Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
The same way the F-18E Super Hornet was an "evolved variant" of the original F-18...
:The Karl Doorman , pge 198 , 199 has plenty, I've seen dorman as well, but its not so important to look it up, it,ll be around the same area, not important, not really worth talking about, we all know what is meant, same with Absalon class.
I'd even suggest comparing how the YF17 related to the F/A18 - "it has to look like this (holds up model of YF17) and it's called "Hornet"." Other than that...The same way the F-18E Super Hornet was an "evolved variant" of the original F-18...
Well,the 155mm project revolved around converting the Mk8 114 DP turret to load the shell and charges for a 155m arty piece in two cycles. As an export option it had the drawback of requiring a spare 114mm turret with loading apparatus.
I'm glad we didn't bother - a 127/54 O/M mount with Vulcano appeals more.
I'm glad we didn't bother - a 127/54 O/M mount with Vulcano appeals more.
Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Has anyone tried going the other way and made a land based artillery system out of 127mm ammunition?
Seems to have worked for 76mm in a few applications at least.
Cheers
Shane
Do we rate Vulcano though? It seems like quite a simplistic solution to a field that many have tried and failed in (naval based extended range guided gun munitions).
In addition, it's a sub-caliber round, which appear hardly ideal for NGS IMHO.
I'm currently in favour of Raytheon's current program to adapt Excalibur into the existing 127mm ammunition natures. That would provide a 40k+ ranged PGM quite quickly, without the issues that ERGM had to overcome, as well as synergies with the existing Joint Fires concepts amongst NATO and Allied nations and immediate integration with AFATDS and existing JTAC capability.
Not 100% sure on his point, but I believe it also currently has a similar logistic footprint to existing ammunition natures so it may well require little to no magazine modification on ships either. (I understand the RN is moving towards a 127mm gun for the first time so work will have to be done in this regard anyway).
As with many other modern weapons programs, I believe moving target engagement capability is in the growth path for Excalibur and I'd be surprised if increased range wasn't as well.
Additionally when adapted to the naval environment, I'd be astonished if precision anti-ship capability wasn't included and then you'd have a very interesting and complete weapon system...
I wouldn't like to be on the receiving end of supersonic 127mm precision guided munitions raining down accurately at 20 rounds per minute on my naval taskforce at beyond 40k ranges...
The MSRI capability of Excalibur would make things interesting for close- in defence systems too!
I think Vulcano is the nearest thing I've seen to a working and practical round with that kind of range and precision. A navalised Excalibur would be interesting as it's not a sub calibre round, bigger payload etc so a mix of the two for different target sets would be good.
Vulcano's range would get you quite a ways inland however - you could be plinking SAM command vans, truck convoys and all sorts of stuff from over the horizon (assuming some sneaky Specops guys are around to designate.) Not as good for say, dug in troops or dispersed targets I'd guess (less terminal effects) - but more useful for close support in taking out vehicles and point targets.
I'm certainly hoping we'll see something like it in service with the RN.
Vulcano's range would get you quite a ways inland however - you could be plinking SAM command vans, truck convoys and all sorts of stuff from over the horizon (assuming some sneaky Specops guys are around to designate.) Not as good for say, dug in troops or dispersed targets I'd guess (less terminal effects) - but more useful for close support in taking out vehicles and point targets.
I'm certainly hoping we'll see something like it in service with the RN.
As stated earlier I strongly believe the RNZN ANZAC FFH should be three Absalon Class vessels. They offer the RNZN and the NZDF a greater range of capabilities and flexibility that would meet and enhance NZ needs, than any projected ANZAC II could and for a lot less money. Dollar for dollar, three Absaloms would likely cost as much to procure as say two Spanish F100 frigates (€800M), two French FREMM frigates (€1.1billion) , or two RN Type 26 Future frigates. Crewing wise, the three Absalom would require 60 less crew than the current two ANZAC FFH (300 vs 360). According to CASR, the total cost of the Absalon class vessels fully equipped was 2.7billon DKR (€362 million) .
