Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

No disagreement from me on any of those points.

Project Protector delivered three very useful vessels to NZ (and 4 modestly useful ones), but for just a little more money it could have made them far more capable and given them potential for future growth. The old proverb about 'spoiling the ship for a hap'worth of tar' springs irresistibly to mind.

I wouldn't call them very useful. Useful would be a better term and the IPVs IMHO would be ideal for training and / or the Reserve Divisions. Canterbury is OK, but just a pass mark. It's not really fit for purpose, however it is better than nothing and it is good to learn on. IMHO we would be better served with a proper amphib ship that is fit for purpose. Either an LPD or an LHD, with the emphasis on the well dock and hangarage for helos. Regarding the OPVs they are OK and do the current job but there is no room for upgrades. Cannot upgrade the armament or sensors without a major rebuild in the dockyard at great expense. When you look a Project Protector and the pollies who were in charge of it then you know why they are what they are. Especially when Goff told Radio NZ yesterday that the Orions did not need any ASW capability.

 

[KiwiRob]

When you look a Project Protector and the pollies who were in charge of it then you know why they are what they are. Especially when Goff told Radio NZ yesterday that the Orions did not need any ASW capability.

As many have said the OPV's and IPV's should be white with a red strip and be Coast Guard vessels. They could still do much of the same job.

 

[40 deg south]

I wouldn't call them very useful. Useful would be a better term and the IPVs IMHO would be ideal for training and / or the Reserve Divisions. Canterbury is OK, but just a pass mark. It's not really fit for purpose, however it is better than nothing and it is good to learn on. IMHO we would be better served with a proper amphib ship that is fit for purpose. Either an LPD or an LHD, with the emphasis on the well dock and hangarage for helos. Regarding the OPVs they are OK and do the current job but there is no room for upgrades. Cannot upgrade the armament or sensors without a major rebuild in the dockyard at great expense. When you look a Project Protector and the pollies who were in charge of it then you know why they are what they are. Especially when Goff told Radio NZ yesterday that the Orions did not need any ASW capability.

Ngati
I don't think we are much in disagreement. Post-remediation, the Canterbury and the OPVs are effectively carrying out the roles they were designed for. We're all aware of their limited growth potential.

While probably everyone on this forum would have preferred a 'proper' LPD/LHD and better fit-out on the OPVs, that simply wasn't going to happen given the political outlook and financial circumstances of the government that ordered them. All we can hope is that lessons about the impact of penny-pinching have been learned, and their replacements represent an advance in capability.

But I'm not holding my breath....

 

[40 deg south]

When you look a Project Protector and the pollies who were in charge of it then you know why they are what they are. Especially when Goff told Radio NZ yesterday that the Orions did not need any ASW capability.

Defence Force eyes new submarine spotters | Radio New Zealand News

This is the comment that Ngati is referring to. From memory, Goff was DefMin when the decision was taken not to include underwater capability in the Orion upgrade, so he is sticking to his position despite a significant change in the external environment.

He's currently the leading contender to become Mayor of Auckland, which will remove him from Parliament and any influence on defence decision-making.

Also, note the claim that the Defence White Paper will be released later this month.

 

[htbrst]

Defence Force eyes new submarine spotters | Radio New Zealand News

This is the comment that Ngati is referring to. From memory, Goff was DefMin when the decision was taken not to include underwater capability in the Orion upgrade, so he is sticking to his position despite a significant change in the external environment.

And right on cue 5 Squadron are working back up their anti-submarine skills in Australia as we speak:

https://www.facebook.com/RoyalNewZealandAirForce/posts/765511866916468

Back into warfighting mode! Having shown off their surveillance chops in Fiji, No. 5 Squadron are now into some serious training on Exercise OCEAN PROTECTOR 16. The multi-national exercise is being conducted off the Western Australian coast and includes Australian and US aircraft, ships and submarines and is into its second week.

Crew Four (callsign: Coyote) joined the exercise on 2 March. The first mission was a success in providing a good level of interoperability and cooperation between the Crew and the Navy ships and provided a great re-introduction to the nuances of Anti-submarine warfare.

