Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

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!

AS can be seen here and as confirmed by The Puss, mini-typhoon requires manual operation:

http://defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20060705a/20060621adf8109730_005.jpg

http://defence.gov.au/opEx/global/opcatalyst/images/gallery/20060705a/20060621adf8109730_020.jpg

Cheers.

 

[ThePuss]

AS can be seen here and as confirmed by The Puss, mini-typhoon requires manual operation:

]

Cheers.

To clear up this point, You require an operator to manually "lock" onto a target. The system will then track the target untill lock is broken (for what ever reason). Once you are locked (from either a Mini-T or a Toplite slaved Mini-T) you fire a spoting round or two. You then observe the fall of shot in your reticules, adjust your aim accordingly and you should be on target....Great system.:nutkick

 

[recce.k1]

Sweet, that M/T system sure does look cool to operate!

I did have a basic idea on how the M/T functions (but thanx for the better explanations ThePuss and Aussie Digger), but I'm now curious about the MSI 25/30mm M242 system on the RNZN Protector PV's and the RAN Huons. I briefly understand from reading Navy Today once that the RNZN's MSI system is similarly manually operated remotely (or can be crewed?), so do they use a similar "Toplite" or EOD type system for target acquistion like the M/T system?

Just wondering in terms of the technology which has the edge nowadays etc.

 

[ThePuss]

Sweet, that M/T system sure does look cool to operate!

I did have a basic idea on how the M/T functions (but thanx for the better explanations ThePuss and Aussie Digger), but I'm now curious about the MSI 25/30mm M242 system on the RNZN Protector PV's and the RAN Huons. I briefly understand from reading Navy Today once that the RNZN's MSI system is similarly manually operated remotely (or can be crewed?), so do they use a similar "Toplite" or EOD type system for target acquistion like the M/T system?

Just wondering in terms of the technology which has the edge nowadays etc.

Sorry mate but I have been big ships my entire career so I have no idea about the MSI system. BTW we call the Huons the "Esky Class" in the RAN (Kiwi translation = "Chilli Bin" class ) due to them being fibre glass and therefore floating around the "Ogan" (Ogan = Ocean) like a EskY.

 

[recce.k1]

And I bet they weren't full of beer either!

Found a pic of the MSI console on the HMNZS Canterbury (but still curious on the targeting system be that via simple camera or something more elaborate. I'd better go away and do some further research rather than paining people with my questions)!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bushmaster_Gun_Weapon_Station.jpg

Edit: Doh, I think I recall now the targeting system is mounted on the gun platform itself (& is optical).

I hadn't realised the MSI system comes with some interesting layered defence options:
http://www.msi-dsl.com/our_products/weapons/sigma.php

Could be an interesting upgrade path for the RNZN OPV's (and Canterbury) if the Navy actually needed a close range surface to surface or surface to air missile/gun system (just recalling discussions here a couple of years ago when other members suggested fitting Army Mistrals if the need arose etc. Well maybe this way something more permanent could be utilised and something that actually integrates into the system proper etc).

 

[Gibbo]

And I bet they weren't full of beer either!

Found a pic of the MSI console on the HMNZS Canterbury (but still curious on the targeting system be that via simple camera or something more elaborate. I'd better go away and do some further research rather than paining people with my questions)!

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bushmaster_Gun_Weapon_Station.jpg

Edit: Doh, I think I recall now the targeting system is mounted on the gun platform itself (& is optical).

I hadn't realised the MSI system comes with some interesting layered defence options:
http://www.msi-dsl.com/our_products/weapons/sigma.php

Could be an interesting upgrade path for the RNZN OPV's (and Canterbury) if the Navy actually needed a close range surface to surface or surface to air missile/gun system (just recalling discussions here a couple of years ago when other members suggested fitting Army Mistrals if the need arose etc. Well maybe this way something more permanent could be utilised and something that actually integrates into the system proper etc).

