Could i put my two cents worth and say that i would take it further and say 3airframes. If there was a deployment. Two airframes amongst 4 ships is going to keep the pilots in the air 24/7. As to maintenance and training well we are still at the minimum operating levels at 3. I should say 4 for safety reasons and for less stress on further maintenance on the existing 3. Maybe this is what you meant. Sorry for any confusion.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
To be fair the NZDF does have an upgrade planned for the ANZACS that looks to mirror the RAN (as far as cost goes), and will include ESSM. As far as Harpoons and ESSM, my understanding, and please feel free to correct me, is that this is only currently operational on a few ANZACs in the RAN.
As far as the value of a Strike Wing goes my views on this can be found on a number of other threads but lets just summarise as this:
Would have kept it, but now it is gone it is time to look at other platforms and technology that suit the South Pacific region better.
From what i understand the NH-90 will be too big to operate off an OPV. Am i right? I dont know to be honest but i think thats right. So the government will in that case need to allow for more of the SH-4Gs somewhere in the future. So the deployed 4 on the MRV is right but there is a short fall of the SH-4G on the OPV if deployed.
SeaSprites will be prioritised for ANZAC deployments, with MRV & OPV embarking when available (or as required depending on nature of deployment). I suspect NH-90 will most likely become the most common Helo type embarked on MRV - even for patrol OP's. LUH tender already states a possible future light maritime utility role - I interpret the latter as patrol OP's from MRV & OPV when required due to unavailability of other 2 airframe types.
The above scenarios are likely to rule out purchase of further SeaSprites
p.s. Let it be known - I LOVE SEASPRITES!!!!!!!!:nutkick
If the Australian Seasprites are cancelled as is expected fairly soon it is believed that the airframes will be sold. The problems are in the onboard software rather than the airframes so they could be a good buy and I imagine they would be relatively easy to fitout in the same way as the Kiwi helos (I'm no expert in this field though!).
Cheers
I have a good question about the $1 Billion AUD spent on the 10 SH-4Gs. Why was it that Australia has had this problem with their SH-4Gs and New Zealand not?
Yes, AFAIK, Harpoon is operational on Warramunga and Anzac but is being fitted to all eight vessels.
Cheers
Because NZ bought their Seasprites new and 'off the shelf' whilst Australia decided it could do better by buying the airframes (secondhand ones) and 'improving' them by fitting new sensors, weapons, etc. The concept has proven to be a disaster. It would be worth looking at the thread Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped! in Military Aviation.
Cheers
the short version:
Much more complex set of sofware and capabilities required, which had to be designed for the RAN. The RNZN went for OTS.
I understand also that the ESSM missile upgrade will be carried out along with sensor, CIWS upgrades on the ANZACs. It is academic that the RNZN will follow suit on the Harpoons and the arming of the P-3s with them as well.
Is there any suggestion as to what set of capabilities was required by the Australian Navy for the software integration that didnt end up working? Was it for the Penguin SSM ?
Agree it makes sense for the RNZN/RNZAF to go for the harpoon, especially the Mk2 which has a land strike capability, but see no indication that this is where they are heading.
If they do go for a ASM I would think that they will want a common missile, that means Seasprite capable. That may mean Penguin, Hellfire or similar. This makes sense if you consider the main threat of such a missile will be in a Littoral environment where use of a Harpoon will be a sledge hammer against the proverbial walnut!
Probably best to look at the thread Tasman suggested, but my understanding is the requirement to fly and fight with a crew of two was a contributing factor.
The former Minister for Defence, Robert Hill said about the original delay:
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/recent/seasprite.htm
Since then other problems have emerged. As an example of the complex nature of the problems with the Australian Seasprite program the following was posted two weeks ago by Magoo in Seasprite Helicopters to be scrapped! in Military Aviation Post 3:
Overall this was a project that to some in the defence hierarchy 'seemed like a good idea at the time'!
Cheers
Yes, i agree there is no indication at this point on which ASM will be chosen for this task. The MK2 Harpoon does sound like a good solution, and if so with limited numbers i would guess due to its price tag. I understand they fetch at around $500 000 each USD. Not sure on the price tag for the Penguin. My bet is on the Harpoon.
I think in a littorial environment if there is a small target then other military assets would be used such as a OPV or Patrol vessel with weapons to nuetralise the threat rather than taking it out with a AGM-84. I dont think the government would add two types of missiles to its armoury when the job can be done with one.
I think in a littorial environment if there is a small target then other military assets would be used such as a OPV or Patrol vessel with weapons to nuetralise the threat rather than taking it out with a AGM-84. I dont think the government would add two types of missiles to its armoury when the job can be done with one.
Have to disagree with your comments on the Littoral environment, yes the OPVs would be used in the South Pacific, but for coverage a helo would be the preferred option in conjunction with MPA and UAV (if anything was bought). Where there may be some threat or a large area to cover the prefered option is always going to be an airbourne asset IMO. For instance the First Gulf War and I think the second the RN operated the Lynx with the Sea Skua missile.
Another option is the Penguin Replacement the NSM which weighs around 400Kg (same as the Penguin), with a 160km range it is able to be launched from Aircraft, Helo and Ship and there is a version for the JSF being funded jointly by Norway and Australia. It is also capable of land attack.
Not sure that the LUH will be used as a deployable asset on the OPV's / MRV on a regular basis, with only 6 airframes being touted I can't imagine alot of spare capacity being available, the specified ability to operate from a maritime platform was primarily for lead-in training for the Seasprites (I notice that the tender has closed for the LUH any confirmation on the A109 yet ?, the current exchange rate should help avoid a NH90 type situation)
Like wise with only 8 NH90 I can't imagine that these will be deployed other than in major exercises or in actual operational situations where they are required for trooplift.
Like wise with only 8 NH90 I can't imagine that these will be deployed other than in major exercises or in actual operational situations where they are required for trooplift.
Yes and thats why my suggestion would be correct if we operated an OPV with a Seasprite with Mavericks operating in the Littorial environment. There really shouldnt be any question at all in this regard especially in your last comment where the RN operates the Lynx with the Sea Skua.
yep, makes sense to me. Some could be stored and transported to an AOP aboard the C-130 or MRV. And used as medivac or back up support. Light liason etc.
My understanding is that as well as the replenishment ship Success, the RAN ships involved were the guided missile frigates HMAS Adelaide and HMAS Darwin, the frigate HMAS Anzac, the fast catamaran HMAS Jervis Bay, the heavy sea lift transport HMAS Tobruck, and at least 5 patrol boats. I suspect RAN submarines would also have been covertly deployed. This being the case Canterbury would have had good back up from the RAN frigates if the situation had turned ugly.
http://wopared.parl.net/library/pubs/CIB/1999-2000/2000cib03.htm#6
It would be interesting to find out what other naval vessels made up the INTERFET task force.
The lessons learnt from the INTERFET mission and the more recent troubles in the Pacific demonstrate to me that there would be huge value in the RNZN and the RAN further standardising equipment and exercising together as often as possible.
Cheers
Last edited: