The helo deck is a good size and I notice from the specs that the ship is able to carry up to 4 NH-90s. It can also operate a Chinook which could be handy in operations with allies. Canterbury's aviation capability greatly adds to the flexibility of the vessel .For those interested;
Video of HMNZ Canterbury docking at Lyttelton
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4111242a6009.html
Interesting to see 2 x SH-2Gs on the flight deck -- gives you a good idea of the size
I wouldnt underestimate any of the NZDF. Yes I would agree that the ships could do with bigger teeth in some areas, but on the same token don't under estimate...Tasman said:
It's not dead yet, it might just go dormant for a little while. I personally can't wait for the actual commissioning of the OPVs, and/or any mention of the actual electronics fitout. It might just be a little while before that information is available. By the same token, does anyone know what electronics are aboard Canterbury?Well I seem to have killed this thread...
This is what I've been able to discover about the electronics outfit so far....
Hmmmm don't you mean Type 12.
During exercies a lot of Australian and NZ warships used this ploy. HMAS Swan was particularly adept and she was even repainter as Torrens when the ships were on different sides. The problem is that modern information and a greater IR/Low Light capability will make such deceptive techniques quite hazarsous in the future. ln IR a warship is a warship regardless of what deceptive lighting is applied.
Modern systems make this a lot harder. A modern ship with a low noise signature (noting this is not true of all vessels) combined wiht air assets make the SSK life quite hazardous. A couple of dippers (helos) really put the pressure on.
Not striclty true, using the layer can restrict one dimmension of evasion, however direction is not effected and the sub can attempt to slip out from under.
Do NZ still run the Mk44?
Suspect you mean the Mk46. The Mk45 was a heavyweight torpedo that was replaced in service by the Mk48
The rules of engagement were entirely correct as we were not at war.
Doh typo... fingers typing faster than my brain...
this may be true, but th epoint is to think out side the square... deceptive lighting has been around since WWI. The yanks had all that kind of gear, and satilite imagary and links...
But if the sub commandar knows what he is doing... it is still possible... and as I said, give canterbury some time, she would have swung round to another angle...
attempt being the operative word... it is still possible for the sub to get away undetected, and or canterbury to detect... with out knowing the conditions, its all hear say.... I would have done this and this.... was canterbury on active or passive, after contact was lost...
I can't say what canterbury was armed with at the time... the mk44 was still in operation when I left in 91,
Yes you also had exercise artificality as well. Such ruses may work but wiht the increased adoption of electo optics they will become harder. In addition a US battle group in war time is very likely to send an air assest to ahve a look at any contct it cannot identify. If this happens the ruse is up.
What do you mean by another angle? The submainre is not going to steam is a straight line. If the layer is causing skip then a change in range is going to be more effective.
I think you oversimplify this a bit. Single ship hunting of a submarine that is adequatly handled will alway be difficult, more so with old gear that lacks the capability to analyse the returns inherent in modern systems. I am not surprized contact was lost.attempt being the operative word... it is still possible for the sub to get away undetected, and or canterbury to detect... with out knowing the conditions, its all hear say.... I would have done this and this.... was canterbury on active or passive, once contact was lost...
and I am sure the sub commander knew those waters like the back of his hand.
It will not have been the Mk45 as this is a heavy weight torpedo (i.e 21 inch). The search patern you describe is similar to the Mk46 which is a light weight torpedo.
Im not really at liberity to say... but lets say I do 100% agree with the wing commander and plus some, he has my support... someone from the towed array compaign needs to speak up as well.
The comment is a little unbalanced as it appears to look at towed array in isolation. Towed array is a long range system and is designed as part of an ASW suite not as a stand alone system. for example the AN/SQR-19 TACTAS is part of the AN/SQQ-89(V)6 which I think is still used by the CG-47 class vessels. It provides an important element of task group defence if the submarine is within the range that blind spots become and issue then you then you would be relying on HMS.
Towed array is also intended to be used with other assets. Localisation is done by air assets (preferably) or another vessel. The problem with not putting these on warships is that picture compliation and information exchange become an issue noting many warship combat system are designed to share information. Resolution and Tui lack that ability as wall as the ability to remain with a task group as a operational vessel but are suitable for evaluation purposes (spy ship or otherwise).the ship can one do 4 or 5 knots, and is a target tho the idea is to do side swipes... I wouldn't put them own the frigates, but say on Resolution. On Tui, when people used to ask me what it was I would simply say "its survey gear...hydrophones." I wasn't lying nor was I telling the whole truth
Tui survey ship... or spy ship...
While I agree with that statement, and know thats the way it would be used in a task group. NZ only had the one array and it was used in issolation aboard HMNZS Tui. This was over 15 years ago. Tui was never use in or as part of any task group, with the towed array... (while I was on board)
And as such NZ lack this capability... or is very limited... However Resolution could be a towed array vessal and use to be on in the USN...
Never said I had inside knowledge... :unknown I just said I did served in the RNZN (on Wellington, Waikatio, Southland, Tui, and Pukaki) as an RP. and yes RPs had a role with the array... it wasn't just the sonar.
Thanks for that. I may have misinterpreted your comments given the refernce to an active prosecution of a TNI submarine and the reference to not fitting it to a warship.
Noted again. MHNZS Resolution would make a poor task force assest given its service speed of 11 knots and lack of a combat system, however, it does serve a very useful role as a hydrograpic asset and research vessel.
Thanks for the clarification.
I will stand by that statement... NZ doesn't have the reserves or resources to do that, we couldn't put together a task group, (though I could help I have a few models to throw in
)... it would be wasting space, and money on the ANZACs, when and where other senors and weapon systems could be upgraded first... Where as Resolution would be perfect for the role (For NZ), of patrolling the zone. She doesn't need to be part of a task group to do the job and could work independently, reporting directly back to Nzops. if I was on a fishing trawler stealing orange roughy. DOH
So you are talking survellance not TACTAS. To do what you suggest and be effective you need something like SURTASS along with the related systems. This has a considerable cost associated with it and seems to be beyond the role the RNZN now finds itself task with. TACTASS on HMNZS Resolution would not anywhere near as effective in the survellance role, if at all.I will stand by that statement... NZ doesn't have the reserves or resources to do that, we couldn't put together a task group, (though I could help I have a few models to throw in
Given you were discussing ASW within the RNZN you will have to understand why I approached this from the perspective I did. Issues you have missed is the benifit for training and interoperability in having such systems fitted. They allow the crews of these ships to gain experaince and work with other Naval forces. Should the RNZN expand in the future or should it participate in operations with another Navy it would be better equipped to do so if the skills and equipment are maintained.
No general disagreement, but as alluded to above it appears the government perceives the role of the RNZN to be squarely in the role of EEZ protection and regional support, hence the protector approach. My view is the OPV is ideally suited to the role for which it was designed.With this you can keep them in rotation, the new Protector Fleet will help with the on call for NZ waters, S&R, disaster relief, fishery patrols etc... but, I would still rather be one the ANZAC at least they have a bit of a bite... tho I still wouldn't want to argue with a mad sailor on the end of a 50 cal
On saying that, the role the protector fleet will play for NZ, in the south pacific region in general, it is a step in the right direction. I just wish someone with the balls (well ones bigger that uncle Clarke has any way) would wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to defense spending, and listen to what the NZDF wants and needs, and gives it to them. In todays world we do need to up the anti, before NZ does become a soft target.
Totally agree with your sentiments (and no doubt most other kiwis on this forum will as well). The RNZN has dropped from a 1-2 cruiser and 4-6 frigate force from the 1950's and 60's, to 4 frigates in the 70's, to 3 in the 90's and now 2 as of 2005. Sure, warships are much more expensive and complex than their post war predessors, but the numbers become important when training, deployments, dry dock etc need to be factored in. Agree that the Project Protector vessels are important for what they are tasked for. Perhaps the Govt with a bit of hindsight and less scrimping on the electronics/weapons could have provided a bit more modest capability in order to allow crew to trainup on some of the systems to be found on the ANZAC's (eg torps, CIWS etc) and provide a more realistic backup for defence/deployment purposes. On a more positive note the LTDP allows for up to 4 times the cost of the original vessels for upgrades over their lifespan, hence the Protector fleet hopefully should be maintained to a high operational standard and maybe have these other issues addressed in time.I will stand by that statement... NZ doesn't have the reserves or resources to do that, we couldn't put together a task group, (though I could help I have a few models to throw in
Heck I personally want to see NZ go back to at least 4 frigate Navy (as well as the new protector fleet), I wish uncle Clarke never got into power and never disarmed the strike capability of the Air Force. I'm not sure whether the NZLAV III's were the right choice, but we do need a few tracked vehicles as well, LAVs are not really suited for the 130's. The C-130 and P3, both desperately are in need of an upgrade or replaced.
If we aren't to have a strike air force, then for christ sake, either give the P3 (or replacement) aircraft the capability defend and some form of strike capability, triple the number for C130 (or replacement) so the Air Force can do the job on their own when deploying NZ troops and gear. Give the new transports some form of protection, and or limited strike capability. (heck I don't really care what something is better than putting you head between your knees and kissing your arse good bye)
4 Frigates....1 in refit or maintenance, 1 on call for NZ water duties, 1 on deployment, and 1 readying itself for deployment (work up etc)... having the 2 frigates meant 1 on deployment while the other was in NZ waters and or refit or maintenance, becomes limiting.
With this you can keep them in rotation, the new Protector Fleet will help with the on call for NZ waters, S&R, disaster relief, fishery patrols etc... but, I would still rather be one the ANZAC at least they have a bit of a bite... tho I still wouldn't want to argue with a mad sailor on the end of a 50 cal
On saying that, the role the protector fleet will play for NZ, in the south pacific region in general, it is a step in the right direction. I just wish someone with the balls (well ones bigger that uncle Clarke has any way) would wake up and smell the coffee when it comes to defense spending, and listen to what the NZDF wants and needs, and gives it to them. In todays world we do need to up the anti, before NZ does become a soft target.
I think numbers are a bit deceptive when you're trying to compare a the navy of the 1950's, early 1960's to today. The orginal post-war navy was built around slow escorts and two combat vessels.
nfloorl:
Agree, today's warships are far more superior than the previous generations in just about everyway you can think of etc. Hence despite the drop in numbers, we have more capability and versitility (but less hulls in the water)! Agree that in today's environment (post cold war, terrorism, regional instability etc) would be better to assess the alternatives to simply an all Frigate force (the Frigate's no doubt were/are important for coalition type/ASW situations eg the minimum that NZ could contribute to be seen to be affective and useful etc). In today's environment, policing the region and showing the flag ie not operating as part of a task force, then agree, more OPV's/Corvettes would be useful (I read once, actually the last time a Frigate visited Samoa a couple of years ago now, that a NZ Frigate only visited Samoa (and other neighbours) once every two years! Personally I'd like to see at least 3 Frigates and at least 3 OPV's/Corvettes eg something that would be suited to Pacific and Southern Ocean patrolling, but could range further into SEAsia if required etc). Personally on the other hand, if the "world situation" deteriorated and we ever needed to increase our "fighting forces", rather than a 4th or 5th Frigate etc, I like us to have at least a couple of subs a la Collins (ouch, that'll get some reaction, but seriously back in the 80's when NZ looked as though they would participate in the original project, I recalll one selling point was they would only be half the cost of a Frigate. I wonder now though, seeing all the enhancements and planned upgrades that the RAN has for the Collins, whether they would actually cost alot more than an ANZAC Frigate nowadays, which if so, would price them out of our reach)?I think numbers are a bit deceptive when you're trying to compare a the navy of the 1950's, early 1960's to today. The orginal post-war navy was built around slow escorts and two combat vessels.
If you compare key sensors on the ANZAC's such as radar, sonar, ESM all are superior to the to the last cruiser NZ operated. Even the OPV's have a faster speed than the orginal frigates (and probably Southland when she decommissioned). For many nations the traditional role of a cruiser - force projection, has been taken over by the frigate. This begs the question whats taken over the traditional role of frigate - Patrolling, Escort & Minor Engagements: Sounds like the OPV / Corvette depending on weapons & sensors.
If New Zealand were to seriously consider additional surface warships, then I think the alternatives need to be fully explored first, rather going straight back to a 4 frigate force(i.e. corvettes like the MEKO 100, upgrades to the OPV, plus a 3rd frigate etc). What ever happens compatability with the exisiting force is a must in order to minimize the training and logistics costs.
Personally I'd perfer 4 frigates, but I can also see the advantages of 3 frigates and 2 upgraded OPV's (57mm - I don't think the deck height exists for a 76mm), SADRAL and in an emergency rip of the RIB and container on the back and fit a VDS array.
I image about now that certain other former members of the 11th Frigate Squadron are choking on their tot, TKO or other light refreshment