Talk:HMNZS Otago (F111)

HMNZS Otago (F111) needs to be Wikified! So here's what needs to be done:
Check if the article is a copyright violation or meets deletion criteria.	✔ check
Suggestion: Do a quick Google or Yahoo! search with a sentence from the article.
Check if another article already exists on this subject.	✔ check
Suggestion: Use the Wikipedia search to see what comes up.
Add Wikipedia markup.	✔ check
Suggestion: Read up on m:Help:Editing.
Format the article.	✔ check
Suggestion: Read up on Guide to Layout and Manual of Style.
Remove the {{wikify}} tag (if there is one).	✔ check
Join the Wikification effort! • How to use this template

It is incorrect to say that the triple torpedo tubes replaced the Limbo Mortars as there are plenty of photos of the ship with both. For a brief time the ship had no torpedo tubes, and a single 40mm bofors either side of the sea cat superstructure, roughly where the 20mm were later mounted.

Both the RN and RNZN seem particularly wary of putting too much top weight on these ships. The SA President class make an interesting comparison with a helicopter hangar, two 40mm on top of that, torpedo tubes (?) plus a large search radar on an enlarged main mast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.187.15 (talk) 18:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I would assume the Limbo mortars were still fitted in the early 1970s because the Navy was still using up their mortar stocks and it required the major mid life refit to remove them. This occured in 74-75 in the case of Otago. I can confirm this as the Otago and its officers made a couple of visits to TBHS that year and I visited the frigate with a seventh form party that year. There was considerable discussion and dispute about the removal of the Limbomortars that was taking place in the long mid life refit, that was starting the following months. The general decision to requip the RNZN with USN equipment was made in the late 1960s and the RNZN director of plans in the late 1960s specifically refered to several Hansard parliamentary answers to questions by MPs Harrison and Whitehead in V355, 1968 on these issues- as the questions were deliberately asked and in sense placed to confirm the policy decision. Although of course there were other policy decisions made by the RN/RNZN that were not actually implemented notably the RN decision in about 1965 that all Leanders would be refitted with data links and ADWAS and the RNZN decision that all future escorts would be gas turbine powered.

I reject the topweight arguments. The non fitting or refitting of 965M to the Rothesays was probably because most RN/RNZN commanders considered 965 worthless and the removal of 965 reflected the withdrawal of the RN aircraft carriers and the age and increasing weight of the old Leanders in the mid 1970s. The final two Australian River class mounted LWO2 the Dutch LRAW in a much lower position because it was more effective in that position, The Swan and Torrens were ordered and approved on the basis they were two repeat RAN Rothesays but actually are quite a different Leander based design largely redesigned by Commander Knox later Australia CDS ( ref RAN site). Cpt Ian Bradley considered the RN Rothesays as effectively just GP 3 Leanders while his view was the Rn Rivers were really a completly different class from the RN/ RNzN ships Plessey