The Absalom has a displacement of 6,300 tonnes, crew of 100 with accommodation for a further 200, range of 9000 nautical miles and a service speed of 23 knots. In RDN its armament is 1 x 127 mm main gun (5"/62 / M/02 LvSa); 2 x 35 mm CIWS (Millenium / M/04 LvSa); 16 x SSM; 3 x SAM (VLS); 4 x SAM (light); 2 x twin torpedo launchers; 7 x heavy mgs and it utilises the Danish StanFlex system. It is used by the RDN as a command platform for Land, Air and Naval Forces; a transport of personnel and material; a military hospital ship; and a minelayer. It has an extensive suite of electronics. In RNZN service, I would like to see it have CEAFAR and a good ASW suite – both sensors and weapons. The vehicle deck has a space of 450 m3 that includes about 24 lane metres. The hangar can house two AW101s. An ice belt on the ships should be something that the RNZN should look closely at.
Three of these vessels would give the RNZN a wide-ranging capability centred around the JATF but at the same time able to operate within an ANZAC task force environment in the South Pacific of further afield as well as within a USN and allied task force arrangement. The vessels also allow for amphibious support beyond NGS and would be a good HADR asset.
The current Protector Class OPVs whilst allowing the RNZN some extra capability, they do not offer a real combat related capability, which is what the RNZN need from an OPV alongside the other mandated roles. Therefore, it is suggested that a new class of OPV with stronger combat capabilities be sought for the RNZN. Similar to the RAN, the RNZN has a very extensive area to cover, in the RNZNs case from the tropics to Antarctica; hence, an ice belt is required in the vessel. The envisaged vessel would need to be around the 2,500 – 3,000 tonne displacement, able to hangar a NH90 or similar sized helo, mount a 5” gun, 2 x 30mm auto cannon, have basic ASW capability, be fitted with CEAFAR, have the StanFlex flexideck, use the StanFlex system, crewing of around 30 – 40 plus 30 extras, 6 – 7000 nautical mile range. That is similar to the Spanish BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima) OPV, but my feeling is maybe a more bespoke design is required. Five preferably six would be required and they would have to be able to match the Absalons in speed.
A fleet of 3 x Absalon; 6 x OPV; 4 x IPV; 1 x LPD and 1 x Endeavour replacement I suggest is achievable and viable for the RNZN. This fleet would add significant capability to NZDF and to the wider South Pacific region both in naval and HADR capacities. It is not something that has to be done tomorrow, but something that has to be built up gradually, but something that needs to be done.
Danish Naval Projects - Patrol Frigate - Iver Huitfeld Class - Patrol Ship - Projekt Patruljeskib - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Frigate Project - Absalon Class - SCSC - Single Class -
Danish Naval Projects - Absalon Class - Command and Support Ship - Transport Frigate - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Command Staff - Vehicle Transport - Containerized Hospital - Leopard
Royal Danish Navy - Ships and Material
Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM) Class Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology
The Absalom has a displacement of 6,300 tonnes, crew of 100 with accommodation for a further 200, range of 9000 nautical miles and a service speed of 23 knots. In RDN its armament is 1 x 127 mm main gun (5"/62 / M/02 LvSa); 2 x 35 mm CIWS (Millenium / M/04 LvSa); 16 x SSM; 3 x SAM (VLS); 4 x SAM (light); 2 x twin torpedo launchers; 7 x heavy mgs and it utilises the Danish StanFlex system. It is used by the RDN as a command platform for Land, Air and Naval Forces; a transport of personnel and material; a military hospital ship; and a minelayer. It has an extensive suite of electronics. In RNZN service, I would like to see it have CEAFAR and a good ASW suite – both sensors and weapons. The vehicle deck has a space of 450 m3 that includes about 24 lane metres. The hangar can house two AW101s. An ice belt on the ships should be something that the RNZN should look closely at.
Three of these vessels would give the RNZN a wide-ranging capability centred around the JATF but at the same time able to operate within an ANZAC task force environment in the South Pacific of further afield as well as within a USN and allied task force arrangement. The vessels also allow for amphibious support beyond NGS and would be a good HADR asset.
