalanx 1B could be integrated into the ANZAC's combat system from the info on the Raytheon PDF link, where at the bottom of page 2 it said "Interface and control to provide fire-control and search-sensor capability for other shipboard gun and missile systems", which in the context of your explaination means I guess no it can't intergrate into a combat system, it simply means the Phalanx can integrate other systems into itself eg RAM etc.

Good question about the OPV gun set-up, I've wondered that myself and thought perhaps the reason is the MSI guns were evaluated before Mini-Typhoon systems and FIAC threats became an issue for the RNZN. The Govt here a couple of years ago said that the RNZN Mini-Typhoon purchase came about after the RAN's experience in the Gulf (presumably since Op Enduring Freedom) hence the RNZN would also follow suit etc.

PS what does EOD mean?

Hmmmm I stand corrected looks like the 1B in now interfaceable to combat systems...Good news!.

EOD means Electronic Optical Device mate. The FWD Toplite on a RAN ANZAC is used for search. We relied on a poor quality black and white camera on the main director before it was fitted and it is a vast improvement.

 

[recce.k1]

Thanx again ThePuss! So what's the "missing piece(s)" needed on the RAN ANZAC's to get the Fwd Toplite/Mini-Typhoon "automated" like the system facing aft?

Or maybe the question should be, what's the rationale in doing it this way (manual operated M/T fore and automated/manual M/T aft) on RAN ANZAC's?

Also I wonder then where the RNZN would fit the Nulka decoy system if they decide to purchase it? (Conversely could the RAN move their's to accommodate an aft Phalanx)?

Lucasnz: I do hope our Treasury don't cut back on the remaining RNZN ANZAC upgrade!

 

[ThePuss]

Thanx again ThePuss! So what's the "missing piece(s)" needed on the RAN ANZAC's to get the Fwd Toplite/Mini-Typhoon "automated" like the system facing aft?

Or maybe the question should be, what's the rationale in doing it this way (manual operated M/T fore and automated/manual M/T aft) on RAN ANZAC's?

Also I wonder then where the RNZN would fit the Nulka decoy system if they decide to purchase it? (Conversely could the RAN move their's to accommodate an aft Phalanx)?

Lucasnz: I do hope our Treasury don't cut back on the remaining RNZN ANZAC upgrade!

If the money was found it would be a simple thing to replace the fwd crew served 50 cals with Mini-T and interface them with the FWD Toplite. Mini-T / Toplite is not a automated system as you still need operators to man the consoles.

The reason the RAN put there Mini-T's Aft is because 02 deck Aft is a VERY bad place to be. The old crew served mounts (same place as the new Mini-T's) are right next to the Nulka launchers and quite close to the VLS not to mention all of 02 deck aft is a RADHAZ zone so it was never realistic to ever use them except under peace time war games when you can control RADHAZ and of course not fire of VLS/Nulka when you had troops down aft.
Also where you fit your Mini-Ts is taken up by other equipment on ours.

If NZ wanted to fit Nulka you could fit at least two launchers where we fit our Fwd launchers (either side of 01 deck aft of the bridge). Our ANZACS also have extensive satellite communication fitted fwd of the aft lauchers which you may not have?. So you might be able to fit two more launchers in front of your CIWS.
As to moving the aft launcher for Australian ANZAC's to fit CIWS, its not going to happen due to our top weight issues.

 

[Aussie Digger]

A couple of points

The FWD Toplite on RAN ANZACs is purely used as a EOD as the fwd two 50 cal mounts are still crew served. So the only difference between the aussie and kiwi Mini-T / Toplite set up is the aussie's mount their system aft while Kiwi's have it Fwd. Also dont forget that Mini-T can be fired independently from Toplite as it has it's own onboard day/night camera (it can also be fired manualy).

RAN ANZACs can not mount CIWS as the space is taken up by the two Aft Nulka launchers (on top of which is the Aft Toplite). Also CIWS can not be intergrated into a ANZAC combat system or any other CS as it is a stand alone system.

To answer you question about ideal setup, two Mini-T's Fwd with a block 1B CIWS aft all backed up by the good old 5" 54 Cal gun and a couple of crew served 50cal's the RNZN ANZACs are going to have excellent close in defence against asymmetric threats.

On another point I wonder while RNZN went with MSI DS25 gun for the Protector fleet instead of Typhoon? If they went with Typhoon there would be a common supply chain and it would allow you to "plug and play" with Mini-T, Typhoon and Toplite between your ships.

Probably for the same reason we went for the DSI30 (30mm) on our Huon Class Minehunters, but the 25mm Bushmaster on our Armidales...

(Because Defence Procurement is absolutely ridiculous at times)...