I don't think it's assissted. We are talking of a 113kg HE warhead hitting at high speed. That's half a Harpoon and roughly a NSM. And look at what that did to the target ship in the video.
There just seems to be an awful lot of 'fire' in those SM-1 vids, particularly on a supposedly 'emptied' target hull and the overall weight of the last production SM-1 missile (Mk115 warhead) was only 225lbs.
I suppose it might depend on the relative ranges of the targets, as well. Standard has quite a long range, and if the missiles are arriving in a terminal dive with only half their fuel expended that could result in significantly larger explosions...
Very true, it was the fuel fire that is said to have made Sheffield a total loss as I don't believe the Exocets warhead detonated. Fire kills ships as effectively, or even more effectively than blast or shock. Some absolutely horrendous blast damage has been repaired on some ships, even ships having lost their bows or had their backs broken by torpedoes or mines, while fire has so severely damaged others, including heat damage to structural members, that they had to be scrapped.
Yes I tend to agree it may be commercial greed, hence the wider language used, rather than reference to a specific state. That said I agree when it comes to protecting EEZ resources NZ needs to be firm and to the point, regardless of who the country is. Noting that ships commanders will have specific rules around what they can and can't do I'm not adverse to making an example of one or two FFV or even NZFV, but something bigger than a 25mm might be required. I seem to recall the French took that approach using one of the Floreal class about 10 or 12 years ago.
This was the attitude in the non PC 70's One Taiwanese vessel would not stop for a navy patrol boat so a couple of skyhawks armed with 20mm and 5in zunies were sent out with orders (direct from Rob M) to stop it or sink it. One pass across the bow with the 20mm and it stopped. In those days fishing vessels caught illegally fishing were confiscated and the overseas owners either came up with a very large payment (based on the value of the ship) or the government sold it . From memory the Captains went to court and had fines around the $50000 mark and the ship owners had to pay in the hundreds of thousands to get there ship back. Times have changed.
Up until last year there were 2 japanese trawlers sized and berthed in Dunedin. One sailed this year for the breakers (history of pest infestation) and the other one is still here after 4 years - arresting a boat is not a short term business.
No, we had a regular supply of Russian and others in Lyttelton during and after the 1990's taking up space with crews not being paid etc., etc. We arrested a Norwegian one in 1990 off the West Coast of the South Island for fishing inside the 25 mile line during the hoki season. Escorted it back to Nelson under guard where MAFFish did their thing. It went back to sea after a week with a new fishing master and after $2.5 million bond was posted. Had a Norwegian crew with Kiwi factory workers on board. The boat was working on contract to a Kiwi company. The Norwegian crew weren't concerned at all but the kiwis were really cranky with us navy types for arresting their boat. Some fisticuffs ensued ashore in a couple of drinking establishments and the navy won.
Worth noting that the vessels in this instance were found just OUTSIDE New Zealand's EEZ. That considerably restricts the range of options available, compared to it they were found inside NZ waters.
There is a limit and unfourtunatly for us these guys choose when to know it. Sadly no amount of OPVs can do anything if they stay on the fringes of our EEZ as we cannot afford (literally) to shadow them 24/7 in the "general area" waiting for them to test ours and their GPS. Diplomatic finger pointing can only go so far and whilst I do agree we need to take a firmer stance when they do blatantly enter our waters illegally in order to make a point, I'm not entirely sure what that is. Sanctions, confiscation, direct action, intel gathering etc all have their pros and cons, time and place and and varying levels of success. Are we going about it the right way or do we not yet have the appropriate "tools" and processes in place for the job?
If you catch them in the act and then manage to apprehend the offending craft, there are a variety of options open to the prosecuting authorities. If it goes to court, then it falls to the court to determine innocence or guilt. If the court finds the offender guilty as charged, then the judge has a range of penalties available. However, unfortunately, judges don't always hand down an appropriate penalty. Sometimes I think something going bang underneath the keel of an offending craft sorts the problem out. :ar15 :daz As if that would ever happen though.
Yes, there is nothing like a demonstration of how far you will go to get the message across, as long as you are catching a high proportion of the transgressors. Modern research has shown that being caught is greater deterent than the punishment.
A few well placed rounds into one and the rest will fall into line, or at least think twice........too much persuasion? This is why I would make a bad politician or a short lived naval captain
I too would not make a good pollie nor have a very long career as a warships CO Reg. Whilst I agree with the sentiments, methinks that said actions would invoke copious quantities of paperwork of greater tonnage than the ship that fired said shots. You both know what the Kiwi military is like - for every action there is a copious quantity of paperwork.
I would think that any direct action (shooting directly at it ) against a fishing vessel would require pollitical permission (as per 4885 ), not likely at this point in time, but who knows what the future holds post 2017. there are one or two pollies out there that just might try it on.