Future options for the RNZN

[Lucasnz]

If frigates are considered unaffordable, would something like the Danish Thetis class have to suffice, replacing the OPVs as well? Would our "international contribution" be best served by a single AOR and Canterbury?

Chis73

The Thetis class are an interesting design. In terms of speed they're similar to what the Loch class frigates were. Years ago I choked at the thought of replacing the Leanders with this ship and still do. However if we were to replace the ANZAC's on a one for one basis with higher end ships and buy 3-4 Thetis like ships I wouldn't complain. In effect we'd be going back to a force structure similar to the 1950's.

 

[aussienscale]

The Thetis class are an interesting design. In terms of speed they're similar to what the Loch class frigates were. Years ago I choked at the thought of replacing the Leanders with this ship and still do. However if we were to replace the ANZAC's on a one for one basis with higher end ships and buy 3-4 Thetis like ships I wouldn't complain. In effect we'd be going back to a force structure similar to the 1950's.

Do you see the NZG jumping into bed with the RAN on the ANZAC replacement ? from all accounts the ships will be larger, more capable, and possibly based on the AWD hull. Going by what I have been reading on this thread, I think this would be a hard one to pass by them ? The proposed RAN OCV does not seem to fit the bill either for the RNZN, so maybe these smaller European designed OCV/Multi Roled frigates are the way to go ? This options would at least give NZ a reasonable number of hulls

 

[swerve]

The Thetis class are an interesting design. In terms of speed they're similar to what the Loch class frigates were. Years ago I choked at the thought of replacing the Leanders with this ship and still do. However if we were to replace the ANZAC's on a one for one basis with higher end ships and buy 3-4 Thetis like ships I wouldn't complain. In effect we'd be going back to a force structure similar to the 1950's.

I like the thinking behind the Thetis class, but I think it's now a bit dated (first in service 20 years ago), & it's specialised for Arctic patrol. Unless you really want ice-strengthened hulls & don't care how noisy your ships are, why not go for the Holland class?

 

[t68]

Depending on cost and how worn out they are, NZ could go the "cheap" option and buy up RAN ANZAC's as they are removed from service. Rotating the ships in service could potentially increase their time before having to replace them.

First pass approval for the RAN future frigate (SEA 5000) will be sometime in FY18/21, the Kiwis have time up there sleave for an in depth assessment on which way they want to jump. IOC for the RAN is expected about FY27/30, not sure if that is for all eight boats or the first of class, if the Kiwis are sweating on the ex RAN Anzac’s looks like they will be waiting for a while yet.

Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

RNZN - The ANZAC Frigate

With the replacement of there propulsion systems and hull plates as part of the upgrade I cannot see NZG offloading them soon, but with more fuel efficient propulsion system and stability enhancement package and improved crew facilities it might be an incentive for a smaller nation to make a reasonable offer if NZG feels now is the time to change direction.

 

[Lucasnz]

I like the thinking behind the Thetis class, but I think it's now a bit dated (first in service 20 years ago), & it's specialised for Arctic patrol. Unless you really want ice-strengthened hulls & don't care how noisy your ships are, why not go for the Holland class?

Agreed the design is getting on in years. I like the ASW capability on the Thetis as the towed array provides an Area Capability thats lacking in the RNZN. The ability to upgrade with modular Sea Sparrow (I think the Danes are using ESSM now) and AShM is a big plus to. A similar ship would be good, including the Holland Class if it can be upgraded as some suggest.

Do you see the NZG jumping into bed with the RAN on the ANZAC replacement ? from all accounts the ships will be larger, more capable, and possibly based on the AWD hull. Going by what I have been reading on this thread, I think this would be a hard one to pass by them ? The proposed RAN OCV does not seem to fit the bill either for the RNZN, so maybe these smaller European designed OCV/Multi Roled frigates are the way to go ? This options would at least give NZ a reasonable number of hulls

I think ultimately the issue will not be one of cost but what role future governments see the RNZN having within our region. Not having a full combat capability IMHO would reduce the ability of NZ to influence events, either by intervention or having a say in how the intervention would work. This is primarily due to a reduced role we would play in any intervention. That said I think NZ could achieve this through two full combatants and ships with a reduced combat capability. Based on the Stability issues on the ANZAC a larger vessel for any surface combatant is a given. What the other ships come in is up for debate but if you want range and sea keeping as a key component of any design I would suggest that the Thetis is the min in terms of displacement and length/beam. The RNZN in the 80's was quoting 110 metres as the min to conduct full operations in SS6.

 

[t68]

What NZ could probably look at is a class of two to three Danish Absalon class flexible support ships to replace the ANZACs and Canterbury. They would pretty much do everything NZ required and more.

