Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

Once Canterbury works out it's warranty period, I agree that fitting mini typhoons should happen at some point, but I think that the fitting of chaff launchers, left over from Canterbury & Wellington is more likely in the short term.

What else would be needed to make this possible? Eg would Canty need an early warning radar system to detect radar guided missiles?

Would it also be practical to fit a chaff counter measure system to the Endeavour (if operating in the Gulf etc) or even the Resolution (apparently it was initially considered in early planning for the 1999 East Timor crisis to survey potential/safe landing spots if the Indonesians weren't going to cooperate with the landing of Interfet forces)?

Or should they be fitted to the OPV's (if they were to engage in escort duties in Asia etc)?

 

[RubiconNZ]

What else would be needed to make this possible? Eg would Canty need an early warning radar system to detect radar guided missiles?

Would it also be practical to fit a chaff counter measure system to the Endeavour (if operating in the Gulf etc) or even the Resolution (apparently it was initially considered in early planning for the 1999 East Timor crisis to survey potential/safe landing spots if the Indonesians weren't going to cooperate with the landing of Interfet forces)?

Or should they be fitted to the OPV's (if they were to engage in escort duties in Asia etc)?

Endeavour has been fitted with a Phalanx before, so I don't imagine there would be to much problem with Chaff.

 

[Sea Toby]

I would think adding chaff, and close in SAMs would cost as much as the ship herself. I don't think the government wishes to use this civilian ship for military operations in a frontal amphibious assault. The government would have been better off buying the small Enforcer ADI proposed. Therefore, there is no need to arm her with more military weapons.

She will do well as is for most operations short of a frontal amphibious assault. She should easily do humanitarian, and peacekeeping missions. She isn't a warship, and would not make a good warship. So lets not turn her into a failed warship.

 

[Lucasnz]

What else would be needed to make this possible? Eg would Canty need an early warning radar system to detect radar guided missiles?

Would it also be practical to fit a chaff counter measure system to the Endeavour (if operating in the Gulf etc) or even the Resolution (apparently it was initially considered in early planning for the 1999 East Timor crisis to survey potential/safe landing spots if the Indonesians weren't going to cooperate with the landing of Interfet forces)?

Or should they be fitted to the OPV's (if they were to engage in escort duties in Asia etc)?

I think fitting CHAFF to OPV's may not be possible. I remember reading something in the late 80's that there was a min length for the ship for the launchers to be effective. I forget the full details. Does anyone with more recent experience have details.

I've been trying to find out the make of radar used on Canterbury and the OPV's, but without much joy at present. The French Floreal class have radar warning and air/surface search.

Endeavour has been fitted with a Phalanx before, so I don't imagine there would be to much problem with Chaff.

I've never heard of Endeavour been fitted with CIWS. The highest level of armament ever planned was 20mm's, but these were withdrawn, except for Monawai before Endeavour even arrived in 1988.

I would think adding chaff, and close in SAMs would cost as much as the ship herself. I don't think the government wishes to use this civilian ship for military operations in a frontal amphibious assault. The government would have been better off buying the small Enforcer ADI proposed. Therefore, there is no need to arm her with more military weapons.

I don't think fitting CHAFF would be that expensive, depending on the current Radar / ESM capability. It terms of SAM's, something basic like Mistral / Sandral or Tetral was what I had in mind. A bolt on system, which can even be fitted to the 25mm mount radar than as an independent system. Very basic self defence.

I agree the Enforcer would have been a better design, but most ships carry out Tactical sealift have a level of self defence greater than what is currently fitted to Canterbury

 

[Sea Toby]

I still don't see the need to upgrade their defenses in the South Pacific. None of the island states can afford a SSM, they could afford possibly RPGs. If they were able to procure SSMs, I would expect Australia's and New Zealand's foreign aid would be eliminated, and defensive systems bought for their ships. Until that moment, I don't see the need. Without your help and aid, not many of these nations could afford a patrol boat.

