Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

Smythstar

New Member
Big & cheap OPVs for Oz?

Just wondering if there is any basis in fact that the RAN is looking for OPVs to cover the southern oceans?

Prior discussion seems to have highlighted there are several cheap and seemingly very effective commercial options available such as the Roles Royce type used by Norway in the equally challenging north sea.

It seems to make a lot of sense to me to use a larger size vessel that is inherintly capable, adaptable, stable in high sea states can operate a Helo and is long ranged and fuel efficient rather than any corvette/patrol boat combination that would no doubt be far more expensive.

It is important IMHO to think outside the box and to kill as many birds with one stone as you effectivly can when you have such a small budget and large AO as Australia does.
A boat of this type (for example a UT-527 with hanger) with a combined civilian/Navy crew could act as a mothership/support vessel to Armadales in the oceans off the north coast replenishing the smaller patrol boats when required and taking captured boats in tow and hold the crews freeing the smaller boats to continue their mission without going back to port.
In their primary mission of southern ocean patrol it might also be possible without to much trouble to inclued some scientific research capability so while its patroling the uncharted southern oceans its also doing hydrographic research, certainly there is enough room onboard to inclued a small CSIRO staff/lab and maybe hang an ROV or dive bell off the side, this may enable us to retire some of the hydrographic boats and consolidate ship types even further to save $$$.
A boat of this type and size could also easily incorporate a small medical facility and a couple of doctors, handy for fly the flag visits to little islands while your patroling past drop in for half a day and patch up some of the locals, costs for patrols could perhaps be offset as a component of our foreign aid?
The Customs/Scientific/Medical/Navy combo on cheap efficient ships like the UT class running around the South Pacific/Indian Ocean and Southern Ocean as well as doing their Security tasks could also be doing wonders for Australian Science and the hearts and minds of the South Pacific.
The search and rescue, environmental/pollution controll, fire fighting, ship recovery and ice resistance aspects on top of the other capabilities would make for a vital addition to the security of the nation.

The only problem with such a vessel with such a diverse capability and such a low cost efficient vessel (LPG gas combined with Diesel) would be the demands on its service from different government agencies, however funding could be attained and personel for crews also attained from the same departments allowing more vessels to be constructed, perhaps 4 or 6 for the same aproximate cost as an additional Frigate but with far more opportunity cost benifit to the nation.

If we did end up getting such a vessel or perhaps something like the NZ OPV would it be possible to increase surveillance capability cheaply with somthing like a tethered aerostat blimp with radar like JLENS?
I understand that there is a problem using blimps in high wind conditions but didnt the use barrage balloons in WW11 to protect convoys in the north atlantic?
The 300nm range of such a balloon would again be a great asset and free up Mariner/P3Cs for pacific or northern duties?
 

Sea Toby

New Member
For the patrol mission New Zealand intends to use the OPVs, the 25-mm Bushmaster should be sufficient. While it may not blow up a fishing vessel, it will knock enough holes into the hull to earn the respect of a fishing vessel's captain.

The American Coast Guard finds the Bushmaster gun sufficient for its patrol boats. So why add a larger gunmount?
 

Norm

Member
hey Norm did you used to serve with the RNZN?
No but living within a stone's throw of the base for half mylife I've got to know and make friends over the years with members of the RNZN . It can be very hard on the Liver I might add.Sea Toby posted a Google Earth piture of the base and surrounds with one of his posts so I could make out my house , it's a village at times we live in !
 

webmaster

Troll Hunter
Staff member
Merged couple of other NZ Navy threads into this... please avoid opening threads on similar topics.
 

NZLAV

New Member
In my opinion, I would prefer 8 OPV's to replace 2 frigates. I think 4-5 frigates would be absolutly awesome and NZ could fund it no problem. The surplus $11.5 billion would do this. It would cost around $4 billion for 4 New Frigates(based on ANZAC price) except I would purchase 5-10 year old European designs.
 

stryker NZ

New Member
No but living within a stone's throw of the base for half mylife I've got to know and make friends over the years with members of the RNZN . It can be very hard on the Liver I might add.Sea Toby posted a Google Earth piture of the base and surrounds with one of his posts so I could make out my house , it's a village at times we live in !
oh okay i was just asking because i want to join the navy and was wondering if anyone had actually been in the RNZN so i could get some advice.
 

stryker NZ

New Member
In my opinion, I would prefer 8 OPV's to replace 2 frigates. I think 4-5 frigates would be absolutly awesome and NZ could fund it no problem. The surplus $11.5 billion would do this. It would cost around $4 billion for 4 New Frigates(based on ANZAC price) except I would purchase 5-10 year old European designs.
dont know about 8 OPV's i think 4 would be suitable and 3 frigates not 4, not that im against enlarging the navy its just recruiting for those kind of numbers would be impossible at present.
 

Norm

Member
oh okay i was just asking because i want to join the navy and was wondering if anyone had actually been in the RNZN so i could get some advice.
I'll get back to you on how to do some due diligence and make contact with current and past RNZN. It's a commitment so its important to get the views good and bad from these sources. If you enjoy the service you will be a very happy camper, good time to be joining the Navy with all the new ships coming on line in 2007. Navy Today Magazine on the web site gives you some insight ,need good download spead. Also if you have not been already , a visit to the Free Navy Museum in Spring St , Devonport to the right of the Naval Main gates entrance is also Very worthwhile, good people to talk too.Don't worry about the Door being shut at the top of the stairs,shut to keep out the wind,open it and you'll find its a bit like the Tardis in DR Who, it's bigger than it looks and has got lots of displays.
 

KH-12

Member
I was at Devonport the other day and could'nt help thinking that the junior ratings uniform was well in need of modernisation, it just can't be a good image for recruitment :haha
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I was at Devonport the other day and could'nt help thinking that the junior ratings uniform was well in need of modernisation, it just can't be a good image for recruitment :haha

I couldn't agree more. Has one old warrant officer said - Nelson's been dead for 200 years. The navy should get over him. Personally I think the RCN has gone the right way.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
For the patrol mission New Zealand intends to use the OPVs, the 25-mm Bushmaster should be sufficient. While it may not blow up a fishing vessel, it will knock enough holes into the hull to earn the respect of a fishing vessel's captain.

The American Coast Guard finds the Bushmaster gun sufficient for its patrol boats. So why add a larger gunmount?
Yes there's been plently of debate & I think a general agreement that the OPV's & MRV could have perhaps been better armed, however SeaToby you're right with respect to the OPV's being adequately armed for their intended tasking - EEZ Patrol.

Patrol tasks can vary considerably - my rating is such:
Level 1 - fisheries & resource protection. Generally involves little risk (granted not always) and intercepts rarely involve 'fightback'. Does not often result in 'chases' (flight). This is little more than 'presence' patrol.

Level 2 - anti-piracy / anti-smuggling (ie: criminal) deterence. More intent on the part of the intercepted party - increased risk to patrol force / boarding parties & greater risk of flight.

Level 3 - lower end anti-terrorist patrol (level of risk as determined thru intell). Obviously higher risk again with much more likelihood of engagement. I would consider the Lebanon evacuation in this category. An Israeli SAAR-5 Corvette was substantially damaged by a Hizbollah missile - even though the SAAR-5 is a significantly armed beast with CIWS etc. The military spec hull of this vessel is basically what saved it - something neither the RNZN OPV's & MRV have.

Level 4 - higher end terrorist / mid-level combat...the risk is obvious!

Level 5 - Full combat operations - the RNZN best keep away!

The RNZN OPV's & MRV are both quite capable of level 1 & 2 operations as they stand. They would be at risk in a level 3 situation even with escort. To give the RNZN real operational flexibility this is the type of operation the OPV's should have been armed for (ie: 57mm; 25mm on sides + stern; passive decoys; CIWs or Simbad Mistral etc). BUT - even if they were armed in this way - the risk is still likely to be too high - due to their commercial spec hulls! My guess is they are not built to cope with anything more than small arms fire to their hull / superstructure - and nor do they have the mission systems redundancy of true military spec vessels.

Level 3 & above to my mind requires military spec vessels - OPV's ect are fine but not to commercial spec with limited fire-power - SAAR-5 is a good example...and look how she fared in the Leb!

Don't forget the RNZN is getting the OPV's & IPV's as they desperately NEED a basic EEZ patrol fleet - something they only really have on paper at the moment with the IPV's being barely up to the task. The OPV's are not warships - they are designed for 'coast guard' type tasking, and they will be damned fine vessels for the job - don't forget their chopper capability is a significant force enabler (if they can scrape together enough airframes!)

However yes I would have like to see the RNZN get uparmed, military spec hulls - but hello, this is NZ - we live in a bubble!...beware of pricks!:D

The MRV is however a different proposition - yes it will be ideal for level 1 & 2 patrol tasking as planned - but it will also be sent full of men & equioment into higher threat environments & that scares the crap out of me - that commercial spec hull won't take too much damage! Even with an escort the risk is concerning - and just whose escorts would we propose to use - esp. at short notice!?!

With the commercial spec hull it's even more important the MRV have serious self-defence capability - eg: 57mm+; 25mm on sides + rear-facing; passive decoys; CIWs on either side - but fat chance a NZ politician would understand that! And the NZDF learnt long ago to be grateful for what they've got! No bones about it - she'll still prove to be a very useful vessel!

Yes - good time to be joining the RNZN, loads of new opportunities!
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
The MRV is however a different proposition - yes it will be ideal for level 1 & 2 patrol tasking as planned - but it will also be sent full of men & equioment into higher threat environments & that scares the crap out of me - that commercial spec hull won't take too much damage! Even with an escort the risk is concerning - and just whose escorts would we propose to use - esp. at short notice!?!

With the commercial spec hull it's even more important the MRV have serious self-defence capability - eg: 57mm+; 25mm on sides + rear-facing; passive decoys; CIWs on either side - but fat chance a NZ politician would understand that! And the NZDF learnt long ago to be grateful for what they've got! No bones about it - she'll still prove to be a very useful vessel!

Yes - good time to be joining the RNZN, loads of new opportunities!
I agree re. the MRV, needs a CIWS and the hard and soft counter measures to operate in a risk environment, but I guess these are easier to add to an existing hull in the future with minimum hassle depending on the systems selected.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
I agree re. the MRV, needs a CIWS and the hard and soft counter measures to operate in a risk environment, but I guess these are easier to add to an existing hull in the future with minimum hassle depending on the systems selected.
Yep granted - at least the MRV could have this added! My only concern is given the NZ way of doing things it will require a 'catalyst' to get this done - and it worries me that might involve loss of life!

Imagine the MRV picking up civvies at Lebanon & taking the same missile the Israeli SARR-5 took (okay granted they're arch-enemies as against a kiwi MRV). The likely fallout could be too horrible to imagine - but boy it'd get a CIWS etc installed real quick! having said that, the SAAR-5 was more than capable of stopping that missile but it didn't manage to...scary!!!
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Yep granted - at least the MRV could have this added! My only concern is given the NZ way of doing things it will require a 'catalyst' to get this done - and it worries me that might involve loss of life!

Imagine the MRV picking up civvies at Lebanon & taking the same missile the Israeli SARR-5 took (okay granted they're arch-enemies as against a kiwi MRV). The likely fallout could be too horrible to imagine - but boy it'd get a CIWS etc installed real quick! having said that, the SAAR-5 was more than capable of stopping that missile but it didn't manage to...scary!!!

With respect tho, the example, while justified, should also consider that there were civilian ferries being used to evacuate! With NATO warships providing cover.

I wouldn't be surprised if the future ANZAC upgrades lead to the MRV getting a few odds and ends!

In the Pacific it is not really an issue, East Timor had multi-national force protection. Really it is only if the MRV is used as an offensive 'kick the door down' op in an environment where there is significant danger of ASMs etc.... Hard to visulise but possible.
 

Gibbo

Well-Known Member
With respect tho, the example, while justified, should also consider that there were civilian ferries being used to evacuate! With NATO warships providing cover.

I wouldn't be surprised if the future ANZAC upgrades lead to the MRV getting a few odds and ends!

In the Pacific it is not really an issue, East Timor had multi-national force protection. Really it is only if the MRV is used as an offensive 'kick the door down' op in an environment where there is significant danger of ASMs etc.... Hard to visulise but possible.
Yeah you're right, SAAR-5 only targetted because it was Israeli - they wouldn't have touched any other vessels. Also agree - our part of the world won't see much call for a seriously armed MRV.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the NZ Govt always buys the bare minimum needed and as a result leaves it with far less options and operational flexibility. It would have doubled the MRV's price had it been fully spec'd.

