Future options for the RNZN

[Volkodav]

I never suggested NZ should get the Absalon Class, I was advocating the type of ship, whether the Absalon Class fits RNZN's requirements or not I don't know, but despite some arguments here I can envisage a multi-role vessel as an ANZAC replacement being popular in some quarters for a replacement of RNZN's frigates AND it's strategic sealift ship with one relatively similar class, with Canterbury obviously being the final vessel replaced.

As for the Absalon's combat capability, it is actually a pretty big step up from NZ's ANZAC Class.

It carries as it's routine weapons package: 1x Mk 45 Mod 4, 127mm gun, 8x Harpoon SSM's, 36x ESSM's carried in Mk 56 VLS, MU-90 torpedos and 2x 35mm Oerkilon "Millenium Gun" CIWS's, plus it has 2 hangars and facilities for 2 naval helicopters up to the size of the EH-101, a modern combat system, 3D air defence radar system and multiple channel of fire, fire control systems for it's ESSM, which I'm sure you'll agree is a pretty significant advance in combat capability when compared to the RNZN ANZAC's in their current configuration and compares well even to the RAN's ASMD upgraded ANZAC's...

It doesn't possess an area air warfare capability true, however compared to patrol frigates, which is what the ANZAC's are, it is extremely well armed. Plus it has the C&C and amphibious support capability as well.

The follow-on Iver Huitfeldt class frigate uses the same basic hull platform as the Absalon, but offers the true area air-warfare and long range land attack capability missing from the Absalon or ANZAC Class.

As I said, I'm not advocating any one particular capability, but a hull type similar in intent to the Absalon / Iver Huitfeldt classes (ie: with multi-purpose design intent) offer a variety of capabilities that may be very useful for a small navy with many roles to fill.

A mix of Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt's as an example, utilising a relatively common hull/machinery and supportability type, employed to replace the ANZAC's and Canterbury in future years might see the lack of combat capability within the RNZN addressed quite handsomely, whilst simultaneously boosting sealift capability. It would only then require a landing craft solution to be devised.

Again with a hull design similar to an Absalon but not that exact design, it may be possible to include landing craft carrying capability, whilst retaining most of the sealift capability, as well as the types obvious combat capabilities.

Food for thought anyway.

My thoughts exactly, such a ship would even give NZ the option to replace the Seasprites with NFH-90s.

It is interesting that a number of posts in this thread seem to take the too big / too expensive for NZ line, my response is why?

NZ is a comparatively wealthy and advanced nation that, through their benign environment and powerful friends, is able to limit the amount they invest in defence.
If there was the political will NZ could afford to buy two or three Navantia built F-100s or similar. This after all is how the RNZN was originally structured, a couple of capable cruisers supported by a number of minor combatants, never larger than corvette / frigate size. This changed to four high end ASW frigates when this became the RN priority, before degrading to a pair of patrol frigates supported by OPVs and patrol craft. I find it interesting that the RNZN has never had destroyers.

Anyway, as I see it, NZ could afford and would benefit from having a true high low mix in its fleet. Forget, patrol and even GP frigates and go for a multi role major surface combatant with a decent airwarfare capability, two or three hulls and make up numbers with OPVs and PBs.

Rumour has it the ANZAC replacement will be just such a major surface combatant with a decent airwarfare capability.

 

[Gibbo]

I can back this up with anecdotal evidence. I'm at university at the moment and last semester was doing a history course. Part of the course involved the NZ Land Wars through to WW1. A discussion was held about defence and because of the high profile of NZDF in Christchurch, comments were made about the lack of capability of NZDF. This was by a group of 18 - 20+ odd year olds. I mentioned the left wing anti military groupings of the 1990s and 2000s like Clark, Minto, Hagar, Locke and Co. The general consensus was that they were wrong and that we needed a viable and capable defence force. So I do think that the public opinion has changed and is changing. With regard to the Maori Party, from what I understand they aren't anti defence; they have a different focus and if what I am hearing is correct, their days might be numbered. The Mana party is a different story and they do have people within it who do not look favourably on defence.

Yes I get the impression attitudes are changing - there's 2 key factors I put that down to... (1) the peaceniks of Clark's days while still powerful, are a waning force - yes they're getting old! And more importantly (2) after 1995 in Bosnia, and then since 1999 in East Timor, the NZDF have been continuously deployed in well publicised & generally well understood deployments. This has opened many NZer's eyes to the fact that the NZDF really does a clearly definable reason for being & that has in turn brought with it an increasing acceptance that they must be properly equipped for their role. Finally the public can start to understand why certain pieces of kit are required.