I actually like the design for the Absalon class, I think they are a good all-round fit for smaller navies, but at a displacement of 6600T she is the same rough size as the NGC for the RAN. If the NZG went ahead with another design from another shipbuilder NZG will most likely miss out on the offsets she would receive with a ship building program run from Australia and New Zealand.

ST Marine in Singapore built five Formidable class frigates based on the French La Fayette class for the RSN, with a mix of American and European armaments she is capable of ASW, AShM.ASM and limited NGFS, with hanger for two NH90 helicopters. RSN has six ships of the class in service with the last being commission in 2009.Neither the Formidable class and the Holland class brought up by Swerve has the endurance compared to a Legend class (NSC) which would be an important consideration if NZG still wanted to be part of coalition events.

 

[StingrayOZ]

European ships may not provide the capability required for RNZN. They are made for european requirements, and while generally quite flexable and capable they won't fit perfectly with the requirements of NZ.

A ship with greater endurance, designed for blue water operations, long deployment with and out of our region. Being able to be absorbed into USN and RAN fleets with minimal effort. Hook into USN and RAN supply, upgrades etc. They are generally not combat capable which would push NZ further away from both Australia and the US as resources are always slim and training with resources they are not capable and unlikely to be deployed.

Alternatives NZ might concider will cost a simular amount of money and be of simular size. Any thing designed outside of AUSCANNZUKUS would most likely have to be adjusted to fit in requirements. Systems, weapons, communication. This is what makes a ship expensive. While there are some attactive hulls, the hulls only make up part of the picture.

Australia would be looking at 8 hulls plus 2 or 3 from NZ. Thats a signficant number of hulls, more than most of these other options.

 

[StevoJH]

Australia would be looking at 8 hulls plus 2 or 3 from NZ. Thats a signficant number of hulls, more than most of these other options.

I was hoping for 9 RAN hulls to be honest, but if first pass isnt until 2017 it wont happen.

 

[swerve]

European ships may not provide the capability required for RNZN. They are made for european requirements, and while generally quite flexable and capable they won't fit perfectly with the requirements of NZ.

A ship with greater endurance, designed for blue water operations, long deployment with and out of our region. Being able to be absorbed into USN and RAN fleets with minimal effort. Hook into USN and RAN supply, upgrades etc. They are generally not combat capable which would push NZ further away from both Australia and the US as resources are always slim and training with resources they are not capable and unlikely to be deployed.

Alternatives NZ might concider will cost a simular amount of money and be of simular size. Any thing designed outside of AUSCANNZUKUS would most likely have to be adjusted to fit in requirements. Systems, weapons, communication. This is what makes a ship expensive. While there are some attactive hulls, the hulls only make up part of the picture..

One suggestion so far is a USCG cutter, which is hardly combat capable. I don't see you criticising that. But you suggest that European patrol ships designed for autonomous transatlantic or arctic winter patrols lack endurance, blue water capability, & the ability to deploy out of region.

You appear to be assuming that anything European is intended for local waters only. Not so!

As for European systems, weapons, & communications - have you noticed what some US & Australian ships carry? The USCG cutters previously mentioned, for example, have the EADS TRS-3D radar, a Bofors 57mm gun, MTU 20V 1163 TB93 diesels (like the F124 ), & an LM2500 gas turbine, which (in its licence-built in Italy version) is fitted to several European warships & carry Eurocopter helicopters. The Germans, Danes, Dutch, Spanish & Italians fill their ships with mixtures of local & US gear, & it all works together - and they all communicate with each other, & the RN, USN & MN.

 

[StingrayOZ]

One suggestion so far is a USCG cutter, which is hardly combat capable. I don't see you criticising that

Okay, I don't think the RNZN should gett a candy stripe ship. While they are generally armed with something, it is usually light, short in range and defensive. Effectively you aren't going anywhere outside your immediate region in a vessel like that. That assumes the region is protected by another navy (ie the USN or RAN). In that NZ could not act to support stability in the region, only act while the region is stable in a non combat way.

I know the european vessels are able to go outside of region and have reasonable endurance. However that is very different to being specifically designed to operate in and with allies in your region, and fight with allies in your region against the threats in the region.

East Timor showed that putting together a hodgepodge of navies is a nightmare, and infact makes you less capable as force. The UK could not provide airdefence in that enviroment, the us sent a cruiser, then everyone had to scramble around to meet us requirements for screening. NZ however was a highly valued for their support, with the Anzac Te Kana intergrating seemlessly and contributing significantly. Even with that level of sameness and intergration, still costs money. The less shared, the more the cost and time. The larger navy will actually tend to get less benefit therefore, they get less for the time, equipment and money spent training with them. Hence Australia's key points for its purchases were driven by US compatability.

When I talk about systems its more than helicopters or naval guns. Radar, command, coms, advanced cooperative engagement capabilities etc.

Its different cruising in the middle of a US fleet, to actually forming your own fleet with just 1 us ship and having all the ships working together to contribute to the overall protection of the force.

 

[swerve]

Remind me - where does the ANZAC design come from? I suggest you have a look at their systems. Quite a mixture of manufacturers & nationalities, eh? A bit like the Hobart class, in fact.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Im not saying it can't be done. But for 2 ships? By NZ? There were significant $'s spent in developing the ANZAC's, by two nations over 10 ships. The Anzac at the end, HMAS Perth has evolved a long way from the origional Meko design including 20% weight over most other Meko based frigates. That hasn't been been cheap either. Australia hasn't exactly had bucket loads of success buying and adapting european designs (Meko, Collins, NH90, Tiger etc etc). Even buying in quantities australia does it hasn't really been awesome value. The F-100 and the LHD project Im sure will be interesting developments. (although the F-100 uses mostly american systems, off a hull based off and designed with americans and the LHD will be fitted out in Australia with Australian systems, again based off a hull designed in conjunction with the americans having evolved out of the SCS concept.)

NZ is most likely going to have to partner up with somebody. UK (T26) or AUS (ANZACII) would seem to be the likely options. Other nations may be in the running but development from that would most likely cost more or be compromised. I would have thought the french would have be pushing with NZ, as the french are atleast in the region operating assets in the area.

NZ is of course free to buy what ever she wants. It just makes more sense to me to buy from within the alliance.

 

[swerve]

If by "the alliance", you mean the UK, USA, Australia & New Zealand, then buying from within it either means buying whatever the RAN buys (which has obvious advantages), regardless of its origins (outside '"the alliance", for recent ships) or Type 26, unless the USA comes up with something suitable for the RNZN, which currently seems unlikely. I don't see LCS as meeting your needs.

Citing the choice of the MEKO 200 for the ANZAC platform as a problem with European (non-UK) designs is perverse. It was too small, & still is, but whose fault is that? There were larger MEKO hulls available, but they weren't chosen. The Germans would also have been happy to sell a ship based on the significantly larger F123 Brandenburg hull, which was being built when the ANZACs were ordered, but that wasn't wanted. The too-small hull was the size specified by Australia & NZ, which meant that a scaled-down Type 23 had to be offered to meet it.

BTW, the ANZACs aren't 20% bigger than most MEKO frigates in service. 20% more displacement than some, i.e. the lightest.

NATO ships seem perfectly capable of working together, e.g. in the Gulf, & in operations off the former Yugoslavia, Libya, etc.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Meko was a weird choice, in particular that Meko hull. But then again things are often driven to buy the smaller model to force savings. Sounds very political, who knows?

Yes, I could have been clearer about the hull comparisons, my bad.

Obviously Australia has learnt her lesson and has clearly stated its replacement will be twice the displacement. Type 26 will most likely be of simular size (although everytime I hear something its changed).

I think there is a big difference between Libya and say East Timor/interfet. For our region we need ships that can act as a single networked force. Able to launch and direct weapons off each other ships, cooperative engagement, sensor fusion etc. Im not sure if a mixed NATO fleet has shown it can do that, in particular with lighter multirole frigates. Australia doesn't have a dozen SSN's, a few carriers, several hundread fighters operating from a variety of land bases, swams of frigates backed up by a US carrier.

East timor saw reluctant US participation (like libya) but with only a US cruiser which soaked up nearly all other assets to screen for it. Europe was able to get a lot more out of the US. All backed with half a dozen permanent UN members and half a billion of the wealthest people in the world to oversea problems in a country with 6 million people thats been under sanctions and unfriended for what decades? Verse a country with 20 million dealing with a country with 240 million people (4th largest in the word and largest muslim country). East Timor herself has over a million residents.

Thus a ship that is designed to cruise being dependant and protected on a large and powerful nato force, is going to be quiet different to a small force, being lead by a small middle power nation, where it has to pull its own weight.

Australia has deemed ABM to be a requirement for its frigate, I don't see any european frigates heading down that road.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

The Anzac 2 at 5000+ tons is going to be too big. What about another Meko, the A200 model, 3700 tons, already in use with South Africa. An improved Anzac sized ship.. Fitted with systems developed for the Aust Anzac Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Upgrade Project, its systems wouldn't be an orphan. The CEAFAR Active Phased Array Radar and CEAMOUNT Active Phased Array Illuminator would be a major development for the RNZN without the expense of the US and European systems. A poor mans Aegis. Basically with similar weapons to the current Anzac, 127mm, Phalanx/Searam, MU90 torps, 8 cell vls for 32 ASSMs, a couple of Bushmaster 25s, Harpoon 2/3 maybe, doesn't have to be 2x4, 2x2 would suffice, helo, etc. The A200 will do what NZ wants from a frigate without the padding of the Anzac 2 or going down the CG cutter route. Whats more they are designed for future growth.