Based at RAAF Base Pearce near Perth, the Airborne Surveillance and Response Force (ASRF) detachment of one P-3K2 plus crew and support team from No. 5 and 230 Squadrons are busy regenerating the Anti-Surface and Sub-surface Warfare skills after a lengthy deployment to the middle east supporting anti-piracy operations.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Good news all round then, really i hope Goff is a dying breed,the current climate in the South China seas is apparant even to a layman like me, he should see the importance of good surveilance with our Navy/ Airforce assets, now more than ever.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

As many have said the OPV's and IPV's should be white with a red strip and be Coast Guard vessels. They could still do much of the same job.

Like em or loathe them, the Opv's are doing thier job in Antarctica recently and now in fiji with much needed assistantance with disaster relief, along with MRV Canterbury. Given the 500 million budgeted for 7 vessels/ Protector fleet, i reckon we got value for money.

At todays prices that would have barely covered the price of a modern frigate! Even the Irish Navy dont have frigates, an Mrv, or Navy tanker nor do they even operate helicopters off their Opv force anymore. All i can see the main gripe with them is they arent as well armed as a frigate, they weren't intended to be.

 

[Todjaeger]

Like em or loathe them, the Opv's are doing thier job in Antarctica recently and now in fiji with much needed assistantance with disaster relief, along with MRV Canterbury. Given the 500 million budgeted for 7 vessels/ Protector fleet, i reckon we got value for money.

At todays prices that would have barely covered the price of a modern frigate! Even the Irish Navy dont have frigates, an Mrv, or Navy tanker nor do they even operate helicopters off their Opv force anymore. All i can see the main gripe with them is they arent as well armed as a frigate, they weren't intended to be.

It is not just that they "are not as well armed as a frigate..."

Part of the issue is that the armament is so limited in terms of quantity, capability, and arc... that the OPV's might be unsuitable for operations in areas where there could be hostile FAC's. This means that anti-piracy patrolling is either out of bounds, or more dangerous than it should or needs to be.

One of the other issues, and IMO perhaps a greater one, is the limited amount of flexibility now, and in the future (at least at a reasonable cost) inherent to the design. Granted, the ice-strengthening plays a part in this, even more so than intended due to design flaws, but still...

As for the Canterbury, I do feel the MRV is better than nothing, but it does really seem like the people making the decisions should have been aware that some of the planned roles required features which opposed the features needed for other roles. A sealift vessel for instance, requires volume/lane metres and available cargo displacement, and when the correct range of displacement is aboard and properly trimmed, the ship will ride correctly. A patrol vessel does not have or need the sort of volume or displacement for cargo, instead just the needed fuel and stores, and will ride correctly then. If one takes a cargo vessel and either removes of puts in insufficient displacement, the vessel will not behave normally at sea, with greater motion than intended for the design. In order for Canterbury to perform the intended patrol role, a significant amount of ballast would be required, otherwise the crew could be come injured, and/or the ship & machinery damaged. It is particularly distressing that this sort of mistake could have been made, given the service difficulties encountered with the previous logistics ship, HMNZS Charles Upham when lightly laden.

I do feel that Canterbury is a better choice for the RNZN than the 'Upchuck' as it was know, but not by as much of a margin as it should have been. Particularly since the 'Upchuck' was decommissioned in July 2001, and either the RFI or RFP for Project Protector was initially sent out a year later.

Similar concerns exist about the Canterbury's SA and self-defence capabilities vs. low-level threats.

 

[RegR]

Like em or loathe them, the Opv's are doing thier job in Antarctica recently and now in fiji with much needed assistantance with disaster relief, along with MRV Canterbury. Given the 500 million budgeted for 7 vessels/ Protector fleet, i reckon we got value for money.

At todays prices that would have barely covered the price of a modern frigate! Even the Irish Navy dont have frigates, an Mrv, or Navy tanker nor do they even operate helicopters off their Opv force anymore. All i can see the main gripe with them is they arent as well armed as a frigate, they weren't intended to be.

Agreed, for what we paid, what we expect them to do and more importantly what they realistically will do in our service, our navy did pretty well and actually enhanced its outputs greatly especially in regards to CY. CY fullfills its role for what we do, the OPVs are purely for constabulary work as the IPCs are for coastal patrols and are armed/equipped accordingly, no real benefit in trying to turn them into something more unless we change our stance markedly and even then we already have frigates to cover any escalation in threat level so I would rather concentrate effort there. Hopefully the future fleet replacements will 'grow' depending on future influences but for now the protector fleet is a stepping stone. Alot of theses 'issues' are merely us expecting too much from them rather than their actual inadequacies (although there were still a few basics as well) but for the price we paid the compromises are in the scheme of things minor.

