What are the Kiwi SOPs re this?Whiskyjack said:
normally it's a progressive order of bangs:
- single shot forward of bow
- .50cal/20mm burst shot forward of bow
- stern or engine block shot
- wheelhouse
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
normally it's a progressive order of bangs:
I guess the issue is what sort of threat environments are the RNZN going to be operating the OPVs in? With the exception of the French and Australians they are more heavily armed than any other ship in the South Pacific and are mainly for resource protection, SAR and showinh the flag.
I see the need for NZ to be able to conduct low level military operations in the South Pacific. Operational experience such like Bouginville saw a need for a show the gun and the flag in the early stages. As a result Canterbury, with an NGS capability was deployed in support of the army. The same can also be said of East Timor - Show the gun with the flag. I concede the early operations in East Timor are considered medium level ops.Whiskyjack said:
I'm looking beyond just chasing FFV's. With only two ANZAC's the navy cannot guarantee an NGS capability for operations in the South Pacific. Sea RAM would be nice, but its limited to Air Defence and a limited surface warfare role - which Mistral can do.alexsa said:
I need to look into NLOS-LS as a viable alternative for the 76mm .
I don't disagree. The only issue is that the OPV design NZ has is not for want of a better word 'military' it is military operated coast gaurd ship IMO.Lucasnz said:
Something like a LCS would be more appropriate for military duties, but that comes at a cost.
Whiskyjack said:
Agreed, but most nations are no longer building low level op ships to full mil-spec. Areas like the magazines are still at milspec but the rest is to civilian standard. The French Floreal, Danish SF3000 and SF3500 are examples.
Probably more accurate to say the Austal design Trimaran, with armament to suit local conditions. Patrol, amphibious, capable of ASW and ASuW upgrades etc..alexsa said:
Small crew low costs.
Sorry I should have expanded.
Noted, no problems. I don't mean to sound difficult but to include such capability the 127m hull platform based on the Fred Olsen ferry (same hull form used for LCS) is still not going to be cheap. In addition there are very real operating limitations on the lightweight aluminium structure used on this type of vessel in respect of seastate (i.e the great southern ocean) and what loads you can apply to the structure. The LCS itself is limtied to ASMD (RAM), 50 cal HMG, a 57mm gun and sensors. The other capability is provided by mission packages which again add to cost.Whiskyjack said:
Being aware of the classification of the Fred Olsen ferry in respect of its operating limitations (it is built under the HSC code) it would appear it is not a vessel that can sustain operations in all conditions and I doubt it is intended for sustained operations in some of the areas that NZ needs to patrol. There are more cost effective solutions to provide similar capability for the money NZ (and Australia for that matter) can afford.
I don't think New Zealand would commit to any military operations in the South Pacific without any military support from Australia, nor without the support of the South Pacific Forum nations either. However I do see a humanitarian mission undertaken alone by New Zealand, if and when the Australians are overstretched in other military or humanitarian missions elsewhere. New Zealand forces are very capable of doing this very low threat level of operations.
While I would prefer to have a 57-mm or 75-mm gun on both the MRV and OPVs, and the 25-mm gun on the IPVs, having the 25-mm gun on the larger ships and small arms on the IPVs is adequate for patrol missions these ships were designed and equipped for. New Zealand needs new IPVs as much as they needed the MRV and OPVs, therefore I accept and understand the compromise of the smaller arms. The currrent partol boats New Zealand has are inadequate and need to be replaced ASAP, the new IPVs can do every job the old patrol boats could do and are better ships for other missions.
The new Project Protector ships are needed, and their potential missions have been well thought out by the government agencies involved. Nevertheless, New Zealand still needs at least a third frigate in my opinion for forward deployments, the two don't provide sustainability past six months. Since New Zealand missed the opportunity to build the third frigate of the same class, it would be best to commission two frigates of a newer class at the mid-life point of the Anzac class frigates, bring the total to four frigates. Doing so will stretch out the acquisition costs allowing for sustainability and most importantly avoid block obsolescence.
New Zealand should be able to afford a new small replenishment ship, a hydrographic ship, and a diving tender when the former ships wear out, these ships are cheap compared to frigates. Since the MRV will most likely see only 100 days at sea annually, its life should and could last over 40 years, whereas the OPVs and IPVs will wear out before 30 years.