The current Protector Class OPVs whilst allowing the RNZN some extra capability, they do not offer a real combat related capability, which is what the RNZN need from an OPV alongside the other mandated roles. Therefore, it is suggested that a new class of OPV with stronger combat capabilities be sought for the RNZN. Similar to the RAN, the RNZN has a very extensive area to cover, in the RNZNs case from the tropics to Antarctica; hence, an ice belt is required in the vessel. The envisaged vessel would need to be around the 2,500 – 3,000 tonne displacement, able to hangar a NH90 or similar sized helo, mount a 5” gun, 2 x 30mm auto cannon, have basic ASW capability, be fitted with CEAFAR, have the StanFlex flexideck, use the StanFlex system, crewing of around 30 – 40 plus 30 extras, 6 – 7000 nautical mile range. That is similar to the Spanish BAM (Buque de Acción Marítima) OPV, but my feeling is maybe a more bespoke design is required. Five preferably six would be required and they would have to be able to match the Absalons in speed.
A fleet of 3 x Absalon; 6 x OPV; 4 x IPV; 1 x LPD and 1 x Endeavour replacement I suggest is achievable and viable for the RNZN. This fleet would add significant capability to NZDF and to the wider South Pacific region both in naval and HADR capacities. It is not something that has to be done tomorrow, but something that has to be built up gradually, but something that needs to be done.
Danish Naval Projects - Patrol Frigate - Iver Huitfeld Class - Patrol Ship - Projekt Patruljeskib - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Frigate Project - Absalon Class - SCSC - Single Class -
Danish Naval Projects - Absalon Class - Command and Support Ship - Transport Frigate - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Command Staff - Vehicle Transport - Containerized Hospital - Leopard
Royal Danish Navy - Ships and Material
Buques de Acción Marítima (BAM) Class Patrol Vessels - Naval Technology
Me too and ditto for the RAN / RNZN. The un-guided Vulcano rounds have been proven okay I believe and they are currently achieving around 60k ranges I believe. The 100k extended range variant has yet to be developed I understand.
From what I've read none are currently in production either and the guided rounds have yet to undergo any kind of operational testing.
Unfortunately despite promises for years, they don't seem all that much closer to delivering an operational capability than raytheon does with Naval Excalibur...
The 155mm-sabot guided (GPS/SAL) Vulcano version, using the same projectile that will be used in the 127mm version, had several operational test firings, both in Germany and at Alkantpan in South Africa.
During tests this July, 155mm Vulcano GPS/SAL fired on a 2x2m target by a PzH2000 at 33km using terminal semi-active laser homing achieved direct (!) impacts on target. This week-long testing campaign was pretty much done to show off the capabilities of the product to representatives of the German and Dutch MODs to attract sales for the 155mm version.
LRIP of the unguided 127mm BER version has started for the Italian Navy I believe. Vulcano GPS/SAL LRIP is planned for 2014.
It'll be interesting whether and where longer-ranged Vulcano firings will be tested, as there aren't really any gunnery ranges of sufficient size. Alkantpan is only 65 km long overall, with the longest shot there (and the longest shot by a 155mm gun at all) achieved so far by a PzH2000 using Denel's V-LAP covering 56 km of its length.
Various euros do weapons testing in australia (we lease out the range to friendlies) heck, even the poles have used our ranges....
Bluey 006
Active Member
I like it.One has often wondered about these kind of support frigates for RNZN or the RAN (Absalon Class / F125 etc) does seem make sense for this region on may levels.
Perhaps RNZN and RAN could look to jointly procure here creating longer runs,lower costs and more ships!!!
