NZFF

Anyone catch the news last night - it had footage of the first missile to be fired from a NZ military helicopter! Follow the link below to TVNZ on demand. Go to Chapter 5 and enjoy - its right at the start of the weather report!



TVNZ On Demand
NZDF Media Release

Missed that - did they say what they were shooting at, or did they pop one off in the general direction of South America, and call it a success??

Lol..... they fired at a commercial shipping container floating in the waters east of Great Barrier Island. Presumably they checked it first to make sure it was free of parallel imports or foreign immigrants!

Oh is that what that target was ,pretty cool to see ,i noticed it shook the platform alittle when it took off ,side to side action there that was corrected quickly with its foward motion ,would like to see that from a stand still and see how it acts then ,whats the price of one of those missiles? pretty pricey i would say thats proberly why there has only been one since we have had those helicopters ,
still apart from smaller targets what could this do in a fight with a frigate ,i reckon they need a mini gun off the nose to lay down some heavy lead and then power of the mavericks ,still it would be a good luck guys type of mission without backup of some jets whats another 4 kamans gonna do ,i think they would be just picked off one by one or all at once ...
man side guns on these things are a joke its not like they are going into Vietnam were those would be helpful ,they are just a coast guard chopper hyped up in grey ?

I loved the way it was worded in the paper, trying to say that now NZ does actually have some strike capability. You can imagine Helen Clark: "If any form of terrorist group or enemy military tries to come to NZ in a flotaing shipping container- BANG!"

I wouldn't be too harsh about this, the Kaman is a highly maneuvrable low flying small target.
And unlike the Ozzie fiasco, ours have decent avionics.
The navalised Maverick is a pretty reasonable deterrent.
It has IR terminal guidance, so you pop one, and leave.
You can stay 15nm out and sink anything likely to need sinking in our territorial waters.
It's a very smart way to arm a ship.
The US Navy and Marine Corps agree.

The AGM-65E Maverick cost us taxpayers $200,000 a piece. Given they fired two missiles, factor in the AVTUR for the helo's, flight crew pays, the frigate and crew in support, you can probably chalk up a bill of close to a million (If not more) to Helen Clark!



Seasprite Missile Article - Stuff.co.nz

Info on the AGM-65E Maverick Missile - from the Marine Corps Fact File

creator2003 wrote:

QUOTE (creator2003 @ Sep 11 2008, 09:31 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh is that what that target was ,pretty cool to see ,i noticed it shook the platform alittle when it took off ,side to side action there that was corrected quickly with its foward motion ,would like to see that from a stand still and see how it acts then ,whats the price of one of those missiles? pretty pricey i would say thats proberly why there has only been one since we have had those helicopters ,
still apart from smaller targets what could this do in a fight with a frigate ,i reckon they need a mini gun off the nose to lay down some heavy lead and then power of the mavericks ,still it would be a good luck guys type of mission without backup of some jets whats another 4 kamans gonna do ,i think they would be just picked off one by one or all at once ...
man side guns on these things are a joke its not like they are going into Vietnam were those would be helpful ,they are just a coast guard chopper hyped up in grey ?

Cost is up to US$160 000 each or more for these missiles they are excellent for shooting tanks but don't expect a 27km range unless you are really high and in perfect weather conditions. Some versions of the P3 orion can also fire mavericks but it would not be suitable for Anti ship missions against a Frigate unless you had cover to hide behind if you were to go up against a Frigate. The ideal weapon for that would be the Harpoon missile launched from a P3. Lets not forget NZ is also getting some NH90s and A109s. But still NZ needs a strike fighter as a realistic deterent against any threat which F-16s would have been ideal.

The video is up on youtube if anyone missed it, or wants to watch it again (I couldn't re-find it on the TVNZ website).



Alex

Thanks for posting ALex, I missed it the first time round.
Wonder if the container was a rogue off a ship, or towed out for target pratice.
I can see Lloyds receiving a claim for goods lost...
Cause: Maverick
Usually acts of war are excluded, but then we are not at war, and this can't be classed as an act of terrorism.
HCP?

From the Stuff website:

A specially-rigged patio heater was placed inside the shipping container off Great Barrier Island yesterday.

No outside decked entertaining area is safe now..... the Navy has proven that it can find and destroy patio heaters!

On the insurance side... it's an excluded event as it was a purposeful act, and not one to save the ship or lives (such as jettisoning containers to prevent a ship sinking). Still I wonder if they cleaned up the debris??

ZK-MAT wrote:

QUOTE (ZK-MAT @ Sep 13 2008, 10:51 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From the Stuff website:
A specially-rigged patio heater was placed inside the shipping container off Great Barrier Island yesterday.
No outside decked entertaining area is safe now..... the Navy has proven that it can find and destroy patio heaters!
On the insurance side... it's an excluded event as it was a purposeful act, and not one to save the ship or lives (such as jettisoning containers to prevent a ship sinking). Still I wonder if they cleaned up the debris??

Haha you've answered the next question too: how did a heat-seeker manage to find a floating container??
'Course now we know the Maverick is optimised for patio heaters inside boxes, you can safely bring yours out into the fresh air...
"Excluded event"...so if some bright spark rams my new car on purpose, it is not covered??
Time to go check the fine print, I'd sure want my container full of goodies to be covered against the bad guys, even pirates!

Hehe, just had a thought ... it would be covered by insurance if you were importing a container full of patio heaters and it was blown up without your knowledge or say-so... but then again I'd imagine it would be on a ship at the time, and then there'd be a few other claims too! A warning to those who import cheap BBQ's and heaters from China maybe.

By excluded event I mean you can't claim insurance on something you do on purpose to your own property, but you can destroy your own stuff to save life or minimise other loss. If you drive your car into a wall on purpose you're out of luck, but if someone drives into you on purpose then you have suffered an unforeseen and accidental (to you) loss. Mind you, Marine insurance works a little different, they also have their own Clauses specific to travel by ship, but in essence today's general insurance is based on the original marine policies. Did you know that insurance was invented by Mariners way back in the day? They all pooled their money together to pay out to one of their own should their ship go down, they had to jettison cargo, or be attacked by pirates yarrrr! Nearly 3000 years later a bloke called Lloyd who owned a coffee shop had a lot of shipping folk inhabit his establishment. Things sort of moved on from there I guess.

OK, back on subject now

heh... 'Marine Insurance'... haahahahaha

Have you ever tried to read the back of an Original Bill of Lading??? OMG.. there are about 4,000 clauses in 6pt font that can be basically summarised as:

"All Care, No Responsibility"



Also, (fully loaded) containers that fall off ships, tend to 'float' a couple of feet below the surface... hence why they're so annoying, as they're really hard to see before you run them down!

Empty containers on the other hand... well I assume they would float quite nicely assuming they were water tight, below the waterline.