 

[Volkodav]

The ANZACs were a child of the Dibb review and were intended to be light patrol frigates, in fact the MEKOs were considered to be larger and more capable than required. I believe the original requirement was for ships of about 2000tons, with a 3” Mk75 gun, limited self defence capability and basically no ASW capability.

I am not sure on the accuracy but I have read that it was initially intended to build an additional four OHP FFGs on top of the four US built and two Australian built ships for a total of ten for the RAN. This was canned in favour of the ANZAC Class patrol frigates.

In hindsight I can’t help but wonder if the RAN and RNZN would have been better off if the ANZACs had been evolved FFGs instead of cheap and nasty derivatives of the MEKO 200. Yes it would have cost more but the capability delivered would have been worth it, especially if they were supported by a class of corvettes similar to those proposed for the Ran in the late 90s.

 

[Volkodav]

The Anzac 2 at 5000+ tons is going to be too big. What about another Meko, the A200 model, 3700 tons, already in use with South Africa. An improved Anzac sized ship.. Fitted with systems developed for the Aust Anzac Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Upgrade Project, its systems wouldn't be an orphan. The CEAFAR Active Phased Array Radar and CEAMOUNT Active Phased Array Illuminator would be a major development for the RNZN without the expense of the US and European systems. A poor mans Aegis. Basically with similar weapons to the current Anzac, 127mm, Phalanx/Searam, MU90 torps, 8 cell vls for 32 ASSMs, a couple of Bushmaster 25s, Harpoon 2/3 maybe, doesn't have to be 2x4, 2x2 would suffice, helo, etc. The A200 will do what NZ wants from a frigate without the padding of the Anzac 2 or going down the CG cutter route. Whats more they are designed for future growth.

Why is 5000+ tons too much?

Steel is cheap and air is free, greater size equals better sea keeping easier maintenance and more space and weight for upgrades and updates through life. If you are only going to have two or maybe at a stretch three real war ships in your navy they should be as capable as can be afforded. Going cheap is false economy as you lose out on capability or end up having to pay more to stretch to that capability at a later date.

 

[StobieWan]

Why is 5000+ tons too much?

Steel is cheap and air is free, greater size equals better sea keeping easier maintenance and more space and weight for upgrades and updates through life. If you are only going to have two or maybe at a stretch three real war ships in your navy they should be as capable as can be afforded. Going cheap is false economy as you lose out on capability or end up having to pay more to stretch to that capability at a later date.

Exactly - the Anzacs are right at the limits of their stability margin so have no room for any additional systems or even to use the space allotted for VLS cells.

Buy something bigger, they have better sea keeping, are more flexible, and more survivable.

Ian

 

[swerve]

StingrayOz:

I think I see what you mean about independent operations, & co-operating with the USN. You see it as necessary for your ships to be able to operate with the USN as if they're USN ships - right? Or vice versa - absorb a USN ship into your operations seamlessly. While I appreciate that European navies in general haven't adopted CEC (I'm not sure if any have, in fact), I don't see why this is an argument against European ships. AFAIK there aren't any ships you could buy which would fit your needs & come with CEC. US ships have it - but what US ships are there which are suitable otherwise?

There are currently two ABM tracks for European ships, though AFAIK neither is very far along. SMART-L/APAR has ABM potential, & that's been explored in conjunction with Standard. The land-based Aster 30 version has limited ABM capability, which could be carried over to shipboard installations (the missile fits: changes would be needed to software & maybe radars), & the Aster Block 2, if it ever materialises, should have real ABM capability. Far behind current US developments, though.

Which European ships do you think of as being dependent on protection from a large & powerful NATO force?

EnigmaNZ: the South African Valour class MEKO 200s are only slightly larger than the ANZACs. Officially, full load is almost the same. I think that doesn't include the Valours growth potential, but you'd use up all of that in losing the current ANZAC top weight problems - and that would be that. Note that the ANZAC is also a MEKO 200 variant.

Go for something bigger. MEKO D, FREMM, Type 26 - or a frigate based on the F100.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

I'm trying to be realistic. This thread has been going for ages with, why not this or that, you'd think it was over a fleet of real warships, but lets face it, when it comes to replacing NZs Anzacs, do you really think 5000+ ton Anzac 2s will fly. This is not Australia. The green party, the maori party, the labour party, hagar, bradford, and upteen other antiwar protestors will march on anything bigger or more capable than what we have. It will be difficult to get something similar past them. Impossible to get something more capable. The cost of 5000 ton versus 3700 ton may be small, but on paper it sounds like we are swapping frigates for cruisers. The media will term them battleships, politicians will run for cover and we will end up with CG cutters.