Hellfire or smaller missiles such as one of the new class of guided 70mm rockets, which are about a quarter of the weight of a Hellfire & much cheaper, with a similar range. The likely targets (small craft) can't carry significant armour, so don't need a missile built to carry a 9kg tandem HEAT warhead able to punch holes through heavy armour covered with ERA.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Modularity is the way of the future, especially for a small navy like the RNZN. However some capabilities do not adapt readily to modularity. One that comes to mind is surveying, hydrographic surveying to be precise and in that field precision is almost absolute, especially if it relates to under keel depths. Here we are talking about accuracies of ≤ 10cm which are difficult to achieve without the correct equipment. A multi beam echo sounder is used with multiple transducers in precisely known locations in a ships hull. Highly sensitive accelerometers are placed to measure pitch, heave and yaw. A series of complex calculations are then undertaken using the data from the accelerometers to remove the pitch, yaw and heave components from the echo sounder data. The location of the transducers and accelerometers is highly important because it has to be known in three dimensions to mm level. At the same time the ships position is continuously fixed in three dimensions to cm accuracy in order to place the final calculated depth and any features accurately on the chart. The accelerometers and the survey quality multi beam echo sounders are quite expensive so the NZG would likely balk at the cost of acquiring multiple units.
However there are other surveying tasks that do not require a multi beam echo sounder and a towed side scan sonar can be effective, or a comprehensive single beam echo sounder. Such capabilities would be able to be easily and effectively modularised reducing the work load of the littoral warfare ship.
The number of modules that an OPV carries for any particular tasking should be determined by the tasking and any perceived risks / requirements related to that tasking, rather than simply stipulating that all OPVs shall carry x number of modules at any given time.
However there are other surveying tasks that do not require a multi beam echo sounder and a towed side scan sonar can be effective, or a comprehensive single beam echo sounder. Such capabilities would be able to be easily and effectively modularised reducing the work load of the littoral warfare ship.
The number of modules that an OPV carries for any particular tasking should be determined by the tasking and any perceived risks / requirements related to that tasking, rather than simply stipulating that all OPVs shall carry x number of modules at any given time.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
If memory serves, the MH-60R 'Romeo' uses either the AGM-114M or AGM-114N Hellfire II, with either a blast-frag, or thermobaric warhead respectively, and not a HEAT warhead. These warheads are designed to take out targets which are not heavily armoured vehicles, ships/vessels being among the target types.
I know. I'm afraid you've misread what I said -
"a missile built to carry a 9kg tandem HEAT warhead able to punch holes through heavy armour covered with ERA."
It has other warheads available nowadays, but it's the size (including diameter - it's quite fat) it is because of the warhead it was built to carry. To disable pirate skiffs, Revolutionary Guard speedboats, etc., a smaller, lighter, slimmer (allowing more to fit on a helicopter) missile is enough, one not built for such a warhead.
"a missile built to carry a 9kg tandem HEAT warhead able to punch holes through heavy armour covered with ERA."
It has other warheads available nowadays, but it's the size (including diameter - it's quite fat) it is because of the warhead it was built to carry. To disable pirate skiffs, Revolutionary Guard speedboats, etc., a smaller, lighter, slimmer (allowing more to fit on a helicopter) missile is enough, one not built for such a warhead.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
The flipside of that, is that going with something like a guided 70 mm rocket might not be sufficient to disable or destroy some of the larger patrolcraft. I would expect a Seasprite would likely be able to carry a pair of quad Hellfires, or a pair of M261 launchers with 19 Hydra rockets each. The question then becomes which one would have more utility for the RNZN. 38 guided rockets vs. a swarm attack by speedboats in the Straits of Hormuz would likely be much better than 8 Hellfires. OTOH if the target vessel was something larger, like a 30+ metre Pacific-class patrol boat or other similar type vessel then I suspect the larger warhead would be desired. I also do not really foresee the RNZN getting into an engagement where the potential targets would be in the double digits in a single event.