Without a 3rd frigate the MRV may be at times the only thing we can offer short notice - and as presently armed it doesn't even have stren mounted fixed weapons stations - to stop a 'go-fast' will require emabrked forces small-arms! Mind you - there's an area on the rear quarters where the capstans are loacted that would make very nice hidey-holes for a .5 HMG.
 

Lucasnz

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah you're right, SAAR-5 only targetted because it was Israeli - they wouldn't have touched any other vessels. Also agree - our part of the world won't see much call for a seriously armed MRV.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the NZ Govt always buys the bare minimum needed and as a result leaves it with far less options and operational flexibility. It would have doubled the MRV's price had it been fully spec'd.

Without a 3rd frigate the MRV may be at times the only thing we can offer short notice - and as presently armed it doesn't even have stren mounted fixed weapons stations - to stop a 'go-fast' will require emabrked forces small-arms! Mind you - there's an area on the rear quarters where the capstans are loacted that would make very nice hidey-holes for a .5 HMG.
We've been buying the bare min since the 1980's. Just look at Artillery, we use to field around 36 105mm guns plus a heavy battery - now were down to 24 and no heavy battery. The Javelin purchase is another example - only 24 Launcher units, and who knows how many missiles? The RM have 18 in a Battalion and the Stryker Brigades have an even higher figure in a battalion.

The reality is the lack of a 3rd frigate will constrain NZ ability to deploy into East Timor or medium threat environments as the current frigates age and require more maintenance. The result is no escort for the MRV. For operations in the South Pacific I think the MRV needs a larger main armanment (the 57mm been the only real option) in order to support forces going ashore or ashore. Good for low level ops.

Given that all four Leanders were fitted with Passive Countermeasures (SURBOC) I think its only a matter of time before the MRV receives a set. The ANZAC's received CIWS off Canterbury & Wellington as soon as the guarantee was up, so I'd say give it a year.
 

Sea Toby

New Member
Hopefully, whenever National gains power CIWS and chaff decoys will be acquired and installed on the MRV and OPVs. The good news is that these items can be installed quickly. I would keep their 25-mm Bushmasters, and add two CIWS on the MRV port and starboard, and one CIWS aft on the OPVs, below the hangar level. Chaff launchers should be installed on both types port and starboard by the bridge.

I think doing this will provide a sufficent soft defence against missiles. Both of these soft missile defences are easily installed and can be crossdecked if necessary.
 

stryker NZ

New Member
I'll get back to you on how to do some due diligence and make contact with current and past RNZN. It's a commitment so its important to get the views good and bad from these sources. If you enjoy the service you will be a very happy camper, good time to be joining the Navy with all the new ships coming on line in 2007. Navy Today Magazine on the web site gives you some insight ,need good download spead. Also if you have not been already , a visit to the Free Navy Museum in Spring St , Devonport to the right of the Naval Main gates entrance is also Very worthwhile, good people to talk too.Don't worry about the Door being shut at the top of the stairs,shut to keep out the wind,open it and you'll find its a bit like the Tardis in DR Who, it's bigger than it looks and has got lots of displays.
thanks heaps i really appreciate it
 

Whiskyjack

Honorary Moderator / Defense Professional / Analys
Verified Defense Pro
Hopefully, whenever National gains power CIWS and chaff decoys will be acquired and installed on the MRV and OPVs. The good news is that these items can be installed quickly. I would keep their 25-mm Bushmasters, and add two CIWS on the MRV port and starboard, and one CIWS aft on the OPVs, below the hangar level. Chaff launchers should be installed on both types port and starboard by the bridge.

I think doing this will provide a sufficent soft defence against missiles. Both of these soft missile defence are easily installed and can be crossdecked if necessary.
I would be more tempted to place the CIWS on the front and have two 25mm systems starboard and port.

As for the OPVs it is hard to see that their missions will ever call for a CIWS, maybe integrate with the army’s Mistral? Or have the ability to place the CIWS on board and keep 1 CIWS for both vessels. Just not convinced that the OPVs will ever be in a threat environment to need them. But just in case have a system available.
 
Top