I see on the RAN thread they are already discussing arming their future OPV with multiple weapon systems including missiles and CIWS and whilst they have different considerations to us they are still replacing essentially a PB therefore quite a step up in capability other than the obvious range, seakeeping ability, endurance etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

I see on the RAN thread they are already discussing arming their future OPV with multiple weapon systems including missiles and CIWS and whilst they have different considerations to us they are still replacing essentially a PB therefore quite a step up in capability other than the obvious range, seakeeping ability, endurance etc.

Funny thing about that... The Fremantle-class patrol boats were armed with a larger, 40 mm/60 cal. gun, and the gun position itself was designed to take a 76 mm/62 cal. gun.

The area armament-wise, where the ACPB's, as well as the OPV's and MRV for Project Protector are better, is that the current weapon has an E/O system and the weapon control station is away from the gun itself.

BTW Canterbury was to cover a number of roles, the reality is that some of them are really not being covered (at least by Canterbury).

 

[RegR]

Funny thing about that... The Fremantle-class patrol boats were armed with a larger, 40 mm/60 cal. gun, and the gun position itself was designed to take a 76 mm/62 cal. gun.

The area armament-wise, where the ACPB's, as well as the OPV's and MRV for Project Protector are better, is that the current weapon has an E/O system and the weapon control station is away from the gun itself.

BTW Canterbury was to cover a number of roles, the reality is that some of them are really not being covered (at least by Canterbury).

Yes agreed fire control and targetting these days has improved greatly and bonus is everyone is next to each other, from the guy making the D, to the guy controlling the ship to the person pulling the trigger (or pushing the button) meaning alot more co-ordinated, efficient, directed and more importantly safe. Gone are the days of multiple weapon systems across the ship exposed and going at it chattering over comms for direction and fire control orders. But again both CY and Wellington could have 76mm guns, a CIWS, advanced fire control but would be of just as much use up in the islands as it's 25mm or .50 is now (still under wraps) so in reality added expense for no real gain other than TBH looks. CY is probably the closest to requireing anything more offensive due to it's possible tasks (possible) but still nothing. Our govt not only pays for said capability but decides where and what they do and just like funding, is limited in its commitment. TBH we would not risk a fully loaded CY un-accompanied into anywhere overly dangerous anyway (if we go anywhere overly dangerous anyway that is). Whilst I agree obviously the bigger the weapon the greater the punch and obviously the larger the commitment scope I just think to keep within budget and still maintain a 7 ship aqquisition, for what these ships are envisaged to do within the RNZN fleet that they are appropriate for now and suited to task ie no we are not going to send an OPV nesscessarily pirate hunting but then that's why we freed up the frigates anyway so all relative. Hopefully though (as usually happens) we replace with like or better so next frigates step up, new OPVs improve and replacement CY has new and improved facilities and equipment, it just depends by how much and at what cost. Future End will be an interesting test case.

I'm pretty sure most defence capabilities in NZDF could also have a secondary function(s), all part of the selling process (every possible use) but it's the primary that is it's bread and butter and therefore main effort. All ships in the RNZN can do patrolling, training etc (to varying degrees of efficiency and worth) but if it's primary task is taking up it's sea days then obviously those lesser tasks would fall to other ships within the fleet and rightly so in some cases, realities of having 1 'MRV', 1 tanker that are heavily utilised in their core role, priority comes first.

 

[Volkodav]

Like em or loathe them, the Opv's are doing thier job in Antarctica recently and now in fiji with much needed assistantance with disaster relief, along with MRV Canterbury. Given the 500 million budgeted for 7 vessels/ Protector fleet, i reckon we got value for money.

At todays prices that would have barely covered the price of a modern frigate! Even the Irish Navy dont have frigates, an Mrv, or Navy tanker nor do they even operate helicopters off their Opv force anymore. All i can see the main gripe with them is they arent as well armed as a frigate, they weren't intended to be.

It could be argued that the final ANZAC, HMAS Perth, was delivered in 2006 for less than A$100M suggesting that a second pair for the RNZN could have been delivered in 2007 and 2008, as the eleventh and twelfth ships of the class, for even less, not counting the economic benefits of the work carried out in New Zealand. (NZ$ was near parity with the A$ 2006 - 2010 except for a spike Sept to Nov 2007). Considering that there is nothing an OPV can do that and ANZAC can't (except Antarctic patrols) and lots of things ANZACs can do that the Protectors never could, having a fleet of four frigates plus two OPVs and a small amphibious ship such as Singapore's Endurance Class design, would have been vastly more capable and probably no more expensive than the actual two ANZACs plus seven Protector ships.