Nick underscore
Member
As mentioned in previous posts can I assume the guided 70mm rocket is the APKWS or is there another system?
I thought ADF was playing around with system (trialing maybe?) for Tigers late last year.
Looks like it's getting a new (M282) penetrator warhead - APKWS II
Great capability using the old Hydra design baseline
I thought ADF was playing around with system (trialing maybe?) for Tigers late last year.
Looks like it's getting a new (M282) penetrator warhead - APKWS II
Great capability using the old Hydra design baseline
There are a few systems. Cirit (Turkish), DAGR (LM), GATR (Elbit & Alliant Techsystems), Talon (Raytheon), RPM/ILGR (French), FZ275 (Belgian), & the Thales UK Martlet (not quite a 70mm rocket - uses parts from the Starstreak MANPADS) - at least.
Cirit has been delivered to the Turkish armed forces, & has an export customer. Martlet has been delivered to the British armed forces. GATR development is complete & a launch customer (with AH-64) signed up, according to Elbit.
Cirit has been delivered to the Turkish armed forces, & has an export customer. Martlet has been delivered to the British armed forces. GATR development is complete & a launch customer (with AH-64) signed up, according to Elbit.
Nick underscore
Member
Cheers Swerve, very much appreciated. I'll take some time and read over these
Quite a saturated market then.
Quite a saturated market then.
shanes_world_05
Member
MBDA has a laser guided 5 inch Zuni based system. Has commonalities with its 2.75 inch system and has been trialed on a number of platforms. Payload is I believe 20kg with ranges out past 10 miles (not qualified with details of altitude and launch platform speed). I think this screams opportunity.
Nick underscore
Member
Thanks Shane. Interesting system.
I must admit I hadn't paid much attention to these systems, until I noticed APKWS on my radar.
Not sure, I'm a fan of the 4-shot LAU-10 launcher . I guess its a volume Vs. range trade-off?
Seems the GATR (mentioned by Swerve) by Elbit/ATK, have a contract US SOCOM. This included validation on various Socom platforms, including the MH-60L - unsure whether the validation went further. Interestingly, it utilises the same steel-cased M282 penetration warhead that forms the basis on upgrade to APKWS II.
Yet, the USMC has used the APKWS I on the AH-1's, since '12.
Back to NZ naval helicopters..
EDIT; It seems (publicly stated by respective companies) ranges are APKWS II 5.5km+ (7) and the MBDA Zuni system 16.1km+ (4)
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Now that a 3rd OPV optimised for the southern ocean seems more than a pipe dream, I've been wondering what vessels already exist that are suitable for patrolling close to the arctic/antarctic.
One that looks good on paper is almost certainly out of contention due to purchase and running cost - Canada's AOPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeWolf-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
The first vessel is under construction and Canada would doubtless love an export order, but at over 100m long, a 65-man crew and a price tag that appears to be in the hundreds of millions, it is unlikely that NZ govt would even consider it.
A more plausible contender might be the Icelandic Coast Guard's Thor, based on a Rolls Royce offshore support vessel platform. It's based on the same UT512 platform as the Norwegian Harstadt, but has been stretched to 93m. Perhaps the major drawback is that it has a landing platform but no helicopter hanger - that could be a deal-breaker for NZ.
Thor Offshore Patrol Vessel - Naval Technology
RR have a much larger range of offshore designs than I had realised, and offers several of them as suitable for conversion to coastguard/patrol duties (512, 515, 527, and possibly others.) As Rolls Royce is a design shop, they could be built in any yard (Iceland's came from Chile).
http://marine.rolls-royce.com.cn/~/...documents/design-ship-technology-brochure.pdf
Given the new tanker is likely to be a Hyundai, perhaps a Roller would be just the thing to add a touch of class to the NZ fleet!
Of course, there's always the Russian alternative! Can't help but marvel at the way they cram weapons onto a small platform.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...then-arctic-capabilities-of-russian-navy.html
One that looks good on paper is almost certainly out of contention due to purchase and running cost - Canada's AOPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_DeWolf-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
The first vessel is under construction and Canada would doubtless love an export order, but at over 100m long, a 65-man crew and a price tag that appears to be in the hundreds of millions, it is unlikely that NZ govt would even consider it.