The reason why New Zealand did not acquire more Anzac ships is they were considered too much of a warship, they were overkill for the South Pacific. Thus the reasoning of the benign and cheap OPVs and the MRV, all seven Project Protector ships were bought for the price of one Anzac class frigate.

Now that these ships are almost built, some want to turn them into frigates? The time to buy a frigate was ten years ago, its long past that time now. Its the old case of attempting to put 7 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag.

I can see possibly adding a Phalanx CIWS, or something similar. I don't see the need to add self defense SAMs. Mini-tyhoon guns yes, SEA RAMs no. New Zealand should not follow Australia's example of adding too much to their benign patrol ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

I still don't see the need to upgrade their defenses in the South Pacific. None of the island states can afford a SSM, they could afford possibly RPGs. If they were able to procure SSMs, I would expect Australia's and New Zealand's foreign aid would be eliminated, and defensive systems bought for their ships. Until that moment, I don't see the need. Without your help and aid, not many of these nations could afford a patrol boat.

The reason why New Zealand did not acquire more Anzac ships is they were considered too much of a warship, they were overkill for the South Pacific. Thus the reasoning of the benign and cheap OPVs and the MRV, all seven Project Protector ships were bought for the price of one Anzac class frigate.

Now that these ships are almost built, some want to turn them into frigates? The time to buy a frigate was ten years ago, its long past that time now. Its the old case of attempting to put 7 pounds of potatoes into a 5 pound bag.

I can see possibly adding a Phalanx CIWS, or something similar. I don't see the need to add self defense SAMs. Mini-tyhoon guns yes, SEA RAMs no. New Zealand should not follow Australia's example of adding too much to their benign patrol ships.

For operations in the South Pacific then additions to Canterbury like chaff, nulka, etc is likely unnecessary, same goes for a SAM system, even something short-ranged like Mistral. However, there is a definite possibility that such threats could be encountered if the NZDF every deploys anywhere else, or is passing through a threat area. Remember that there have been Anzac deployments to the Persian Gulf, it is quite possible that Canterbury or Endeavour could be sent into areas with a similar potential for conflict. Also, even in the South Pacific something like mini-Typhoons would make sense to provide some protection to the flanks from FAC and small boats.

As for Australia adding too much to their benign patrol ships, what are you referring to? The Armidale with the same 25mm Bushmaster in a Typhoon mounting (less than the 40mm Bofors of the Fremantle, which could also take a 76mm unlike the Armidale)? Or the Oceanic Viking patrol vessel which mounts 0.50 cal/12.7mm HMG?

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I was referring to New Zealand's patrol ships, not Australian. There is no need in the Pacific to turn their OPVs into small frigates, or the Endeavour and Canterbury.

I'm not sure whether the Endeavour in its 20 year life has ever left the the South Pacific outside of showing the flag in China, South Korea, and Japan. More than likely the Canterbury will follow suit. Unlike their Anzac class frigates, New Zealand didn't buy them to be used throughout the world. However, if New Zealand ever were to use them in a Persian Gulf deployment, highly unlikely, I am sure some guns would be added, but not necessarily mini-Typhoons. Mini-typhoons were ordered by New Zealand for only their frigates.

 

[Tasman]

However, if New Zealand ever were to use them in a Persian Gulf deployment, highly unlikely, I am sure some guns would be added, but not necessarily mini-Typhoons. Mini-typhoons were ordered by New Zealand for only their frigates.

Deployment of these ships to a 'hot spot' might be unlikely but if it does happen I believe it would be reprehensible not to fit modern defences against high speed surface targets. IMO, establishing a small pool of Typhoon and/or Mini Typhoon systems for this purpose would be a good insurance policy.

Tas

 

[Sea Toby]

Didn't you read the sentence where the Anzac frigates are getting mini-Typhoons? The only two ships slated for Gulf duties already have them. However, since only one of them is operational at any given time, one of the Anzacs ships could have their Typhoons removed for another ship, possibly the Endeavour. New Zealand already has a pool.

