I am not going to speculate the reason but they went with the corner mounted FDS3 decoy.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Thanks for that.
I just looked up a little about it RN system so that makes sense if they leaning that way, although the US navy is also a user of the system.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
I had assumed NZ went with the FDS3 because that is what Canada had fitted in the Halifax-class upgrades. A quick google suggests that while the RCN has fitted Nulka to their Tribal-class destroyers, they have opted for the Rheinmetall MASS decoy for the Halifax frigate upgrade.
Since compatibility with LockMart Canada's existing upgrade package isn't the factor, I assume FDS3 was chosen either because it was cheaper, or because it was lighter/smaller. Or some combination of the two.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Heard a story from an old mate in the Islands that may bear on the timing of this new policy. Last month there was a big UN talkfest in Samoa, with NZ Govt providing the local administration with lots of behind-the-scenes support. Overall a big success, according to the diplomatic types.
As part of this, HMNZS Otago was in port to fly the flag and assist with security. Within a few days of arrival, two crew members apparently had to be carted ashore to the local hospital for treatment, with one of them requiring a medivac back to NZ. Alcohol apparently played a leading role in both incidents.
Pretty sure that wouldn't have made the CN's day.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
on another topic...
this concept is only barely at the drawing board stage, but this is the kind of concept that I would one day like to see as part of our JATF.
DARPA advances ship-based MALE UAV concept - 10/14/2014 - Flight Global
Im an advocate of us having persistent, tactical level overhead ISR with strike/CAS capability on our land ops, preferably with a kiwi painted on the side. Even in peacekeeping ops, something like this would be an asset.
this concept is only barely at the drawing board stage, but this is the kind of concept that I would one day like to see as part of our JATF.
DARPA advances ship-based MALE UAV concept - 10/14/2014 - Flight Global
Im an advocate of us having persistent, tactical level overhead ISR with strike/CAS capability on our land ops, preferably with a kiwi painted on the side. Even in peacekeeping ops, something like this would be an asset.
kiwi in exile
Active Member
Than latest issue of Navy Today shows the trailing of FN M3M machine guns aboard HMNZS Rotoiti. There are a couple of pics and thats about it. Does anyone know any more about this? Is it merely a 'battle lab' style trial of a new piece of kit that we ight/might not acquire?
Would be good to see them fitted to our helos. Would give the sprites more range and punch against pirates.
Would be good to see them fitted to our helos. Would give the sprites more range and punch against pirates.
Our old Sprites are heading to the Peruvian Navy via Canada following an their midlife upgrade. Deal is reported to be around USD$80m,
TERN is certainly a concept worth following. The evolution of capability over the next few years with some of the ideas coming out of the techlabs is interesting. A small STOVL tactical UCAV/USAV with LO characteristics operating of LHD type vessels for example.
Banning drinking for all on the actions of a few is yet another diminishing of military perks in my veiw. Admittedly the military drinking culture is alot different and at times more 'rigourous' than most (not all mind) you may find in civi street but in saying that so is the job, what ever happened to work hard play hard?
Mistakes are actually a great learning tool and if we keep trying to dum them out completely then we tend to just make bigger ones when the time eventually comes (and it will) due to lack of exposure in the first place.
If we got rid of every 'potential' f*ck up then we would actually be a pretty ineffective military, live rounds would be banned on excersize, officers would be kept away from subordinates, aircraft would stay in the hanger and so on, where does it stop? We have fights on the rugby feild that may seem unruly to some and bring shame to others, to stop this do we stop playing rugby? Limit games? Play touch instead?
There always has and always will be a certain amount of trouble associated with anything involving alcohol but to blanket ban is more likely to just cause more problems as at least on a ship (or camp, base, ex etc) it is in a more controllable and somewhat confined zone, now imagine what those sailors are going to do once they hit shore leave after being denied something for all that time at sea and knowing they are going back on a ban once they return? Same goes for land ops, they are already dry an guess what happens when they return after 6 months. And what exactly is being acheived by raising the prices? Less money in an already slim pay packet? Move off base to other drinking establishments? Good luck if they think navy will just stop drinking because it's too expensive, pussers will find a way.
In my experience alot of these types of 'rules' come from pers in high places making them because they themselves do not 'partake' so why not limit/get rid of them, again punishing the majority to satisfy a few.
