May I remind every one that Da'esh took out an Egyption Navy Patrol boat in a rocket attack the other day. The patrol boat looked to be 1-5 kms from the shore line. If we end up sending LOSC to the Middle East I want it to have phalanx.
Scenario 4 seems to perfect a scenario. I mean how many was could an adversary make a vessel of LOSC's type look silly. Keeping in mind US navy destroyers are vulnerable. Naff idea sending LOSC in the next 50 years with out a CIWS.
I'm not expert enough to say CIWS is specifically the right answer, but I certainly believe from a defensive point of view, it needs to be better armed than Canterbury is (mind you this is as much a reflection of my view that the latter is also 'under-gunned').
I guess in a littoral environment with shore parties at work (deployed form & supported by the LOSC) you can argue a CIWS firing walls of lead would be a very dangerous thing for shore parties in transit etc, and even those on shore. But not all threats will be necessarily so close in.
Not wanting to stick my head out but at times I wonder if at times if a little too much 'academic' rather than 'experience based' thinking is used in determining required weapons capability. As an RNZN example we tend to hear the argument the Endeavour, Canterbury etc will not be deployed into ‘hot areas therefore the current level of self-defence capability is sufficient – I say that is an academic approach – and potentially a dangerous way to think.
These days seaborne risks for Navies are more likely than not small well armed & well organised asymmetric threats in areas where commercial shipping is still able to move freely – eg: the Egyptian patrol boat. Just think of the anti-piracy patrols where they’ve even taken pot shots at USN vessels.
‘Hot’ threats these days don’t just look like the typical WW2 naval battle or amphibious assault scenario, the RNZN could find ‘hot spots’ in the most unexpected of locations & times, especially these days with the likes of rising terrorist threats etc. Again – think USS Cole.
The risks are no longer as clear as those planning deployments may like to think, and the threats can emerge (and disappear) rapidly. It is this ‘lower’ threat level that vessels are more generally expected to deal with themselves & should be able to, as it will be very difficult for a frigate to deal with a swarm attack on another vessel effectively – especially if the hostiles position themselves where the frigate has to fire toward the vessel it is trying to defend. Also what if the frigate is already engaged with its own hostiles or the hostiles approach in ‘shadow’ of the vessel the frigate is supposed to defend?
Other navies generally field similar vessel types with reasonably significant self defensive weaponry so that if the higher end layer is unable to react in time or for other reason, it can mount a last line of defence. How many navies field AOR or Amphib vessels that rely largely on manually operated weapons for self defense and instead rely almost exclusively on a frigate or other vessel for the core of their self-defence?
How long since a RNZN vessel has had to deal with an armed attack? Could we be lacking a little institutional experience in this area? I was on the bridge of Canterbury talking to an officer (can't remember his role) at an open day & when talking about the threat of small fast craft with say an RPG on board, asked him how they would deal with such a scenario approaching from astern. He basically told me (in his opinion I guess) that he couldn’t see that happening!
I was gob smacked, especially when it’s so plain to see that Canterbury can only bring small arms to bear if approached from dead astern whilst at anchor. I guess arguably they could station an OPV or something similar off the stern to cover that aspect but again it’s that reliance on another vessel which is loaded with the assumption such a vessel is available.
Having said that I’m heartened by the scenarios presented in the LOSC RFP as they certainly show some enlightened thinking on perceived threats, so I guess there really is some good experience coming to the fore. Maybe the problem simply comes down to budgetary constraints on projects putting the dampers on allowing RNZN to get the systems it needs.