 

[Volkodav]

Really? Then how do European designs manage to do just that? Some of them operate from the tropics to the Arctic, & in the Baltic, the Med, the Black Sea, the Red Sea, the Persian Gulf, the South Pacific, Caribbean, Indian Ocean, South China Sea, Java Sea, etc., i.e. in just about the full range of salinities & temperatures found in the sea.

The RNZN currently operates a few European designs, as well as Canadian, Korean & US designs.

And how many European (and US) designed ships suffer hull cracking? Not all of it is due to heavy seas, there is a thermal expansion stress factor as well, especially where your are talking disimilar materials or even thicknesses. Another factor is microbiological attack, there are areas RAN and RNZN ships operate that have some real nasties that bore straight through steel. There are environmental exstremes that the RAN and RNZN have to deal with that no other navies do.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Not keeping up with the latest and greatest I had to do a bit of googling to see just what a Type 26 was. Interesting to see that each doco mentioned Australia and NZ as potential customers in that we have shown interest in the product, in the case of Australia, I prosume as a basis for their Anzac 2.

 

[ADMk2]

My thoughts exactly, such a ship would even give NZ the option to replace the Seasprites with NFH-90s.

It is interesting that a number of posts in this thread seem to take the too big / too expensive for NZ line, my response is why?

NZ is a comparatively wealthy and advanced nation that, through their benign environment and powerful friends, is able to limit the amount they invest in defence.
If there was the political will NZ could afford to buy two or three Navantia built F-100s or similar. This after all is how the RNZN was originally structured, a couple of capable cruisers supported by a number of minor combatants, never larger than corvette / frigate size. This changed to four high end ASW frigates when this became the RN priority, before degrading to a pair of patrol frigates supported by OPVs and patrol craft. I find it interesting that the RNZN has never had destroyers.

Anyway, as I see it, NZ could afford and would benefit from having a true high low mix in its fleet. Forget, patrol and even GP frigates and go for a multi role major surface combatant with a decent airwarfare capability, two or three hulls and make up numbers with OPVs and PBs.

Rumour has it the ANZAC replacement will be just such a major surface combatant with a decent airwarfare capability.

My thoughts too. We should not forget either that the Canterbury is a 9000t ship, so size alone is not the sole determinate here...

I would suggest that as NZ would be currently likely to deploy an ANZAC and HMNZS Canterbury on any serious operation within Pacific or perhaps even SEA, that a future mix of 3 ships with an integral amphibious support capability should be a mix based on similar hull/machinery and accomodation with 2 having the higher end AAW / anti-surface / anti-sub capability, 2 helos and some amphibious support capability and 1 with a stronger amphibious support capability, the ability to carry 2 landing craft, 2 RHIB's and at least 2 NH-90 sized helos and a weapons, sensor and C&C fit at least equivalent to that which RNZN's ANZAC's carry now.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Volkodav]

My thoughts too. We should not forget either that the Canterbury is a 9000t ship, so size alone is not the sole determinate here...

I would suggest that as NZ would be currently likely to deploy an ANZAC and HMNZS Canterbury on any serious operation within Pacific or perhaps even SEA, that a future mix of 3 ships with an integral amphibious support capability should be a mix based on similar hull/machinery and accomodation with 2 having the higher end AAW / anti-surface / anti-sub capability, 2 helos and some amphibious support capability and 1 with a stronger amphibious support capability, the ability to carry 2 landing craft, 2 RHIB's and at least 2 NH-90 sized helos and a weapons, sensor and C&C fit at least equivalent to that which RNZN's ANZAC's carry now.

Just my 2 cents.

A modern day APD, a high speed amphibious transport based on a destroyer hull. This is just the sort of ship that makes sense in this day and age. Add a stern launch ramp and the facility to launch and recover RHIBs, CB-90 type assault craft, fast interceptor craft, and various typs of ROVs and your APD could literally be a stretch of your AWD / Frigate. Same in every way except for extra length to work in the boat handling / storage facilities, the multi purpose deck, extra accomodation and perhaps expanded helicopter facilities.

 

[ADMk2]

A modern day APD, a high speed amphibious transport based on a destroyer hull. This is just the sort of ship that makes sense in this day and age. Add a stern launch ramp and the facility to launch and recover RHIBs, CB-90 type assault craft, fast interceptor craft, and various typs of ROVs and your APD could literally be a stretch of your AWD / Frigate. Same in every way except for extra length to work in the boat handling / storage facilities, the multi purpose deck, extra accomodation and perhaps expanded helicopter facilities.

As long as it had the performance characteristcs, weapons, sensor, comms and C4IEW capability commensurate with modern frigates and an ability to fit in a landing craft or 2 per ship, I think it would be a perfect solution to RNZN's needs.

It wouldn't require a well dock, but a crane to lower the landing craft, as the Canterbury does now would be a necessity.

 

[swerve]

And how many European (and US) designed ships suffer hull cracking? Not all of it is due to heavy seas, there is a thermal expansion stress factor as well, especially where your are talking disimilar materials or even thicknesses. Another factor is microbiological attack, there are areas RAN and RNZN ships operate that have some real nasties that bore straight through steel. There are environmental exstremes that the RAN and RNZN have to deal with that no other navies do.

No other navies? Pull the other one! What about the USN, RN & MN? Look past your own nose & you'll find others.

BTW, how many Australian & NZ designed warships are there which you could buy? What are the alternatives to European & US-designed warships? Canadian-designed, Australian-built OPVs with no weight growth margin for ice operations?

 

[Volkodav]

As long as it had the performance characteristcs, weapons, sensor, comms and C4IEW capability commensurate with modern frigates and an ability to fit in a landing craft or 2 per ship, I think it would be a perfect solution to RNZN's needs.

It wouldn't require a well dock, but a crane to lower the landing craft, as the Canterbury does now would be a necessity.

I was thinking along the lines of the ramp and cradle arrangement on the US National Security Cutters rather than a dock well or crane. The ramp is capable of deploying a variety of craft from the ramp using the cradles as an interface. Each cradle is taylored to its specific craft.

 

[Volkodav]

No other navies? Pull the other one! What about the USN, RN, MN & RNLN?

Swerve, with all due respect, as far as I am aware every navy that regularly deploys their ships in environments other than those for which they were designed have issues as a result. It comes down to how long and how often they deploy in the extreme environments. Think of it as a hot cold fatigue cycle, if the material used isn't up to the job it will fail.

The RN had serious problems after the Falklands with hull cracking on the Amazons and Sheffields. The USN has had issues with the Burkes and Ticonderogas.

The RAN has had issues with structural materials in the past and where possible, on the advice of DSTO etc, will and have changed material spec to mitigate known issues. To re iterate it is the material used as well as the design that is the issue. Some times a good design can be impaired by materials not suited to the environment. At the same time, why would a parent navy pay a premium for a material spec change (not necessarily upgrade) that will give them no benefit in the expected duty cycle?

The Sheffields and Amazons were expected to operate in the northern Atlantic, North Sea, Mediterranean, Caribbean and possibility the Persian Gulf, not the south Atlantic. The RAN and to a lesser degree the RNZN know that some of their ships will likely have to operate in the Southern Ocean repeatedly, often for extended periods of time and that those same ships will also have to operate in SEA and likely have multiple deployments to the Persian Gulf. Therefore if there is a design option or material selection for an existing design that better suits the known conditions it makes sense to investigate and if viable (and cost effective) adopt it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I was thinking along the lines of the ramp and cradle arrangement on the US National Security Cutters rather than a dock well or crane. The ramp is capable of deploying a variety of craft from the ramp using the cradles as an interface. Each cradle is taylored to its specific craft.

I think this is going to be a key point inbetween the ships.

Australia's AnzacII's look like being based off the F-100 hull (possibly upsized?) so I think a welldock is unlikely. However cradle or crane should be doable. Australia would also have OCV's that might have a well dock to provide this sort of functionality. 2 or 3 OCV's could operate under the unbrella of a AnzacII or AWD.

T26 seems to have more emphasis on this multirole capability, most likely being a clean sheet designed (although T45 hulls have been mentioned). UK don't have a OCV type ship so these will have to perform that role.

I would have though Ideally the RNZN would have got 3xANZACII's and 3xOCV's.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The RAN and to a lesser degree the RNZN know that some of their ships will likely have to operate in the Southern Ocean repeatedly, often for extended periods of time and that those same ships will also have to operate in SEA and likely have multiple deployments to the Persian Gulf. Therefore if there is a design option or material selection for an existing design that better suits the known conditions it makes sense to investigate and if viable (and cost effective) adopt it.

When was the last time the RAN had ships in the Southern Ocean? I'm not aware of any operations that far south at least since 2004 when Customs SOMPRU took over the illegal fishing with Oceanic Viking.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Sheffields and Amazons were expected to operate in the northern Atlantic, North Sea, Mediterranean, Caribbean and possibility the Persian Gulf, not the south Atlantic. The RAN and to a lesser degree the RNZN know that some of their ships will likely have to operate in the Southern Ocean repeatedly, often for extended periods of time and that those same ships will also have to operate in SEA and likely have multiple deployments to the Persian Gulf. Therefore if there is a design option or material selection for an existing design that better suits the known conditions it makes sense to investigate and if viable (and cost effective) adopt it.