Agreed you do need controls and limits but such a complete ban is alittle OTT. Will be interesting to see its effects on the already low naval morale, you just have to look a social media to gain an appreciation from the older salts, ironically who they are desperate to keep.
Mistakes are actually a great learning tool and if we keep trying to dum them out completely then we tend to just make bigger ones when the time eventually comes (and it will) due to lack of exposure in the first place.
If we got rid of every 'potential' f*ck up then we would actually be a pretty ineffective military, live rounds would be banned on excersize, officers would be kept away from subordinates, aircraft would stay in the hanger and so on, where does it stop? We have fights on the rugby feild that may seem unruly to some and bring shame to others, to stop this do we stop playing rugby? Limit games? Play touch instead?
There always has and always will be a certain amount of trouble associated with anything involving alcohol but to blanket ban is more likely to just cause more problems as at least on a ship (or camp, base, ex etc) it is in a more controllable and somewhat confined zone, now imagine what those sailors are going to do once they hit shore leave after being denied something for all that time at sea and knowing they are going back on a ban once they return? Same goes for land ops, they are already dry an guess what happens when they return after 6 months. And what exactly is being acheived by raising the prices? Less money in an already slim pay packet? Move off base to other drinking establishments? Good luck if they think navy will just stop drinking because it's too expensive, pussers will find a way.
In my experience alot of these types of 'rules' come from pers in high places making them because they themselves do not 'partake' so why not limit/get rid of them, again punishing the majority to satisfy a few.
Agreed you do need controls and limits but such a complete ban is alittle OTT. Will be interesting to see its effects on the already low naval morale, you just have to look a social media to gain an appreciation from the older salts, ironically who they are desperate to keep.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Apologies in advance for my ignorance about firearms - possible I have completely mininterpreted this,
New Zealand's OPVs complete Typhoon gun acceptance trials - IHS Jane's 360
Janes reports here that the two OPVs have recently accepted the Typhoon 25mm naval gun system from Israel's Rafael, replacing the previous Austig 25mm. It also notes that they have two 12.7mm systems fitted (i.e 0.5 inch). Could the FN M3M be part of the same upgrade package? I think the Typhoon and mini-Typhoon mounts can accept weapons from a range of manufacturers. If the OPVs have been getting an armament upgrade/remediation, it seems logical that the 0.5s could be replaced as well as the 25mm.
No new helicopters would be built for the current fleet anyway so the point of not fitting 90s into OPVs and ANZACs is moot (btw CY can fit 90 as is), they would be doing things backwards to buy new kit to fit by then old ships that would be on their way out and instead would plan the new ships and helos concurrently. While it will be around an expensive period will still be cheaper than purchasing a possibly inferior product to suit a currently limited platform(s) in the long term.Whilst there would be many advantages of having the NH90 / NFH combination the NFH is too large for an OPV and OPV is a class of ship that the RNZN will have in service for a long while. Maybe one way would be to restrict the 'Sprites to OPVs and order a tranche of NFHs for the larger ships. Therefore then one would have to look at possibly 12 - 15 NFHs working on 2(3) frigates, 1 MSC and Canterbury. That would get the 'Sprites out to maybe 2030 and around that time another look at naval helos. That's how I think RNZN aviation should look but that is not what will happen unfortunately. The kiwi pollies will stay true to form, take the cheap option and stick with 8 'Sprites. One other point about the feasibility of the NFH in RNZN markings. The hangers on the ANZAC frigates, Canterbury and MSC would need to be modified for the NFH to fit, plus I think the flight decks on Te Kaha and Te Mana strengthened.
There is one type we haven't looked at for OPV ops and that is a marinised variant of the A109 Mako. Possibly fitted with a maritime surface search radar. That is another option. Give it a gun and option for the AGM65 Maverick missile (which we have) and something like Brimstone if possible to take care of pirates etc., then it's a viable cost efficient option.
Yes the current pool is good for two and even three flight decks but we have an extra one coming on board in four years with the MSC and Endeavour has never been able to operate the 'Sprites because it's flight deck was never 'Sprite capable.
Agree in RNZN terms the Wildcat would've been the best outcome. Bite the bullet now and leaves the possibility of increasing airframes down the line. 9 airframes now and say another 5 or 9 in mid to late 2020s would've been ideal. However getting 9 Wildcats quickly would've been the issue. The 5 current 'Sprites would have probably had to have been deep sixed before we could've got the Wildcats off the production line certified and introduced. It's not so much wanting the capability; it's getting the pollies to front up with the coin. Even if the capability is in desperate need the pollies are ever of short arms and long deep pockets when it comes to defence.