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed, for what we paid, what we expect them to do and more importantly what they realistically will do in our service, our navy did pretty well and actually enhanced its outputs greatly especially in regards to CY. CY fullfills its role for what we do, the OPVs are purely for constabulary work as the IPCs are for coastal patrols and are armed/equipped accordingly, no real benefit in trying to turn them into something more unless we change our stance markedly and even then we already have frigates to cover any escalation in threat level so I would rather concentrate effort there. Hopefully the future fleet replacements will 'grow' depending on future influences but for now the protector fleet is a stepping stone. Alot of theses 'issues' are merely us expecting too much from them rather than their actual inadequacies (although there were still a few basics as well) but for the price we paid the compromises are in the scheme of things minor.

I see on the RAN thread they are already discussing arming their future OPV with multiple weapon systems including missiles and CIWS and whilst they have different considerations to us they are still replacing essentially a PB therefore quite a step up in capability other than the obvious range, seakeeping ability, endurance etc.

The Armidale's were ordered instead of a class of ESSM, Harpoon, 57mm gun and helicopter equipped corvettes at a time when the new government intended to upgrade all six FFGs with ESSM and SM-2 and all eight ANZACs with AEGIS, SPY-1F, ESSM, SM-2 and Harpoon. Shocking project management and decision making by the executive, combined with poor contractor performance by Thales saw the FFGUP stuffed up beyond recognition, while sanity prevailed with the ANZACs and ANZAC ASMD replaced ANZAC WIP and AEGIS but by that time the RAN was already lumbered with the dead wood Armidales. A straight OPV, while a quantum leap over the Armidales, is still quite a bit short of the 2009 and 2013 DWPs OCVs and way behind the Transfield Corvette that was seen as a necessity on the less complex and less dangerous 90s.

RAN Transfield OPV in The Commonwealth Navies Forum

 

[kiwipatriot69]

It could be argued that the final ANZAC, HMAS Perth, was delivered in 2006 for less than A$100M suggesting that a second pair for the RNZN could have been delivered in 2007 and 2008, as the eleventh and twelfth ships of the class, for even less, not counting the economic benefits of the work carried out in New Zealand. (NZ$ was near parity with the A$ 2006 - 2010 except for a spike Sept to Nov 2007). Considering that there is nothing an OPV can do that and ANZAC can't (except Antarctic patrols) and lots of things ANZACs can do that the Protectors never could, having a fleet of four frigates plus two OPVs and a small amphibious ship such as Singapore's Endurance Class design, would have been vastly more capable and probably no more expensive than the actual two ANZACs plus seven Protector ships.

Yes. but we would still be down two patrol ships if we had done that, ie IPV's. And we would of had 4 Anzacs to do weapons and systems upgrades, not two like we are now.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes. but we would still be down two patrol ships if we had done that, ie IPV's. And we would of had 4 Anzacs to do weapons and systems upgrades, not two like we are now.

The flipside of that argument, is that with four ANZAC-class FFH's requiring upgrades, there would also be four such frigates available for operations and deployments. This number would be sufficient to permit one away on a deployment, another in refit, a third on a training cruise, with the fourth available for immediate deployment as needed.

With the exception of the requirement for ice strengthening, additional frigates would have given the RNZN a much greater range of options than the OPV's do

Now the arguments over the OPV's at this point is much the crying over spilt milk. Little is being accomplished by it. The point which I feel has not stuck though is that at this point, the OPV's are likely to be in service at least to 2030, and could even be serving into the 2040's if they serve for 30+ years.

With that long a service life, and the very limited numbers of capable vessels in the RNZN, it would seem sensible to permit the greatest level of flexibility in terms of possible future options, without requiring significant time or resources to exercise those future options. Care and consideration needs to be given to what future assets will be tasked to do, and what they might need to be tasked to do.

Using what seems to have been a consideration during the Project Protector selection, that New Zealand had a benign strategic outlook, here we are a little over a decade later, and does the maritime situation NZ is facing over the next few decades still look so benign?

 

[Lucasnz]

The flipside of that argument, is that with four ANZAC-class FFH's requiring upgrades, there would also be four such frigates available for operations and deployments. This number would be sufficient to permit one away on a deployment, another in refit, a third on a training cruise, with the fourth available for immediate deployment as needed.