3 x Absalon (1 x RAN, 2 x RNZN)
7 or 11 x Future Frigates ....say local versions of GCS or F110 [6/8 x RAN, 1/2 x RNZN]
30 x MRV - Austral [22 x RAN, 8 x RNZAN]
Combined this with other existing assets in both the RAN (LHDs, AWD, Future Collins etc) and RNZN(Endeavour etc) and you have the capability to have definitely two potentially 3 maritime ANZAC strike or patrol groups of various size available simultaneously. Throw in the various force mulitpliers and air assets like P-8s, BAMS UAS/UCAS, Wedgetail's, JSF, F/A-18E/F and Growlers and ANZACs can completely dominate the maritime battle-space of the region....independently.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bluey 006
Active Member
Maritime Spec ops
Why are CDTs not under the command of SOCOMD?
Are there plans to raise a special operations capable element out of the 2nd RAR once it becomes - amphibious cable ? Given that most of Australia's battlespace is in the maritime domain it seems to make sense that we would have dedicated special operations unit specifically for Maritime operations ( similar to SBS or DEVGRU). This would free up SASR to focus on long range ISR, direct action and other sensitive missions far beyond our shores.
I have two questions:Various euros do weapons testing in australia (we lease out the range to friendlies) heck, even the poles have used our ranges....
Why are CDTs not under the command of SOCOMD?
Are there plans to raise a special operations capable element out of the 2nd RAR once it becomes - amphibious cable ? Given that most of Australia's battlespace is in the maritime domain it seems to make sense that we would have dedicated special operations unit specifically for Maritime operations ( similar to SBS or DEVGRU). This would free up SASR to focus on long range ISR, direct action and other sensitive missions far beyond our shores.
well, clearance divers aren't undertaking the same types of mission sets as sbs, sas, sasr etc.....the latter 3 don't do clearance.etc... i've seen stacks of imagery of sasr working out of subs plus doing vbss on cruiseliner sized vessels. they have niche capabilities
i wouldn't think so. we don't have the resourcing flex or the need imo to build another unit.
the curr issue for socomd is the same as the patterns also emerging in quite a few friendlies, ie that the govts of those countries are seeking to use SF as their first responders, and then keep them on the job. broader army is missing out on some valuable otj work that doesn't necessarily need to be a socomd driven job etc.... we run the risk of burning them out through job saturation and not enough balnce for
recovery and refresh
i've seen and come across a bit of envy from general army as well which is a bit unfortunate.
my 2c anyway
anyway, this is a bit OT on a kiwi thread
Yep I do. This is a precise.
That’s first paragraph of the intro blurb to the RFI. It is to be noted that initial RFI is designed to enable an Indicative Business Case to be put to the NZG and then possibly the RFI respondents turning it into a RFP or RFT. The RFI closes at 1200 NZDT 2/12/2013.
The timing for delivery is mid 2017 and IOC 2018. They want a Generic Platform Architecture (GPA) capable of accepting Plug and Play (P&P) capability modules enabling the integration of future capability P&P modules if and when they are developed.
These are the capabilities required:
Some dimensions etc:
Max overall length 150m
Max overall beam 19.5m
Max fully laden draft 8.2m
Max displacement 3,600 tonnes
Transit speed 14 – 18 knots.
Ability to operate 0 – 8 knots for MCM etc.
Ability to carry & sustain 90 bods for min 30 days.
The length & beam max dimensions were determined by the dry dock at Devenport.
Costed options:
Ice Class 1AS - Ice Class IA Super, ships whose structural strength in essential areas affecting their ability to navigate in ice essentially exceeds the requirements of ice class IA and which as regards hull form and engine output are capable of navigation under difficult ice conditions. (http://www.sjofartsverket.se/pages/40584/b100_1.pdf)
HELDK - Helicopter landing area or erected platform covering basic strength requirements. (DNV Ship Classification)
I like the modules concept which makes me immediately think of the StanFlex modular system. I think if they gowith say StanFlex then it opens up the rest of the fleet for the system. I wasn't able to find the RFI on GETS for the Endeavour replacement so I don't know if they had a similar requirement in that RFI.
Surprised at the overall size and displacement, given what the capabilities of Manawanui and Resolution were. I'm not convinced about the requirement for ice strengthening as a costed option but do like the plug and play options.
Rules out the Svalbard class based on displacement.
Last edited: