Any info on weapons systems? I'd like to see 2-3 .50 cal HMG's (enough to provide 360 degree surface cover) - even better in mini-typhoon mounts!
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Not really just mentions secure storage for 6 x M2.50 cals, 2 x MAG58s Steyrs, M4 compatible weapons, personal weapons etc. I would like to see a 30mm auto cannon up for'ard, however it's early days and if they went with the StanFlex system then that allows for modular weapons systems including a 76mm gun.
Yes true - early days - and if the vessel is upwards of 100m+ then there's definitely scope for something heavier - but this is NZ!
But such things do need to be specified at an early stage of the process.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Still struck by the projected size of the replacement vessel:
- 150m
- 19.5 m beam
- 8m draft
- 3600 tonnes etc
According to the Navy website, Manawanui is 43m long, 9.5m wide and displaces 911 tonnes. Resolution was bigger (70m? 2000 tonnes?) but nothing like the size of the projected replacement.
For comparison, the OCVs are 85m long, 14m wide and displace 1900 tonnes. The ANZACs are 118m long, 14.8m wide, draft 6.2m and displace 3600 tonnes.
I know these are maximums, but doubt they were set deliberately higher than what the navy thinks it needs. What is interesting (at least to this landlubber) is that the max displacement is capped at the same size as an ANZAC (3600 tonnes) but the other specs provide for it to be both significantly longer (150m vs. 118m) AND wider (19.5m vs. 14.8m).
What does this mean? Two obvious possibilities spring to mind:
1) RNZR are providing maximum flexibility for would-be suppliers to supply designs ranging from short'n'fat through to long'n'skinny?
2) Vessel construction will be much more lightweight than a frigate, giving a bigger but lighter boat?
I'd welcome the people here who know something about this nautical stuff pitching in with better-informed opinions.
Finally, I'm unconvinced of a need for heavier armaments than specified. That is enough to see off an unregistered Korean trawler or Somali pirate skiff, and the list of specified equipment is exceedingly long already. It isn't supposed to be a front-line fighting vessel, so why add to the clutter?
- 150m
- 19.5 m beam
- 8m draft
- 3600 tonnes etc
According to the Navy website, Manawanui is 43m long, 9.5m wide and displaces 911 tonnes. Resolution was bigger (70m? 2000 tonnes?) but nothing like the size of the projected replacement.
For comparison, the OCVs are 85m long, 14m wide and displace 1900 tonnes. The ANZACs are 118m long, 14.8m wide, draft 6.2m and displace 3600 tonnes.
I know these are maximums, but doubt they were set deliberately higher than what the navy thinks it needs. What is interesting (at least to this landlubber) is that the max displacement is capped at the same size as an ANZAC (3600 tonnes) but the other specs provide for it to be both significantly longer (150m vs. 118m) AND wider (19.5m vs. 14.8m).
What does this mean? Two obvious possibilities spring to mind:
1) RNZR are providing maximum flexibility for would-be suppliers to supply designs ranging from short'n'fat through to long'n'skinny?
2) Vessel construction will be much more lightweight than a frigate, giving a bigger but lighter boat?
I'd welcome the people here who know something about this nautical stuff pitching in with better-informed opinions.
Finally, I'm unconvinced of a need for heavier armaments than specified. That is enough to see off an unregistered Korean trawler or Somali pirate skiff, and the list of specified equipment is exceedingly long already. It isn't supposed to be a front-line fighting vessel, so why add to the clutter?
Because it is still a combat vessel and not all minefields etc., are in benign areas. Note that the OPVs have a 25mm auto cannon plus 2 x M2.50 cal HMG.
Yes this vessel won't be worried so much about trawlers & pirates, but more about the quite plausible threat of 2-3 fizz-boat loads of RPG wielding idiots on a Sth Pac island that aren't happy about the vessel being there.
If the risk level was any higher (eg: terrorists in FIAC) then you'd expect to see covering combat assets involved - but the latter are most effective at countering long-range threats that can be engaged at further distance.
Small fast-moving surface craft (FIAC) can manoeuvre extraordinarily quickly & can rapidly approach & overwhelm a moored LWSV (this vessel is likely to be either moored or trawling a survey line at very slow speed as it performs it's role) by exploiting the blind-side that a covering vessel can't see & react to quickly without hitting the LWSV itself.