A more plausible contender might be the Icelandic Coast Guard's Thor, based on a Rolls Royce offshore support vessel platform. It's based on the same UT512 platform as the Norwegian Harstadt, but has been stretched to 93m. Perhaps the major drawback is that it has a landing platform but no helicopter hanger - that could be a deal-breaker for NZ.
Thor Offshore Patrol Vessel - Naval Technology
RR have a much larger range of offshore designs than I had realised, and offers several of them as suitable for conversion to coastguard/patrol duties (512, 515, 527, and possibly others.) As Rolls Royce is a design shop, they could be built in any yard (Iceland's came from Chile).
http://marine.rolls-royce.com.cn/~/...documents/design-ship-technology-brochure.pdf
Given the new tanker is likely to be a Hyundai, perhaps a Roller would be just the thing to add a touch of class to the NZ fleet!
Of course, there's always the Russian alternative! Can't help but marvel at the way they cram weapons onto a small platform.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/inde...then-arctic-capabilities-of-russian-navy.html
She cost 575m NOK which in today money is 103m NZD, now remember her hull was also built in Norway by very highly overpaid Norwegian shipyard workers, you could most likely build the hull in Romania or Poland for half the price (which is what most Norwegian yards now do) and fit it out in Norway for a lot less than the Norwegians spent.
The Russians have built more Ice Breakers than everyone else combined, they know what they are doing.
Jesus you think they could get the ships correct in the article.
It's Project 21900M, not 1900 which is a follow on from the 2 21900 vessels, its three ship two built at Vyborg the third contracted to Aker Arctic in Finland.
Project 22600 is not a nuclear powered vessel, she's had a protracted build, started at Baltic Shipyard, then the deck house was contracted out to Nordic Yards in Germany who screwed it up.
Project 22220 is for three nuclear powered vessels, the first is already well underway, the second in class was laid down recently, both at Baltic Shipyard.
There's an option Nuclear Powered ice breaker - the green movement would be so up in arms over that we could slip 6 frigates in the back door
.On a more serious note shouldn't we be talking to the Danes about their future plans with a view to a joint project and in the interim lease an ice capable vessel as a 3rd OPV.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Cruise missiles , armed helicopter, and a 100 mm navy gun, a tad over kill for an Icebreaker if you ask me! More offensive capability than one of our frigates, i doubt if we will see cruise missiles even on our future ones.
I don't know. A nuclear powered well armed icebreaker would be the bees knees. I'd suggest it purely for the entertainment factor of the subsequent uproar from the usual suspects, during which Lucas can sneak in his six frigates and me an ACF
I note that the Russian vessel above is a "patrol boat, ice-breaker and tug" - Are their any western patrol designs that have a significant towing ability?
Given the lack of a New Zealand based ocean-going tug has been raised in the past as an issue should a large ship require assistance to prevent an environmental disaster perhaps there could be some synergy in such a dual-role vessel.
Given the lack of a New Zealand based ocean-going tug has been raised in the past as an issue should a large ship require assistance to prevent an environmental disaster perhaps there could be some synergy in such a dual-role vessel.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
In that case, why not go for a squadron or two of those F35 to keep us in good relations with our ANZUS obligations! theres goes half of the promised 11 Billion!I don't know. A nuclear powered well armed icebreaker would be the bees knees. I'd suggest it purely for the entertainment factor of the subsequent uproar from the usual suspects, during which Lucas can sneak in his six frigates and me an ACF
Yes this could have rammed Rena off the rocks, towed it out to sea and then destroyed it completely as a lesson. Those russians don't do things by halves I'll give them that, them and our treasury would never get along, not willingly anyway.
If the offshore oil industry ever establishes itself we will have a number of AHTS vessels based in NZ. That said it's absolutely daft that we don't have one here today.