I know a few Kiwis who think the frigates should be replaced by OPVs, which are not in my opinion warships, nor can they ever be. They were not designed to military standards, therefore won't last in a war. I would prefer to build another two frigates than upgrade the OPVs with SAMs or SSMs. The whole purpose of acquiring the OPVs is to free up the frigates for forward deployments. While the OPV can replace a frigate in a show the flag visit, they are not designed for combat.
While I would prefer to have a 57-mm or 75-mm gun on both the MRV and OPVs, and the 25-mm gun on the IPVs, having the 25-mm gun on the larger ships and small arms on the IPVs is adequate for patrol missions these ships were designed and equipped for. New Zealand needs new IPVs as much as they needed the MRV and OPVs, therefore I accept and understand the compromise of the smaller arms. The currrent partol boats New Zealand has are inadequate and need to be replaced ASAP, the new IPVs can do every job the old patrol boats could do and are better ships for other missions.
The new Project Protector ships are needed, and their potential missions have been well thought out by the government agencies involved. Nevertheless, New Zealand still needs at least a third frigate in my opinion for forward deployments, the two don't provide sustainability past six months. Since New Zealand missed the opportunity to build the third frigate of the same class, it would be best to commission two frigates of a newer class at the mid-life point of the Anzac class frigates, bring the total to four frigates. Doing so will stretch out the acquisition costs allowing for sustainability and most importantly avoid block obsolescence.
New Zealand should be able to afford a new small replenishment ship, a hydrographic ship, and a diving tender when the former ships wear out, these ships are cheap compared to frigates. Since the MRV will most likely see only 100 days at sea annually, its life should and could last over 40 years, whereas the OPVs and IPVs will wear out before 30 years.
I know a few Kiwis who think the frigates should be replaced by OPVs, which are not in my opinion warships, nor can they ever be. They were not designed to military standards, therefore won't last in a war. I would prefer to build another two frigates than upgrade the OPVs with SAMs or SSMs. The whole purpose of acquiring the OPVs is to free up the frigates for forward deployments. While the OPV can replace a frigate in a show the flag visit, they are not designed for combat.
Last edited:
Fair enough, thanks for the insight.alexsa said:
As far as I can tell most of this comes from the 1987 report on frigate options that stated 76mm was the minimum caliber practical for NGS. Technology has moved on from then and smaller calibers can still achieve a lot. Air-burst 57mm is still not going to be a pleasant experience for anyone on the recieving end, much like a 60mm mortar round is still lethal if it explodes close enough. There are issues about range and penetration that only a larger round can achieve, but that isn't to say 57mm is too small to be useful.alexsa said:
As an aside the RAN felt the need to increase the magazine capacity on the ANZACs. The ANZACs were originally designed for a 76mm gun and the magazine size reflects this.
contedicavour
New Member
Has Bofors prepared any guided ammunition for their 57mm ? If it hasn't, the 76mm of Oto Melara/Finmeccanica is unbeatable with its new guided ammunition vulcano/strales programme. We're talking about shooting a guided ammo to 35km range... with the ability to correct the trajectory until the very last moment. This could be useful against fast moving boats or onshore targets... and much cheaper than using missiles.Rocco_NZ said:
cheers
Yes, Bofors has developed a longer range 57-mm round. The new Visby class guided missile patrol combatant has the SAk 57 Mk3 57-mm single-barrel automatic gunmount. The mount holds 120 rounds onboard, wth 40 ready to fire and uses casettes to reduce reload time to 8 seconds. The 3P Prefragmented, Programmable, Proximity-fused round weights 2.4 kg, wit 2,400 tungsten pellets and .46 kg Octol explosive as payload. The HCER-BB High Capacity Extended Range Base Bleed round, has a range of 21 km and muzzle velocity of 950 m/sec The older shells for the SAK Mk 2 and Mk 1 gunmounts have a range of 14 km. Source Combat Fleets of the World.
You'll also notice that the Americans are developing a larger range 127-mm shell too.
You'll also notice that the Americans are developing a larger range 127-mm shell too.