With regard to EOD, TopLite etc, the Canterbury has a Vistar EOD - which is very much a commercial piece of kit. I've no idea how 'capable' they are but they're probably fine for the low-key patrol type taskings the Cantab will ever see. There is also the gun mounted EOD that you'll see quite clearly in any images of the gun uncovered.

As far as I can make out the Vistar unit is visible in the following shot:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Canterbury_In_All_Her_Massiveness_I.jpg

If you 'zoom in' high-res & look at the main-mast. Find the 2 radar housings and look just above them on the front of the mast - clearly looks like a camera.

With regard to the MSI layered defence options, yes quite agree they offer a good 'upgrade path' for the vessel, but wouldn't hold your breath!

 

[Gibbo]

...Canterbury has a Vistar EOD - which is very much a commercial piece of kit. I've no idea how 'capable' they are but they're probably fine for the low-key patrol type taskings the Cantab will ever see.

Hmmm, mybe they're not too bad a piece of kit after-all (although will depend on model used). Check it out... http://www.vistar.co.uk/vistar/vistar_home.html

p.s. OPV's have same on their main-mast as well!

 

[Gibbo]

...p.s. OPV's have same on their main-mast as well!

High-res this image & you'll see the camera(?) about 1/3 the way up the main-mast above the radar units. p.s. look at left-hand vessel (Otago).

http://img.blog.yahoo.co.kr/ybi/1/24/56/shinecommerce/folder/33/img_33_17408_1?1205859957.jpg:)


Last one!

 

[greenie]

Gosh.....they are very good looking ships, even if they do have a weight issue. Id love us to get a couple more ( stretched ?).
Id also would like to see that bushmaster on the IPVs, then they would be potent little ships.

 

[Gibbo]

Gosh.....they are very good looking ships, even if they do have a weight issue. Id love us to get a couple more ( stretched ?).
Id also would like to see that bushmaster on the IPVs, then they would be potent little ships.

Yes they are good looking - except for that damned SatDome on bridge top, which isn't actually centred (is on starboard side by quite some margin). My guess is they'll be good basic PV's as well.

 

[Sea Toby]

Do you really think the IPVs will be deployed much further than 25 nautical miles off the coast of New Zealand or 200 nautical miles? Do you think they need a larger gun to patrol and police New Zealand waters?

The Australans face a lot of possible illegal Indonesian small craft fishermen, the Kiwi navy don't. The Kiwi navy IPVs won't need larger guns facing Kiwi fishermen.

 

[Lucasnz]

Do you really think the IPVs will be deployed much further than 25 nautical miles off the coast of New Zealand or 200 nautical miles? Do you think they need a larger gun to patrol and police New Zealand waters?

The Australans face a lot of possible illegal Indonesian small craft fishermen, the Kiwi navy don't. The Kiwi navy IPVs won't need larger guns facing Kiwi fishermen.

Based on my observations of the last Lake Patrol craft - they will deploy further than 25 miles offshore. It should be noted that "Moa" deployed to the Campbell Islands in 1992 (in summer I might add). New Zealand uses any vessels it purchases to the max. Look at the latest ANZAC frigate visit to the Auckland Island - it was carrying wooden walkways for the tourist tracks.

One reason why I would support a 25mm on the IPV is the late 70's incident where a Lake Class patrol craft tried to a arrest a trawler - a .50cal is not an effective deterrent against anything other than small craft. The result of that incident is that we had to seen out the Skyhawks. The other reason is that NZ does get the odd trawler operating within the 12m limit - I can just image a 12.7mm trying to disable a Russian built trawler - they're built like tanks.

 

[recce.k1]

Another issue might be that the new IPV's have a 3000nm range . I wouldn't be suprised if they were sent quite far away to patrol some hotspot in Melanesia or Timor etc (with a small fleet, the RNZN have sent their auxillairy vessels to do similar patrols in the past eg Bougainville etc).

Joint RAN training in Northern Australian waters with their Armidales could be a possibility now there will be some commonality of vessels and purpose etc.

Granted around NZ there won't be alot of use but it would be good skills (and procedures) to learn for the crews that transfer to the larger OPV's and Frigates later etc.