That's why for FIAC it' not ideal to rely on another vessel for support - each vessel that is required to enter an area with that level of risk should be able to engage FIAC independently with it's own HMG's etc. This requires 360 degree surface cover by such weapons - something that is provided on the RNZN frigates, but it seems on no other vessel (I don't count small arms - others might!?!)
On another note - wonder if they'll specify the 4-point mooring system, or azimuth thrusters to allow the LWSV to 'hover' over a dive spot? Manawanui has the former & is apparently a key function.
...and recompression chamber?...
I would suspect 12.7mm HMG's (particularly if stabilised mini-typhoon mounts are acquired for some of them) are going to outmatch any likely FIAC threat, even those armed with RPG's.
Any such threat could probably be engaged by on-board troops / operators with Javelin missile systems too if need be.
A decent stabilised 25mm gun would of course be the preferrable option for most I guess, but it wouldn't do in some people's eyes to have "too many" NZ "battleships" in-service...
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I think these questions are more significant than the level of armament aboard. I still have no mental picture of what this vessel will look like, and how the various equipment will be positioned. Can anyone point out a class of vessel with a similar range of functions elsewhere?
Shaping a new breed of mine countermeasure vessels - Naval Technology
This link mentions UK work to combine the functions of mine countermeasures and hydrographic survey in a single vessel, but it is unclear how far this has progressed.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Thanks Ngati - you must type faster than me!
I'm still curious as to whether there is an existing class of vessel in service elsewhere that fills a similar range of functions, or is RNZR trying to break new ground?
It's something that will happen as part of the Mine Counter Measure, Hydrograpic Patrol Capability (MHPC) program. It spawned out of what the T26 program used to be when it was the Future Surface Combatant. The old requirement was for 8 hulls to replace our minehunters (all 15 of them IIRC . . . ) + extras for survey/patrol roles but this was an undetermined amount.
The stats were 2-3000t, 25kts, 7000nm range, hanger for light helo, reconfigurable aft mission bay. But this is a really old definition of the requirement. It's been incredibly quiet as of late.
The stats were 2-3000t, 25kts, 7000nm range, hanger for light helo, reconfigurable aft mission bay. But this is a really old definition of the requirement. It's been incredibly quiet as of late.
mainly because I think its part of the next RN plan rather than present one which is focused on the carrier and T23 and the Astutes
Excellent, I like the sound of this vessel already! Sounds like it could be a very valuable & well used vessel!
If built to MilSpec (unlikely I'm picking) & armed with a few HMG's on stabilised mounts it'll be even better!
I wonder (out loud!) what similar platforms already exist in military service to perform this specific role? I suspect there must be others to use as a baseline for comparison!?!
I very much doubt that the HMGs will be on stabilsed mounts. In NZ pollies & treasury terms they are a very expensive luxury. The M2.50 cal on the OPVs are not stabilised. For their M2.50 cal the RNZN use the pre Kahu RNZAF A4 TLAR targeting system - That Looks About Right based on the Mk 1 eyeball. With the Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability vessel (Endeavour replacement) the RNZN and MoD appear open to trying something new (within reason) that will fit within their budget and meet their requirements.
While not military, to get a comparison of size with ships that are regularly tied up in NZ there is NIWA's Tangaroa - she is ice-strengthened and had dynamic positioning systems added a few years ago.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/vessels
A bit smaller than the maximum specifications noted for the navy, but about the size we will end up with I imagine.
Given Tangaroa was retrofitted with the dynamic positioning system, are similar second-hand ships likely to be looked at as an option?
I won't completely discount second hand ships because it's Kiwi pollies making the final decision, but converting a vessel like Tangaroa would be hugely expensive. However I think it very unlikely because they stipulate a minimum of 25 years operational service and have a desire for a flight deck and hangar capable of taking a NH90. That's a costed option not an absolute necessity but highly desireable. Given the 25 year stipulation I would say a bespoke new build will be the outcome. I think they have finally learned the lesson that buying second hand ends up being a short term advantage and a long term high cost option (he says somewhat hopefully).
No I haven't. The only thing I have about it is the Defence News article. NZ Issues RFI for Naval Tanker Replacement | Defense News | defensenews.com. I never saw the RFI on GETS and it was before the time I could access GETS. This is the timeline from the article:
I emailed the MoD yesterday requesting a copy of the RFI so will wait and see if I get one.
t68
Well-Known Member
cheers thanks for that, I was hoping you may have know who responded which could give us an indication on what vessels are in the mix.