When you only have two ships, you won't deploy both of your frigates at the same time. Any brief moment when both are available will be just that, very brief.

And New Zealand's patrol ships, both IPVs and OPVs should never be deployed to the Gulf. They were designed and built for patrol duties in the South Pacific. I can possibly see the Canterbury being deployed to Pakistan, for Afghanistan operations, but not to the Gulf.

Am I discussing this with Typhoon salesmen?

The OPVs and IPVs are patrol ships, they are not and will never be a warship equivalent to a frigate. If you wanted a frigate, you should never have bought patrol ships.

 

[Todjaeger]

Didn't you read the sentence where the Anzac frigates are getting mini-Typhoons? The only two ships slated for Gulf duties already have them. However, since only one of them is operational at any given time, one of the Anzacs ships could have their Typhoons removed for another ship, possibly the Endeavour. New Zealand already has a pool.

When you only have two ships, you won't deploy both of your frigates at the same time. Any brief moment when both are available will be just that, very brief.

And New Zealand's patrol ships, both IPVs and OPVs should never be deployed to the Gulf. They were designed and built for patrol duties in the South Pacific. I can possibly see the Canterbury being deployed to Pakistan, for Afghanistan operations, but not to the Gulf.

Am I discussing this with Typhoon salesmen?

The OPVs and IPVs are patrol ships, they are not and will never be a warship equivalent to a frigate. If you wanted a frigate, you should never have bought patrol ships.

With regards to potential situations in the South Pacific/Oceania area I have to disagree. Given conditions in and around Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines and other area island chains or archipelagos. These are all areas where NZDF deployments could be made for peacekeeping, humanitarian ops or disaster relief, etc. These are also places where NZDF personnel could come under attack, likely (while shipboard) by FAC or other small boats. While such an attack most likely would not result in loss of the vessel, or even severe damage though a repeat of the USS Cole attack is possible, at present the response by Canterbury to such an attack would be limited to any small arms carried by personnel on board unless the attackers decided to attack from a vector taking them directly towards the bow. Given that the attackers would also be equipped with small arms in such a situation, it would seem sensible to have a capability overmatch instead of parity in capability.

IMO it would therefore behoove the RNZN to acquire some sort capability vs. FAC that can be deployed onboard Canterbury at least on an adhoc basis. Having a capability installed on the OPVs I think less important, unless the RNZN starts deploying the OPVs on missions which would be more appropriate for the Anzacs. My reasoning that Canterbury has a greater need is based on the belief that Canterbury, operating in a troop liftship role, is more likely to come close to a potentially hostile shore, particularly in confined waterways or in operational circumstances where it is not able to evade or maneuver if under attack.

Are these circumstances likely all the time? IMV the answer would be "no," but they do potentially arise at times when the loss of a capability like that found of the Canterbury would be most felt or needed by the NZDF and allies.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Didn't you read the sentence where the Anzac frigates are getting mini-Typhoons? The only two ships slated for Gulf duties already have them. However, since only one of them is operational at any given time, one of the Anzacs ships could have their Typhoons removed for another ship, possibly the Endeavour. New Zealand already has a pool.

That's fine if Canterbury and Endeavour have been fitted 'for but not with" the weapons concerned. It also presumes that there won't be emergency situations where both these ships, and possibly both frigates, will be required for a major operation. There have been occasions when both frigates have been operational at the same time. See the photo below (original from the ADF website) of both Kiwi frigates taken during an exercise with HMAS Parramatta.

Am I discussing this with Typhoon salesmen?

I think I can speak for Tod as well when I say "No!'

Tas

 

[RubiconNZ]

I've never heard of Endeavour been fitted with CIWS. The highest level of armament ever planned was 20mm's, but these were withdrawn, except for Monawai before Endeavour even arrived in 1988.

I was sure I have seen a picture, albeit some time ago with Endeavour sporting a Phalanx, just forward of the RAS structure, not certain enough to dispute you though, I searched all I could for the picture on line, I wish I had my old Navy Today's and Defence Quarterly's hand then I could know for sure:coffee.
Happy to take your word for it though.
Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, there have been exercises and local events when both Anzacs have been available, you will notice I did say before for brief periods of time. However, for a forward deployed mission say to the Gulf, or to show the flag in Asia, the frigates have been deployed one at a time.

As I recall, before East Timor, during the 1990s, the Endeavour did deploy to the Gulf using the former Wellington's CIWS. If the NZ navy can find a location for a Phalanx CIWS, I would think they can find a location for two mini-Typhoons, on the superstructure port and starboard just as easily. Ditto for the Canterbury. To do so, the NZ navy would have to buy more mini-Typhoons or remove two off of one of their frigates. A mini-Tyohoon isn't all that heavy, they can more than likely be cross decked, even in the Gulf.

Why are some making mountains out of mole hills over this issue? Do you not think the admiralty don't know about this issue already. Plans about where to locate a mini Typhoon more than likely have already been made. You will notice that in the previous attached picture, the two New Zealand Anzacs have a CIWS installed along with their Sea Sprites.

 

[recce.k1]

Why are some making mountains out of mole hills over this issue? Do you not think the admiralty don't know about this issue already. Plans about where to locate a mini Typhoon more than likely have already been made. You will notice that in the previous attached picture, the two New Zealand Anzacs have a CIWS installed along with their Sea Sprites.

As you more or less say, no doubt if the Canterbury or Endeavour had to deploy on operations as opposed to exercises and diplomatic visits outside of the South Pacific especially (I'm thinking near Northern Australia/Indonesia/Timor or near Singapore/Malaysia/Philipines etc or into the Indian Ocean), the "admiralty" would have contingency plans for at least fitting mini-typhoons if that's what the situation calls for (situation being "war on terror" related in its most broadest sense and FIAC protection etc as opposed to all out WW3 scenario etc). CIWS would be the next ideal level of self-defence. Chaff could come in handy if operating near some of the sophisticated players in SE Asia and into the Indian Ocean or Gulf.

Sure, agreed, anything more offensive and costly and we start turning these vessels into pseudo combat vessels, which is neither practical or more likely never going to work out properly i.e. never as well as a purpose built warship etc.

I think some of us kiwis are making mountains because, typically, funding for these basics seem to happen "after the fact" or not at all. NZ has 2 CIWS systems, when East Timor 1999 happened the Frigate Canterbury had one fitted, unsure whether the Frigate Te Kaha had the second fitted or whether it was still on the about to be decommissioned Frigate Wellington, but there wasn't a 3rd unit to fit to the Endeavour which along with the other Interfet coalition warships and support ships were deploying to a potential warzone. Therefore if NZ were to operate a pool, as some people suggest, then buying at least 2 more Phallanx systems minimum would allow these to be fitted to Endeavour, Canterbury (MRV) or possibly the OPV's (if a suitable location could be found) if the need arises. Plus these "extras" can be used for training back at base or as a spare in case of damage to an operational unit. Relying on two units as at present and in the past doesn't seem wise (and Phallanx is relatively inexpensive).

Ditto a pool of some mini-typhoon type systems. Assuming two guns (and two Toplites per ship), what another 2 systems minimum??? Although NZ could easily afford more.

The other thing that we're not all acknowledging here is that, whilst a 0.5 Cal HMG can and has been pretty sufficient for previous and most current duties, upgrading to the Typhoon/Toplite gives us all weather/day-night observation/targeting on a 24 hour basis etc, something we lack with the current .5 Cal/Mk1 Eyeballs system. And the ability to upskill crew and doctrine on the smaller ships (practice observations on fishing vessels or even local/visiting yachts) which would have to be a good thing for when crew are posted to Frigates (observing and sometimes targeting unidentifed vessels and boats when on deployment overseas).

Did someone say the Te Kaha is undergoing refit? Presumably then it's receiving its Mini-Typhoon system like Te Mana did last year (as this was scheduled for 2008).

NZ typically deploys one Frigate at any one time (being a small Navy) and as Sea Toby says, two at any one time is possible but only briefly. Apart from exercises the last time operationally was part of Enduring Freedom back in 04. However once the two OPV's enter service to patrol the NZ and South Pacific EEZ's, manning issues aside, supposedly this is to free up the two Frigates for deployments or for roles for which the Frigates are better suited (local training and maintenance schedules aside of course).

 

[Gibbo]

...Why are some making mountains out of mole hills over this issue? Do you not think the admiralty don't know about this issue already. Plans about where to locate a mini Typhoon more than likely have already been made. You will notice that in the previous attached picture, the two New Zealand Anzacs have a CIWS installed along with their Sea Sprites.

...because we have a small Navy & we would prefer to see us maximise our effectiveness by ensuring each vessel is as flexible & as capable as we can realistically make them - not simply equipped with 'enough' to do the low key roles.

Now I don't for a minute class resource protection of little value - quite the opposite in fact. The RNZN has had a woeful lack of such patrol respource for decades, and now that we are about to receive what looks like an extremely capable (OPV) platform for such duties I am well-pleased.

However, while it will be an excellent resource protection & anti-piracy platform, it could well struggle to cope with anti-terrorist patrol, which is the level at which you start facing a truly hostile threat.

The RNZN has always operated in the S.E.Asian area and with FPDA obligations could well expect to be called to assist in the event of a deteriorating security situation there - a very credible possibility.

With only 1+ frigate on offer, we would then be hard pressed to then deal with concurrent spin-off 'concerns' in the Sth Pacific - an area of already increasing fragility, which is where the OPV's would come in to their own.

As you'll be aware most OPV's are equipped with more sophisticated sensors & weapons systems than ours, but one thing is crystal clear - the standard doctrine for such threats is now 360degree, day/night optronic sensors with a RWS to cover each possible vector of approach - the rest of the world seem to have grasped it really quickly!

Now totally agree, these threats aren't immediate & we could 'up-arm' the OPV's as required, but there's a real big flaw to this approach - history tells us we don't always get 'warning'. New sensor & RWS systems are far more sophisticated than a HMG & not just anybody can start using one! It takes times to train competent operators & to develop SOP's, so it critical to have systems in place & in-use well before that system is needed in anger! That why I want to see such systems in place now & being exercised.

As regards to ther assumption the 'Admiralty' have learnt all the lessons of RAN, consider this...when purchasing mini-typhoon for their ANZACs RAN purchased 2 Toplites per vessels (fore & aft to provide 360 degree cover) - RNZN only got 1 (fore). Okay Phalanx 1B is due 'out back' - but why leave an obvious capability gap in the interim (& in fact there's still a place for an aft TopLite with Phx1B anyway!)

All of this applies equally, if not more to the MRV. Canterbury is far more likely to face hostile FIAC and the Govt's intention of 'not sending her into harm's way' may simply not be an option as a situation unfolds. Anyway I guess that's a well-worn argument now.

So we're not going for overkill & we're not making mountains out of molehills - we're asking that our vessels are suitably equipped for the full spectrum of threat sceanrios that we realistically could encounter in the Sth Pacific & possibly further afield, as directed by often ill-informed politicians. Anything above anti-terrorist patrol is combat patrol & that's for the Frigates & above, nothing less.

 

[Gibbo]

...Did someone say the Te Kaha is undergoing refit? Presumably then it's receiving its Mini-Typhoon system like Te Mana did last year (as this was scheduled for 2008).
....

Yep acording to Nay News she's was 'de-ammunitioned' in early March & is due out for Harbour trials in last week of May. Fairly safe to assume she'll sport a mini-typhoon & TopLite 'up front'.