With the exception of the requirement for ice strengthening, additional frigates would have given the RNZN a much greater range of options than the OPV's do

Now the arguments over the OPV's at this point is much the crying over spilt milk. Little is being accomplished by it. The point which I feel has not stuck though is that at this point, the OPV's are likely to be in service at least to 2030, and could even be serving into the 2040's if they serve for 30+ years.

With that long a service life, and the very limited numbers of capable vessels in the RNZN, it would seem sensible to permit the greatest level of flexibility in terms of possible future options, without requiring significant time or resources to exercise those future options. Care and consideration needs to be given to what future assets will be tasked to do, and what they might need to be tasked to do.

Using what seems to have been a consideration during the Project Protector selection, that New Zealand had a benign strategic outlook, here we are a little over a decade later, and does the maritime situation NZ is facing over the next few decades still look so benign?

For me the issue around the frigates is the sustainability of the Naval Combat Force and its ability to meet Government Policy objectives, rather than the benign strategic outlook. Two ships are not enough but in the context of international deployments New Zealand has undertaken over the last 10 years, there is a need for three frigates in order to sustain any operation (One in refit - One Working Up / Available For Deployment - One Deployed). In the context of the Joint Amphibious Task Force, New Zealand has no naval combat redundancy capability in terms of supporting the JATF. That it self in probably justification for a 4th frigate.

The one thing that the 2014 strategic assessment focused more on was NZ constitutional responsibilities for the defence of the Cook Island's etc. This was greater than what had been emphasized in more recent reviews. But still at best the threat assessment would have to be in the low conflict spectrum, unless external powers interfere.

I agree that the OPV's / IPV's are here to stay and what could have been is a moot point now. While I would support maximum utilization, the weight constraints really mean the OPV are limited to a littoral warfare role.

For me the RNZN should be focusing on flexible OPV's to supplement the frigates, going forward (2030 + time frame) in support of the JATF. For example a more capable class of ship replacing the 6 OPV / IPV with a single class, with modular capabilities (i.e 2 Combat, 3 OPV, 1 Refit / Working up) should be something the RNZN should consider, potentially allowing for just three frigates, in the long term. Leave the small boats to the Rockies.

Sorry if this isn't quite on point in replying to Todjaeger

 

[ngatimozart]

The flipside of that argument, is that with four ANZAC-class FFH's requiring upgrades, there would also be four such frigates available for operations and deployments. This number would be sufficient to permit one away on a deployment, another in refit, a third on a training cruise, with the fourth available for immediate deployment as needed.

With the exception of the requirement for ice strengthening, additional frigates would have given the RNZN a much greater range of options than the OPV's do

Now the arguments over the OPV's at this point is much the crying over spilt milk. Little is being accomplished by it. The point which I feel has not stuck though is that at this point, the OPV's are likely to be in service at least to 2030, and could even be serving into the 2040's if they serve for 30+ years.

With that long a service life, and the very limited numbers of capable vessels in the RNZN, it would seem sensible to permit the greatest level of flexibility in terms of possible future options, without requiring significant time or resources to exercise those future options. Care and consideration needs to be given to what future assets will be tasked to do, and what they might need to be tasked to do.

Using what seems to have been a consideration during the Project Protector selection, that New Zealand had a benign strategic outlook, here we are a little over a decade later, and does the maritime situation NZ is facing over the next few decades still look so benign?

I agree with you about the OPVs and IPVs being spilt milk. The perception of a benign strategic outlook, IMHO, was somewhat myopic and self-serving because the strategic outlook then was not benign. Again rehashing that argument is entering the realms of spilt milk. However you raise very valid and important points about force generation and a navy's ability to implement govt mandates or requirements. The most important point illustrated is the lack of flexibility that prevents or inhibits current, or future govt, responses to situations or crisis, hence restricting policy options.

For me the issue around the frigates is the sustainability of the Naval Combat Force and its ability to meet Government Policy objectives, rather than the benign strategic outlook. Two ships are not enough but in the context of international deployments New Zealand has undertaken over the last 10 years, there is a need for three frigates in order to sustain any operation (One in refit - One Working Up / Available For Deployment - One Deployed). In the context of the Joint Amphibious Task Force, New Zealand has no naval combat redundancy capability in terms of supporting the JATF. That it self in probably justification for a 4th frigate.