That is so true and as each year goes by it gets more concerning because it becomes a case of probably what capability are we going to loseUnfortunately unless we get a real war scare or something terrible happening in a security or military sense I see no change in priorities.
All the sprite purchase did was give us the numbers and allow govt a time bridge to a more appropriate and complimentary helo not only for future NZDF but RNZN capable ships. Sort of similar idea to the C130 SLEP, we now have time to fully evaluate all options and let types such as A400 mature abit before we rush in and commit for the next 30-50 years.
Whilst current otago class OPV are limited to sprite/lynx/a109 sized helos future new build such as BAMs can safely operate upto MH60/NH90 size, again giving options not only to us but our allies, you can always land a smaller helo on a larger deck but sadly not vice versa. A benefit of going NFH90 would be fleet consolidation, savings in itself in terms of operation, maintanence and training. Although I like the idea I do not see us getting 12-15 of any type for naval operations, you just have to look at 3 sqn (who routinely spt army) to gain an appreciation on possible size. I think at best and dependant on what we go with 8 sprite size as we currently have with hopefully same but possibly slightly less of a larger and more expensive 60/90 type. You still have operating and funding considerations that are purely dependant on fleet size and composition.
I would personally like to see BAMs eventually replace our current OPV when the time comes and infact we can start earlier with the mooted 3rd OPV and LSWV and that way helo size/weight/operation restrictions would not be an issue. The future tanker an frigates will undoubtedly already come with appropriate deck and hanger space as this now seems to be the norm for new builds regardless to cater for multiple helos and UAVs. I would then go 4 NFHs for the frigates and OPVs and 3 marinised NH90s for the supporties and to more readily support JATF alongside the RNZAF models. Although the numbers may not seem large I think they are more realistic in terms of aqqusition, operation and upgrade costs also taking into account the AF NH90s and A109s can and will still operate off RNZN vessels at times
The M3M as I understand it is a low-recoil 12.7mm machine gun intended for helicopter and fixed wing aircraft (ie: ramp firing) setups. I'm not sure it's the weapon you'd choose, when heavy machine gun 'level' weight isn't an issue...
Everyone else seems satisfied with quick change barrel versions of the venerable M2 12.7mm gun.
Yes I am wondering why too. I've used the M2 at sea and it is a great weapon. I did read that other navies have found that the 7.62mm has not been that effective as a pintle mounted weapon on their helos so have upgraded to the .50 cal which gives them far better capability. I am wondering if this is just a Battle Lab trial. They might be looking at the M3M as a possibility for NZ Army use in some capability and maybe fitting to NH90s and Sprites. So whilst they have the weapon they may see if it fits with other NZDF capabilities as well in that if it is ever decided to acquire the M3M then it might meet all NZDF .50 MG capabilities rather than some.
You raise some good points Reg. The NFH is really a navalised NH90, so I would like to see some bought sans the ASW / ASuW gear to use more often at sea on the MSC and on CY. Four would be enough bringing the 90s up to 12 which would give us better helo capability and cover the extra decks plus taking pressure of the current 90s. Would mean that wouldn't have to send the Sprites away on the these ships leaving them for their main missions and if needed on the OPVs..
I know RAN has switched to the M3M for it's SeaHawk and upcoming Romeos, but aI don't think Army has shown much interest in it...
I didn't see from that Janes article that RNZN had acquired M3M?
kiwi in exile
Active Member
As previously stated, latest Navy Today has a photo of it being trialled on HMNZS Rotoiti. Trialled is a quote, no mention of adoption in RNZN or and other branch.
The internet tells me USN and USMC are/have switched to M3M as standard rotary wing gun.
My 2 cents: if the navy are happy and there are no issues put it in the sprites, the NH90's on our PINZ (replacements) and the other navy ships.
Apparently the soft mount that M3M comes with reduces recoil and improves accuracy and reduces wear and tear. The way that the sight, trigger mechanism, handles are attached also has something to do with improved accuracy but i don't know the details.
cheers
So what your suggesting is for want of better words is a Romeo and Sierra versions of the NH-90. The "Sierra" version equiped with AQS-20A and other AMCM detection gear would be a very useful capability looking ahead.
BAMS / Stanflex / Venator like vessels are a no brainer really for the RNZN. The ability to swap out / add and re-role quiclkly through mission packages the vessel, from a benign HADR tasking through to effectively a Corvette/Sloop of War like surface combatant, then into a MCM/DSV and then back into benign EEZ OPV, with other role such as sigint/elint, environmental protection, MAOT tasks such as logistic supply of DOC staff on small island research bases. That is exactly what we need and should have had planned a decade ago rather than the former Labour Governments reheated version of the Irish Naval Service.
In many respects the ship specifications we really need is not yet built COTS - but other than the hull and superstructure everything would be COTS. The big Korean shipyards could do something with an eventual class of four. Something along these characteristics - circa 3000t, 100-105m, 40 days endurance, 10000km+ range, 22kts+ but ability to loiter under 5, Base crew of 35 plus 10 aircrew and 10 observers with a further accommodation capability 30 personnel short-stay - mission specific (Ideally further austere emergency accommodation as well should be possible for evac/refugee sits), 3D surveillance radar + sensors, surgical/Med suite, 1A ICE, Bofors Mk 110 57 mm as a std main gun, mini tyhoon, light CIWS like NARWHAL, medium heli capable flight deck and hangerage, workshop, flexdeck, 6 TCUs, hydraulic crane for mission packages / swap outs (including deployed small survey/inshore launch per SMB Adventure), decompression chamber and MCM drone et al). I would be looking at a palletised Point ADM and ASW capability swapped on/off as needed because it is essential that the vessel type can swing roles from EEZ roles through to anti-piracy, LIC, sealane escort. or directed taskings in a Chp VII maritime environment. If we include module / palletized system some things like Survey / Dive and MCM could be cross decked with the LWSV and vive versa. Though the LWSV is likely to be different vessel synergies should be there to backup, support and complement. Though I envisage 4 next generation OPVs the LWSV is will be in many ways a defacto 5th OPV.
The above would generally be my design/capability parameters for the next generation "OPV" (following the Endeavour and LWSV introduction) that may replace the first 2 IPV"s to go, then the next 2 IPVs replaced, then the Otago and then Wellington on a bi-annual basis. To replace the IPVs, which the Navy didnt really want but Clark/Goff/MFish did and the OPVs which to use a kind phrase - are underwhelming, a few years early, (they will have a useful second life with a small-medium developing nation, thus a win-win all round) and follow up that build program with the CY replacement (13000-15000 tonne LHD that I have previously outlined and advocated) and then a couple of very capable Anzacs to polish it all off.
At that stage or even a few years before, we would have a better read of the geo-strategic tea leaves post 2030 and decide whether to commit to a 3rd Anzac, or follow up with another batch of Gen II "OPVs." I would be initially inclined to keep the CY in reserve or limited use status as a cover or Sea/Aviation training role manning suplemented through VR personnel, because though the CY replacement vessel will be much better in a JATF role, the reality is that we can only afford, sustain and man realistically just one. It will be a more complex and capable ship and a cornerstone capability for a post 2025 NZDF. And it cannot be at sea permanently 24/7/365 or if it is away as part of a major TF/Ex with the next Endeavour, 2 Frigates, the LWSV and possibly a kitted up OPV in Vette mode and a Tsunami hits Samoa or the locals on Niue go troppo, then it could be quite a useful backup. I do want to make the point a small LHD vessel as the CY replacement would also benefit from the swap in / swap out modularized capability of the "OPVs" and actually when not in JATF / Sealift / HADR mode would be able to operate deployed rotary assets ala NHF-90 or MH-60R/S sailing independently in long range peacetime patrols possibly in lieu of a costly 3rd Anzac.
Cheers MrC
Exactly Ngati, the needs and wants of say a frigate and MRV are different therefore better suited helos will be more beneficial and ultimately cost effective. Use the NFHs mainly on frigates and future OPV and keep the marinised NH90 for the support vessels and training as no point having all NFH due to the extra cost plus a normal 90 has more cabin space due to lack of mission suites.
And yes mrC, if we go with the US option then same deal, say 4 romeos for the combat side and 3-4 sierras for the support function.
Starting off that way would be fine. However post CY I would lift the numbers slightly for both versions. The next CY will be more than a simple sealift ship. It will need to also have strategic projection in its output remit requiring both versions to be embarked.
It all comes down to funding in the end, Im sure all sqns would want full complements but with all services fighting over the ever shrinking pie they will all be pushing their justifications to the front of the priority list.