She'll probably also have that new (Sat?) dome as noted on Te Mana - much bigger than other earlier two. It sits just forward of the Phalanx - anyone know what it's for? Pretty sure RAN ANZACs have same!

 

[Sea Toby]

...because we have a small Navy & we would prefer to see us maximise our effectiveness by ensuring each vessel is as flexible & as capable as we can realistically make them - not simply equipped with 'enough' to do the low key roles.

Now I don't for a minute class resource protection of little value - quite the opposite in fact. The RNZN has had a woeful lack of such patrol respource for decades, and now that we are about to receive what looks like an extremely capable (OPV) platform for such duties I am well-pleased.

However, while it will be an excellent resource protection & anti-piracy platform, it could well struggle to cope with anti-terrorist patrol, which is the level at which you start facing a truly hostile threat.

The RNZN has always operated in the S.E.Asian area and with FPDA obligations could well expect to be called to assist in the event of a deteriorating security situation there - a very credible possibility.

With only 1+ frigate on offer, we would then be hard pressed to then deal with concurrent spin-off 'concerns' in the Sth Pacific - an area of already increasing fragility, which is where the OPV's would come in to their own.

As you'll be aware most OPV's are equipped with more sophisticated sensors & weapons systems than ours, but one thing is crystal clear - the standard doctrine for such threats is now 360degree, day/night optronic sensors with a RWS to cover each possible vector of approach - the rest of the world seem to have grasped it really quickly!

Now totally agree, these threats aren't immediate & we could 'up-arm' the OPV's as required, but there's a real big flaw to this approach - history tells us we don't always get 'warning'. New sensor & RWS systems are far more sophisticated than a HMG & not just anybody can start using one! It takes times to train competent operators & to develop SOP's, so it critical to have systems in place & in-use well before that system is needed in anger! That why I want to see such systems in place now & being exercised.

As regards to ther assumption the 'Admiralty' have learnt all the lessons of RAN, consider this...when purchasing mini-typhoon for their ANZACs RAN purchased 2 Toplites per vessels (fore & aft to provide 360 degree cover) - RNZN only got 1 (fore). Okay Phalanx 1B is due 'out back' - but why leave an obvious capability gap in the interim (& in fact there's still a place for an aft TopLite with Phx1B anyway!)

All of this applies equally, if not more to the MRV. Canterbury is far more likely to face hostile FIAC and the Govt's intention of 'not sending her into harm's way' may simply not be an option as a situation unfolds. Anyway I guess that's a well-worn argument now.

So we're not going for overkill & we're not making mountains out of molehills - we're asking that our vessels are suitably equipped for the full spectrum of threat sceanrios that we realistically could encounter in the Sth Pacific & possibly further afield, as directed by often ill-informed politicians. Anything above anti-terrorist patrol is combat patrol & that's for the Frigates & above, nothing less.

Do you really believe that there are terrorists with shore to sea missiles in the South Pacific or Southeast Asia? Most of the nations cannot afford them, yet, by some miracle, terrorists are.... I do agree frigates should be armed, fishery protection vessels and anti-terrorism styled vessels have no fear in the EEZ of New Zealand or Australia. If the patrol ships are sent outside New Zealand and Australia's EEZ, they no longer classify as EEZ patrol ships. And as far as the Canterbury and Endeavour, both can safely operate throughout the Southeast Asia effectively outside the distance of short range shore to sea missiles. Any terrorist will be much more effective striking at undefended targets such as cruise ships. None of the Royal New Zealand ships are slow turning large Titantic cruise liners, they can turn to engage any of their guns.

Why are so many attempting to turn EEZ patrol ships into small frigates? New Zealand cannot afford shore to sea missiles, yet her navy EEZ patrol ships have to have protection from terrorist's launched missiles in New Zealand waters? Can a 12.5-mm machine gun do the same job as a mini-Typhoon, shooting at small boats? If not, why bother to install them.

 

[Todjaeger]

Do you really believe that there are terrorists with shore to sea missiles in the South Pacific or Southeast Asia? Most of the nations cannot afford them, yet, by some miracle, terrorists are.... I do agree frigates should be armed, fishery protection vessels and anti-terrorism styled vessels have no fear in the EEZ of New Zealand or Australia. If the patrol ships are sent outside New Zealand and Australia's EEZ, they no longer classify as EEZ patrol ships. And as far as the Canterbury and Endeavour, both can safely operate throughout the Southeast Asia effectively outside the distance of short range shore to sea missiles. Any terrorist will be much more effective striking at undefended targets such as cruise ships. None of the Royal New Zealand ships are slow turning large Titantic cruise liners, they can turn to engage any of their guns.

Why are so many attempting to turn EEZ patrol ships into small frigates? New Zealand cannot afford shore to sea missiles, yet her navy EEZ patrol ships have to have protection from terrorist's launched missiles in New Zealand waters? Can a 12.5-mm machine gun do the same job as a mini-Typhoon, shooting at small boats? If not, why bother to install them.

I do not see others trying to arm the MRV or OPVs to a level sufficient to provide protection vs. SSm or AShM.

The issue I (and others it seems) have regarding the armament of the OPVs and the Canterbury is that it currently consists of single Typhoon mounting with a 25mm Bushmaster forward of the bridge overlooking the bow, plus whatever HMG and/or small arms are carried aboard to be fired from unstablized mounts.

Given this what is being suggested is additional Typhoon and/or mini-Typhoon (or similar) mountings to provide protection vs. FIAC/FAC and other small craft in arcs that are not currently covered. Such a mounting with something like the Toplite system would provide a more stable firing platform than crewman could achieve with a regular HMG mounting, as well as better detection or accuracy in night/lowlight conditions when compared to the "Mk I Eyeball". I do not, aside from a Hail Mary shot, see such a system providing any real protection against aircraft or incoming missiles. It could help provide all-around protection from incoming hostile craft.

And personally, I would rather have had the RNZN have the vessels mount the Mauser 27mm, or the 35mm Millenium gun or even 30mm MSI found on the RAN Huon MHC. They fire more rapidly, at longer ranges and larger shells which can cover a wider range of roles than the 25mm 200 rpm max ROF of the Bushmaster. But that is just me.

-Cheers

 

[Tasman]

Can a 12.5-mm machine gun do the same job as a mini-Typhoon, shooting at small boats?

For the reasons given by Todjaeger, it is no where near as effective. If it was then navies like the RNZN and RAN would not have gone to the trouble and expense of installing them. Having said that , the 50 cal HMG is still a useful weapon. It is cheap, reliable, easy to operate, and is available in large numbers in the inventory of both navies.

Tas

 

[Lucasnz]

I do not see others trying to arm the MRV or OPVs to a level sufficient to provide protection vs. SSm or AShM.

The issue I (and others it seems) have regarding the armament of the OPVs and the Canterbury is that it currently consists of single Typhoon mounting with a 25mm Bushmaster forward of the bridge overlooking the bow, plus whatever HMG and/or small arms are carried aboard to be fired from unstablized mounts.

-Cheers

I'd disagree about the need to fit SAM to the MRV. I think Gibbo is right, Canterbury will be deployed outside our region as a basic missile system is needed. I think Mistral will suffice and note that the French carry it on some of their ships.

On the issue of a gun an upgrade to 57mm is the best way, providing improved all capability against the widest range of threats that can be expected in the South Pacific.

Having thought about the issue some more in regards to the OPV I'm more of the view now that any upgrades besides the main armament, should focus on developing Modular MCM, Environmental protection modules etc.

As a side note the Navy Today is reporting that Endeavour is to get a refit to double hull the ship and extend its life until 2013 in order to comply with MARPOL etc. The planned replacement is expected to have a wider capability, they quote Canterbury, but with RAS capability and increased fuel.

Got to go the rug rat does call.