The one thing that the 2014 strategic assessment focused more on was NZ constitutional responsibilities for the defence of the Cook Island's etc. This was greater than what had been emphasized in more recent reviews. But still at best the threat assessment would have to be in the low conflict spectrum, unless external powers interfere.

I agree that the OPV's / IPV's are here to stay and what could have been is a moot point now. While I would support maximum utilization, the weight constraints really mean the OPV are limited to a littoral warfare role.

For me the RNZN should be focusing on flexible OPV's to supplement the frigates, going forward (2030 + time frame) in support of the JATF. For example a more capable class of ship replacing the 6 OPV / IPV with a single class, with modular capabilities (i.e 2 Combat, 3 OPV, 1 Refit / Working up) should be something the RNZN should consider, potentially allowing for just three frigates, in the long term. Leave the small boats to the Rockies.

Sorry if this isn't quite on point in replying to Todjaeger

I agree with most of what you say, so apologies if I rehash what you and Tod have said.

The force structure of the RNZN needs to be recapitalised and rationalised in order to provide the government with a well structured cohesive force that can give it a wide variety of options, from soft power through to hard power, in order for it to achieve its policy aims and to honour treaty and defence agreements. It is accepted that the NZG does not have the resources at its disposal that other of our allies and friends enjoy, however that does not prevent the NZG from fielding such a force.

Therefore it is suggested that the Naval Combat Force should consist of a minimum of three (preferably four) GP frigates, capable of operating in a high intensity combat environment; and a minimum of six OPVs capable of operating and surviving in a low - medium level combat environment. These OPVs would be utilised for some combat roles as well as HADR, EEZ monitoring and surveillance, monitoring and surveillance of Antarctic waters, monitoring and surveillance of Pacific Island nation EEZs, piracy patrols where required and other taskings as required by the NZG. It is suggested that the OPVs utilise a modular weapons / mission system similar to the Stanflex system. This will give good flexibility for less cost than having to fit each OPV out with every system.

Furthermore it is suggested that four training vessels be acquired for the RNZNVR Divisions in order for them to practice, acquire and keep current seagoing and combat skills, in order that they can seamlessly integrate into RNZN ships crews as and when required.


I think that about covers it without getting into platform specifics.

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree that the OPV's / IPV's are here to stay and what could have been is a moot point now. While I would support maximum utilization, the weight constraints really mean the OPV are limited to a littoral warfare role.

The one quibble I would have, is whether the OPV's are really even appropriate for a littoral warfare role or not. From my POV, they are not.

With a distinctly limited fire arc for the 25 mm gun, the potential approaches to the OPV's would need to be covered by exposed personnel using small arms. In the potentially confined waterways of the littorals, this could allow FAC to get quite close to an OPV where the weapons brought to bear might be insufficient to damage or destroy the FAC before it closes with the OPV, or weaponry aboard the FAC could significantly damage the OPV. Also depending on the littoral environment, shore-based weaponry could engage an OPV, which could have no effective defence against or respond to. By way of example, an 81 mm mortar has an effect firing range of ~6 km, while the 25 mm gun the OPV mounts has an effective firing range of ~3 km...

That does not even get into the potential engagement by land-based heavy weaponry like artillery or vehicle mounted weaponry. Or the potential for encountering sea mines.

From my POV, a vessel which might be sent into littoral operations against even 'brushfire' type combatants, could have some sort of mine avoidance sonar, as well as weapons mountings to cover all approaches to the vessel with the gunners in protected positions. I feel that the main gun(s) should at least have sufficient effective range to keep that vessel from being engaged by some of the larger man-portable weapons, like an 81 mm mortar. Lastly, not only should a helicopter be able to be embarked, it should also be able to be properly armed, which means a magazine within the hangar.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The one quibble I would have, is whether the OPV's are really even appropriate for a littoral warfare role or not. From my POV, they are not.

agree on this. their fitout is really only suitable for brown and green water ops - at a pinch they could be used for grey water, but you'd have to have a low level of confidence on their suitability for that depending on the nature of the event.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

agree on this. their fitout is really only suitable for brown and green water ops - at a pinch they could be used for grey water, but you'd have to have a low level of confidence on their suitability for that depending on the nature of the event.

Well hopefully is is a case of lessons learn for all parties involved going forwards with replacement vessels. Is there a opportunity for us to get future OPV built in tandem with Australia,or are their specs considered unsuitable for the ops we do?