NZDF General discussion thread

recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
kiwipatriot69 said:
I've heard on other defence forums rumours Nzdf could be fast tracking some of these big ticket items like the Sea guardian in significant numbers, or even that the SOPV hasn't been cancelled and we'll likely end up with two military speced ones off damen based on the Canadian Arctic patrol ones, to suppliment the frigate replacements? Is there any substance behind this happening or just someone's wish list?
Click to expand...
Without any context provided it's a bit hard to be definitive except to say these two capabilities were already signaled in the DCP25 so at face value it's going to happen, one day, anyway, maybe, so its nothing new really.

But what we do know is that the next DCP iteration is being worked on now for release next year (I did read something about that recently but sorry can't put my hands on it for now). I wouldn't be surprised if the "Long-range remotely piloted aircraft" project is something that is prioritised (eg Sea Guardian or something else), but that's just a guess so we will have to wait and see.

The SOPV as Nighthawk mentions was never cancelled (it was simply a deferral from the 2020-2023 GOTD like many other projects that the then Finance Minister refused to release funding for like potentially leasing Wildcats or possibly obtaining surplus MRH90's, let alone advancing various other DCP19 projects). But a Damen sourced AOPS doesn't make sense because they don't appear to design such vessels - typically such vessels are of Norwegian or Danish design origin - unless it is something new (concept) that hasn't been released but why would the RNZN then take a risk on an unproven design? I'd be looking instead to the in service Canadian AOPS (which is a Vard design) or the proposed Danish future Arctic Patrol Vessel (Arktiske Patruljeskibe) which is being built to replace their Thetis-class Arctic OPV's, as potential options (don't quote me but apparently the RNZN showed some interest in the Thetis class for Project Projector in the early stages).
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
recce.k1 said:
Without any context provided it's a bit hard to be definitive except to say these two capabilities were already signaled in the DCP25 so at face value it's going to happen, one day, anyway, maybe, so its nothing new really.

But what we do know is that the next DCP iteration is being worked on now for release next year (I did read something about that recently but sorry can't put my hands on it for now). I wouldn't be surprised if the "Long-range remotely piloted aircraft" project is something that is prioritised (eg Sea Guardian or something else), but that's just a guess so we will have to wait and see.

The SOPV as Nighthawk mentions was never cancelled (it was simply a deferral from the 2020-2023 GOTD like many other projects that the then Finance Minister refused to release funding for like potentially leasing Wildcats or possibly obtaining surplus MRH90's, let alone advancing various other DCP19 projects). But a Damen sourced AOPS doesn't make sense because they don't appear to design such vessels - typically such vessels are of Norwegian or Danish design origin - unless it is something new (concept) that hasn't been released but why would the RNZN then take a risk on an unproven design? I'd be looking instead to the in service Canadian AOPS (which is a Vard design) or the proposed Danish future Arctic Patrol Vessel (Arktiske Patruljeskibe) which is being built to replace their Thetis-class Arctic OPV's, as potential options (don't quote me but apparently the RNZN showed some interest in the Thetis class for Project Projector in the early stages).
Click to expand...

Ok. What about moves to sell off parts of Devonport Naval base to free up cash, is there moves on that? Could that be earmarked for defence projects or has treasury got their hands on it ? What about the savings the parts for the NH 90 will bring us? Potentially thats Billions of savings extending them for decades to come.

The use of Northport and Marsden point biofuels could also serve as not only a means of revenue to fund Nzdf , but a means to fuel our military vehicles ,planes and ships, and drydock and repair for allies like Austrailia too. And yet another valuable strategic asset!
 
recce.k1

recce.k1

Well-Known Member
kiwipatriot69 said:
Ok. What about moves to sell off parts of Devonport Naval base to free up cash, is there moves on that? Could that be earmarked for defence projects or has treasury got their hands on it ?
Click to expand...
KP - just checking, is this something being stated on the other forum you were reading? If so unclear what they mean because a recent infrastructure review which DCP25 reinforces is that the future of Devonport has been settled (it's staying) and that certainty means investment will be made to upgrade facilities. Some searching should bring up further info, here's some examples.

devonportflagstaff.co.nz

Massive Navy base works programme outlined – The Devonport Flagstaff

Asbestos-ridden facility among first to go in base upgrade Seven projects have been identified as immediate priorities for a multibillion-dollar rebuild of the Devonport Naval Base.They are:• Replacement of the Navy dry dock’s “caisson” gates.• Construction of a small-boats facility.•...
devonportflagstaff.co.nz

 
X

Xthenaki

Active Member
recce.k1 said:
KP - just checking, is this something being stated on the other forum you were reading? If so unclear what they mean because a recent infrastructure review which DCP25 reinforces is that the future of Devonport has been settled (it's staying) and that certainty means investment will be made to upgrade facilities. Some searching should bring up further info, here's some examples.

devonportflagstaff.co.nz

Massive Navy base works programme outlined – The Devonport Flagstaff

Asbestos-ridden facility among first to go in base upgrade Seven projects have been identified as immediate priorities for a multibillion-dollar rebuild of the Devonport Naval Base.They are:• Replacement of the Navy dry dock’s “caisson” gates.• Construction of a small-boats facility.•...
devonportflagstaff.co.nz

Click to expand...
Very informative. It gives a positive insight as to the delays in purchasing new ships until adequate facilities and upgrades to the existing DNB are made and the importance of Marsden Pt for the future. The cost of "buying time" by maintaining the ANZAC frigates is VERY expensive and only justified if relevent shore facilities are upgraded in time to facilitate the new frigates arrival date. That is a big ask. No one wants a "log jam" caused by construction work in progress. The upgrades to both DNB and The fleet will transform our Navy.
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
recce.k1 said:
KP - just checking, is this something being stated on the other forum you were reading? If so unclear what they mean because a recent infrastructure review which DCP25 reinforces is that the future of Devonport has been settled (it's staying) and that certainty means investment will be made to upgrade facilities. Some searching should bring up further info, here's some examples.

devonportflagstaff.co.nz

Massive Navy base works programme outlined – The Devonport Flagstaff

Asbestos-ridden facility among first to go in base upgrade Seven projects have been identified as immediate priorities for a multibillion-dollar rebuild of the Devonport Naval Base.They are:• Replacement of the Navy dry dock’s “caisson” gates.• Construction of a small-boats facility.•...
devonportflagstaff.co.nz

Click to expand...
 
K

kiwipatriot69

Active Member
Thanks for that. They didnt post corresponding links unlike yourself. Appreciated. Intresting to see Northport wont be used as a supplemental base to Devonport then due to expanding Marsden point operations there currently? Pity. Would of thought strategically it would of had merit both as a protected area if used as a naval base and its increased capacities as a hub for maritime operations, repair, refueling?
 
X

Xthenaki

Active Member
kiwipatriot69 said:
Thanks for that. They didnt post corresponding links unlike yourself. Appreciated. Intresting to see Northport wont be used as a supplemental base to Devonport then due to expanding Marsden point operations there currently? Pity. Would of thought strategically it would of had merit both as a protected area if used as a naval base and its increased capacities as a hub for maritime operations, repair, refueling?
Click to expand...
Will still need a navy facility at Marsden Point albeit a dock workshop for the proposed floating dock. Alternate secondary base as far north as Wellington and south - Dunedin. Greta point (old USS Co) in Wellington would have been ideal. Lyttleton has good support infrastructure. For a secondary base no need to have all of the base in one area.
 
X

Xthenaki

Active Member
Xthenaki said:
Will still need a navy facility at Marsden Point albeit a dock workshop for the proposed floating dock. Alternate secondary base as far north as Wellington and south - Dunedin. Greta point (old USS Co) in Wellington would have been ideal. Lyttleton has good support infrastructure. For a secondary base no need to have all of the base in one area.
Click to expand...
Lyttleton is supported by road/rail tunnels providing quick transit times to Christchurch and available land or buildings to choose from. Graving dock and engineering facilities available for small to medium sized vessels.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
old faithful said:
Well I pray that your and our P8s will be armed with LRASM, as the range of harpoon will restrict the P8s, or make them an easy target for a modern warship.
Click to expand...
Which modern warship and which Harpoon missile variant, fired under which profile?

There are Harpoon missile variants with range that exceed 220k…

Range is an interesting thing and it has to be remembered that there are caveats to these things. The Australian Army doctrinal range of the 12.7mm machine gun for instance is 6.8k afterall…
 
O

old faithful

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Well RAAF use 84Js which is an upgraded block 1, E I believe in RAAF service, listed range @124km, but have heard up to 160+km

RAN use the block 2, which is a purpose built J, similar range. Of course we dont really know which models we have, except for the collins sub launched versions.
We could have the 220km range versiins, who knows. The J is also able to be used against land targets which is useful.
Having said that, I would not want to be in P8 @ 120 km from an enemy frigate.
 
R

Rob c

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Years ago the tatic use ti be to aquire the target out side of defence range, drop below the radar horizon and approach, when at firing range rise up to reaquire the target fire the missile and drop back down again before defence missiles could reach you. However modern fully active missiles may cause additional problems with this method, but it works well with semi active missile defence.
 
A

ADMk2

Just a bloke
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
old faithful said:
Well RAAF use 84Js which is an upgraded block 1, E I believe in RAAF service, listed range @124km, but have heard up to 160+km

RAN use the block 2, which is a purpose built J, similar range. Of course we dont really know which models we have, except for the collins sub launched versions.
We could have the 220km range versiins, who knows. The J is also able to be used against land targets which is useful.
Having said that, I would not want to be in P8 @ 120 km from an enemy frigate.
Click to expand...
The J model employed in this serial is a Block II.

That 124k range was the requirement for the missile.

Weapon systems are certified against requirements, the Harpoon initially in this case was certified to a range of 75m which is where the “120k” range comes from this depending on conversions goes from anywhere to 124k to 130k without the publishers bothering to correct these figures. But saying what we “need” it to do, is far different from saying what it “can” do. Army “needs” it’s 12.7mm gun to shoot to 2000m. But it “can” also shoot to 6800m given a range of caveats (indirect fire mode with high elevation, larger beaten zone, etc).

The AGM-84 according to the RAN has a range of 124k. It also did when the RAN first bought them. Some 10-15 model updates ago…


But they operate the AGM-84 J-1. An evolution of the Block 1C missile which added among other things a larger fuel tank, JP-10 fuel instead of JP-6 jet fuel and the ability to add way points to conceal the launch point of surface launched missiles and a range of 220k…


Ah, but Surface launched models feature a booster, I might hear you say? Indeed They do. They also launch from roughly sea level and below 30 knots. I am not sure even the bravest, most wily RNZAF crew are launching a pair of Harpoons from a P-8A at sea level and below 30 knots…

Indeed the footage of the launch puts them at substantial altitude and while no information on aircraft speed was released, cruise speed for the P-8A is around 490 knots, so these weapons got plenty of “air” time and quite the speed boost before launch was even close.

I’ve no doubt the RNZAF weren’t being disingenuous when they wrote these pair of missiles were launched around 100k or so from their target, but assuming this was near maximum range is adding apples and oranges.

At altitude and speed, or when boosted, modern models go FAR longer than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top