Last edited:
Project Protector Update
MRV and Landing Craft
The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel =to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel.
The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable and flexible level of accommodation for the embarked force, utilising a series of 12 berth cabins (four sets of bunks three deep) which are located in the superstructure on the same level as the flight deck. The ease of movement for fully equipped troops to or from the flight deck has been emphasised within the design criteria. Movement between decks is provided via two wide stair wells or a large centrally located service elevator.
Separate embarked force messing facilities and recreational areas are provided, including:
a gymnasium,
embarked force administration office,
stores areas,
workshops, and
offices for government agency officials.
The embarked force will also have its own armoury and magazine, located forward on the cargo vehicle deck.
As well as the vehicle lanes (total length 403m), CANTERBURY will be able to embark up to thirty three 20 ft ISO containers, of which eight may contain ammunition. Some of the container points are provided with power sockets to allow connection for Reefer Refrigerated containers. There is also space for up to twenty NATO-standard pallets.
In addition, a separate Hazardous Goods Facility is provided, allowing for 2 x 20ft ISO containers, and dedicated paint and petrol stowages. The Army’s LAVs LOVs and Unimogs run on diesel. Petrol is required for only a limited range of Army equipment (motorcycles, Quads and some generators) and so would be embarked for specific purposes only.
Due to the wide range of cargo that may be present in the Vehicle Deck at any one time extensive firefighting systems are being installed, with smoke and flame monitoring as well a Drencher and Sprinkler systems. Four NH90 Utility Helicopters can be carried in addition to the MRV’s own SH-2G helicopter. All of these aviation spaces are afforded AFFF sprinkler fire protection.
Two LCM's back to back on the water
Ship - Shore Transfer System
The new CANTERBURY will have a range of methods for moving cargo and personnel from the ship to shore. ‘Cargo’ will generally be either:
vehicles (i.e. LAVs, LOVs, trucks, earthmoving machinery, or trailers with or without ISO 20 ft containers),
separate ISO containers, or
smaller items.
The various methods for ship/shore movement will be:
load/unload Landing Craft Medium (LCM) via stern ramp,
load/unload LCM via the ship’s 60 tonne capacity cranes, with access through hatches in the flight deck,
load/unload MRV via side and or stern ramp on to a wharf,
load/unload MRV via crane through flightdeck hatches direct to a wharf, or
helicopter under-slung loads.
The ship’s two RHIBs can also be used, for small numbers of personnel.
If the ship can’t get alongside, a key aspect for the MRV operations will be the ability to move vehicles and freight across the hydraulic-controlled stern ramp to the Landing Craft.
Side-on view of LCM
CANTERBURY’s LCMs
The Landing Craft Medium (LCMs) are significant vessels in their own right, being 23m long and displacing approximately 55 tonnes when empty. When loaded with 2 NZLAVs an LCM will displace 100 tonnes. Weight limit on the empty weight of the LCM is to enable them to be embarked using the MRVs 60 Tonne crane. (To appreciate the size of the LCM it is worth comparing them to the IPCs, which are only a little longer at 27m and displace 91 tonnes).
The LCMs will have a crew of 3; the LCMs are designed for beach landings and are fitted with a ballasting system to allow for safe operation when loading and unloading cargo. They also carry a kedge anchor, used to assist hauling the LCM back off the beach.
The Stern Ramp of the MRV has “marriage blocks” that allow the LCM to position itself forward or aft on the ramp and “Flippers” that ensure athwartships alignment. The stern of the LCM will be held in position with steadying lines running to the MRV port and starboard quarters. As can be seen in the photo the LCMs have a near-flat bottom that leads aft to a central fairing with no rudder, but with both azimuth thrusters on either quarter.
Propulsion is by two Azimuth Thrusters, powered by Scania D19 diesels of 235Kw (315hp) driving through z-drives. The LCMs are very maneuverable as the thrust can be directed in 360 degrees from the z-drive thrusters.
The names and affiliated home ports of the Navy’s seven new Protector ships were announced by Defence Minister Phil Goff on Friday 31 March.
The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said that the announcement of the ships’ names was another significant milestone in the delivery of 7 new ships under Project Protector. “The names that have been chosen for the new vessels illustrates not only the Navy heritage but the enduring links between the Navy and New Zealand. These are names that the Navy is very happy with and I’m sure the many ex-sailors who served on the original ships will feel exactly the same” he said.
The Navy’s Protector fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).
All seven ships will be commissioned into operational service for the Royal New Zealand Navy at staged intervals during 2007 with the Multi Role Vessel scheduled for January and the last Inshore Patrol Vessel in December 2007.
MRV - CANTERBURY, Jan 07 (Christchurch/Canterbury)
OPV(1) - OTAGO, Apr 07 (Dunedin/Otago/Southland)
OPV(2) - WELLINGTON, Oct 07 (Wellington)
IPV(1) - ROTOITI, Jan 07 (Napier/Hawkes Bay)
IPV(2) - HAWEA, May 07 (Greymouth/Wesport/West Coast)
IPV(3) - PUKAKI, Sep 07 (Nelson/Marborough)
IPV(4) - TAUPO, Dec 07 (Whangerei/Northland)
Sorce: www.navy.mil.nz
MRV and Landing Craft
The Navy’s new Multi-Role Vessel =to be named CANTERBURY, has a vehicle capacity for up to 40 NZLAVs (the Army’s new armoured fighting vehicle) along with an embarked force of up to 250 personnel.
The MRV’s commercial design heritage provides a comfortable and flexible level of accommodation for the embarked force, utilising a series of 12 berth cabins (four sets of bunks three deep) which are located in the superstructure on the same level as the flight deck. The ease of movement for fully equipped troops to or from the flight deck has been emphasised within the design criteria. Movement between decks is provided via two wide stair wells or a large centrally located service elevator.
Separate embarked force messing facilities and recreational areas are provided, including:
a gymnasium,
embarked force administration office,
stores areas,
workshops, and
offices for government agency officials.
The embarked force will also have its own armoury and magazine, located forward on the cargo vehicle deck.
As well as the vehicle lanes (total length 403m), CANTERBURY will be able to embark up to thirty three 20 ft ISO containers, of which eight may contain ammunition. Some of the container points are provided with power sockets to allow connection for Reefer Refrigerated containers. There is also space for up to twenty NATO-standard pallets.
In addition, a separate Hazardous Goods Facility is provided, allowing for 2 x 20ft ISO containers, and dedicated paint and petrol stowages. The Army’s LAVs LOVs and Unimogs run on diesel. Petrol is required for only a limited range of Army equipment (motorcycles, Quads and some generators) and so would be embarked for specific purposes only.
Due to the wide range of cargo that may be present in the Vehicle Deck at any one time extensive firefighting systems are being installed, with smoke and flame monitoring as well a Drencher and Sprinkler systems. Four NH90 Utility Helicopters can be carried in addition to the MRV’s own SH-2G helicopter. All of these aviation spaces are afforded AFFF sprinkler fire protection.
Two LCM's back to back on the water
Ship - Shore Transfer System
The new CANTERBURY will have a range of methods for moving cargo and personnel from the ship to shore. ‘Cargo’ will generally be either:
vehicles (i.e. LAVs, LOVs, trucks, earthmoving machinery, or trailers with or without ISO 20 ft containers),
separate ISO containers, or
smaller items.
The various methods for ship/shore movement will be:
load/unload Landing Craft Medium (LCM) via stern ramp,
load/unload LCM via the ship’s 60 tonne capacity cranes, with access through hatches in the flight deck,
load/unload MRV via side and or stern ramp on to a wharf,
load/unload MRV via crane through flightdeck hatches direct to a wharf, or
helicopter under-slung loads.
The ship’s two RHIBs can also be used, for small numbers of personnel.
If the ship can’t get alongside, a key aspect for the MRV operations will be the ability to move vehicles and freight across the hydraulic-controlled stern ramp to the Landing Craft.
Side-on view of LCM
CANTERBURY’s LCMs
The Landing Craft Medium (LCMs) are significant vessels in their own right, being 23m long and displacing approximately 55 tonnes when empty. When loaded with 2 NZLAVs an LCM will displace 100 tonnes. Weight limit on the empty weight of the LCM is to enable them to be embarked using the MRVs 60 Tonne crane. (To appreciate the size of the LCM it is worth comparing them to the IPCs, which are only a little longer at 27m and displace 91 tonnes).
The LCMs will have a crew of 3; the LCMs are designed for beach landings and are fitted with a ballasting system to allow for safe operation when loading and unloading cargo. They also carry a kedge anchor, used to assist hauling the LCM back off the beach.
The Stern Ramp of the MRV has “marriage blocks” that allow the LCM to position itself forward or aft on the ramp and “Flippers” that ensure athwartships alignment. The stern of the LCM will be held in position with steadying lines running to the MRV port and starboard quarters. As can be seen in the photo the LCMs have a near-flat bottom that leads aft to a central fairing with no rudder, but with both azimuth thrusters on either quarter.
Propulsion is by two Azimuth Thrusters, powered by Scania D19 diesels of 235Kw (315hp) driving through z-drives. The LCMs are very maneuverable as the thrust can be directed in 360 degrees from the z-drive thrusters.
The names and affiliated home ports of the Navy’s seven new Protector ships were announced by Defence Minister Phil Goff on Friday 31 March.
The Chief of Navy, Rear Admiral David Ledson said that the announcement of the ships’ names was another significant milestone in the delivery of 7 new ships under Project Protector. “The names that have been chosen for the new vessels illustrates not only the Navy heritage but the enduring links between the Navy and New Zealand. These are names that the Navy is very happy with and I’m sure the many ex-sailors who served on the original ships will feel exactly the same” he said.
The Navy’s Protector fleet will comprise of seven ships of three different classes; one Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPV) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPV).
All seven ships will be commissioned into operational service for the Royal New Zealand Navy at staged intervals during 2007 with the Multi Role Vessel scheduled for January and the last Inshore Patrol Vessel in December 2007.
MRV - CANTERBURY, Jan 07 (Christchurch/Canterbury)
OPV(1) - OTAGO, Apr 07 (Dunedin/Otago/Southland)
OPV(2) - WELLINGTON, Oct 07 (Wellington)
IPV(1) - ROTOITI, Jan 07 (Napier/Hawkes Bay)
IPV(2) - HAWEA, May 07 (Greymouth/Wesport/West Coast)
IPV(3) - PUKAKI, Sep 07 (Nelson/Marborough)
IPV(4) - TAUPO, Dec 07 (Whangerei/Northland)
Sorce: www.navy.mil.nz
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Does anyone know if RNZN personnel will sail HMNZS Cantebury from the Netherlands to Australia for final fitouts?Sea Toby said:
It'd be a fairly important training opportunity to miss out on if they didn't...
I can't imagine civilians will be sailing her to Melbourne. I suspect a skeleton crew will sail her to Australia, she has been fitting out alongside Merwede now for 4 months. Surely her bridge and navigational equipment have been installed, along with her accomodations and galley. She is also supposed to do sea trails before sailing.
I have read her final fitting out in Melbourne will consist of the weapons and fire control systems, military communications, and intercept equipment which should take a few months to accomplish. If she reaches Tenix by early September, there is no reason why she shouldn't be ready for more trials in December with delivery in January. While she is getting good systems, they aren't what I consider stretching the outside of an envelope. All of the other Project Protector ships are getting the same electronics as the MRV.
I would love to download the webcam picture of her sailing through the Suez Canal. But I will need to know the approximate time and day to do so. Hopefully the New Zealand press will accomodate and publish a picture of her going through Suez.
I have read her final fitting out in Melbourne will consist of the weapons and fire control systems, military communications, and intercept equipment which should take a few months to accomplish. If she reaches Tenix by early September, there is no reason why she shouldn't be ready for more trials in December with delivery in January. While she is getting good systems, they aren't what I consider stretching the outside of an envelope. All of the other Project Protector ships are getting the same electronics as the MRV.
I would love to download the webcam picture of her sailing through the Suez Canal. But I will need to know the approximate time and day to do so. Hopefully the New Zealand press will accomodate and publish a picture of her going through Suez.
Last edited:
How does the MRV compare to the ex-Charles Upham if she had udergone her full conversion? I realise the MRV has a far superior patrol capability. What I would like to know is in terms of capacity ie lane metres, troops & helos carried etc.
Cheers
Cheers