 

[Sea Toby]

I was under the impression that New Zealand was going to use multi-crews to man these IPVs, six crews to man four patrol ships to reach the required number of patrol days at sea. Doing so limits the length of each patrol down to three weeks at most, which is about the limit of their food aboard.

Any departure of such procedures further limit the number of patrol days at sea overall. Its the only way to get more sea days than there are in a half a year for each ship.

While they may be sent abroad, they won't be for showing the flag. That is what the OPVs were bought for.

 

[MrConservative]

I was under the impression that New Zealand was going to use multi-crews to man these IPVs, six crews to man four patrol ships to reach the required number of patrol days at sea. Doing so limits the length of each patrol down to three weeks at most, which is about the limit of their food aboard.

Any departure of such procedures further limit the number of patrol days at sea overall. Its the only way to get more sea days than there are in a half a year for each ship.

While they may be sent abroad, they won't be for showing the flag. That is what the OPVs were bought for.

I still think the plan is for multi-crewing the IPV’s on a 6 / 4 ratio using the VR as cover. Problem with the VR rounding out the numbers is that with a 3 week cruise it is going to be tough on employers to be so generous to allow time off for VR service and face staff holiday allocations. This though can be partly offset by the Govt paying the VR crew their civilian salaries whilst on board. But will that happen? As yet an unresolved issue.

The OPV's are more likely to fly the flag amongst our "south pacific colonies" for those late summer trips when we have traditionally put the Governor General and his drinks cabinet on board. (Minor trivia here but our GG is official head of state in Niue, the Cooks and the Tokelau's as well as NZ when QEII is not present)

One positive about the OPV’s is that no longer will Frigates be used to deliver wood to Campbell Island for Department of Conservation. It is a shame the Navy wouldn’t charge DOC full cost for doing so. The operational cost of a frigate for a week to do so would have them choking on their lentils and tofu.

 

[Sea Toby]

I was thinking in terms of naval personnel, not reserve. Since at any given time half of the navy will be in port, that would be the time for the reserve to have their few days with all of the navy's ships. This idea of having several boats in port 250 days of the year so that the reserves can use them for 70 days of the year is not very efficient whatsoever.

 

[greenie]

I wouldnt bet on having the ships here much before the end of the year, my little birdie tells me its in the hands of the leagle eagles now and not just the big two but all six.

 

[mattyem]

we will have the IPV's 3 3 of them are ready to go, we are just waiting on the new rhibs for them. I am currently on canterbury atm in sydney and we are bringing back 3 new rhibs for them. We already have to in the cargo deck and pick up the third tomorrow. the issue still remains on the OPV's but there are a few interesting stories floating around base about those........

 

[Sea Toby]

That's good news about the IPVs. What are the rumors for the OPVs? Don't leave us in the dark....

 

[mug]

More publicity for the big grey ship (from Stuff):

Five unharmed after being swept from naval boat during exercise
Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:07p.m.

Five Australian and New Zealand navy personnel were today rescued after being washed into the ocean following what has been called an "error in weight distribution".

All five were unharmed in the incident, which happened during a routine transfer of people between the New Zealand ship Canterbury and the Australian amphibious vessel Kanimbla in the eastern Tasman Sea close to the Kapiti Coast.

New Zealand Defence Force spokesman Commander Shaun Fogarty said six people were on a rigid hull inflatable boat (RHIB) being taken to the Kanimbla about 9am, when a large wave struck the boat as it neared the Kanimbla.

He said most of the six were at the front of the boat.

"A human error in weight distribution is what best described it," Cdr Fogarty told NZPA. "That combined with the swell caused them to be swept into the water."

Cdr Fogarty said the Canterbury quickly launched a rescue boat.

"They were taken out of the water in a matter of minutes."

The RHIB returned to the Canterbury under its own steam after a seaworthiness inspection.

Cdr Fogarty said the conditions were "quite benign", apart from the swell which struck the RHIB.

He said the crews of the boats had done a very good job recovering the men.

An internal investigation was under way.

NZPA