Volkodav with all due respect mate I think the RNZN does far more Southern Ocean and Antarctic operating than the RAN. I also feel that whilst the Northern Hemisphere ships are built for the conditions of the North Sea, North Atlantic and tropical conditions I think that they are not built to withstand the pounding of the Great Southern Ocean. What people forget or don't realise is that waves are a function of wind speed and fetch.

Fetch is defined as the distance of ocean that the wind has to transfer energy to the water therefore forming waves. The larger the fetch the bigger the waves. In the Great Southern Ocean the fetch is measured in thousands of miles and when you get below Terra del Fuego then the winds ( which are westerlies) are whipping around the planet with no interruption from a land mass until Antarctica. On our side of the ocean you aint got nothing between Cape of Good Hope, Stewart Island or Tasmania across to Chile (apart from Rapa Nui - Easter Island), so that's a very good fetch for the westerlies to work on. At any given time there are usually 4 low pressure systems coming off the ice so plenty of wind on the way. The NIWA research ship Tangaroa was in 15m (50ft) swells a couple of weeks ago by the Auckland Islands when it turfed Happy Feet into the oggy.

 

[Volkodav]

Volkodav with all due respect mate I think the RNZN does far more Southern Ocean and Antarctic operating than the RAN. I also feel that whilst the Northern Hemisphere ships are built for the conditions of the North Sea, North Atlantic and tropical conditions I think that they are not built to withstand the pounding of the Great Southern Ocean. What people forget or don't realise is that waves are a function of wind speed and fetch.

Fair call, I didn't word that the best. I was thinking tropics and MEAO when I stated RNZN to a lesser degree, I know you guys spend more time in the Southern Ocean. Ships operating in the Southern Ocean also seem to suffer more thermal contraction and expansion when returning to warmer waters.

 

[ngatimozart]

Fair call, I didn't word that the best. I was thinking tropics and MEAO when I stated RNZN to a lesser degree, I know you guys spend more time in the Southern Ocean. Ships operating in the Southern Ocean also seem to suffer more thermal contraction and expansion when returning to warmer waters.

No probs mate. A lot of people including a lot of kiwis and kiwi pollies forget that the RNZN AO is from the equator to the Ice. They see the words of NZs interests and security but forget that the TVs they watch, cars they drive, and the milk that Fonterra exports etc., all goes by sea. Plus they also forget that they want to save the Antarctic etc., but we got to sail down there. Personally I prefer to stay out of those waters myself because they are to cold, to much roughers and far to windy

 

[Volkodav]

When was the last time the RAN had ships in the Southern Ocean? I'm not aware of any operations that far south at least since 2004 when Customs SOMPRU took over the illegal fishing with Oceanic Viking.

Well considering the Australian definition of the Southern Ocean is the waters extending from the southern Australian and New Zealand coastlines to Antartica I would say the RAN regularly deploys to and transits through the Southern Ocean.

 

[justsomeaussie]

The RAN and to a lesser degree the RNZN know that some of their ships will likely have to operate in the Southern Ocean repeatedly, often for extended periods of time

Can you elaborate on the times when the RAN operates for extended periods of time IN the southern ocean?

 

[Volkodav]

Can you elaborate on the times when the RAN operates for extended periods of time IN the southern ocean?

That is information I don't have access to. The RAN however does require major combatants to be able to operate in the southern ocean and ship specifications reflect this i.e. the increased forward gunwale height on the ANZACs vs other MEKO 200s, material spec changes, paint spec changes etc. in other classes.

Southern Ocean operations, or the ability to undertake them, are increasing in priority due to natural resourse issues etc.

 

[Volkodav]

It just struck me that the RNZNs decline actually began 50 years ago when its cruisers were replaced with ASW frigates. If you look at their structure from formation during WWII (and even before as a division of the RN) they maintained a pair of cruisers supported by frigates, corvettes and a variety of minor and support vessels.

The logical replacement for the Bellonas, in timing and capability, would have been a pair of the RNs County Class Destroyers.

NZs Counties could have been added onto the end of the RNs first batch of four ships. Alternatively, had the UK agreed to Australias request to modify the design to replace Seaslug with Tartar for the RAN, NZ could have participated in a joint program with Australia for a total of five modified ships.

Where would the RNZN be today had they operated a pair of County Class DLGs from the mid 60s? Would they be looking at their own AWD now?

 

[mattyem]

And how many European (and US) designed ships suffer hull cracking? Not all of it is due to heavy seas, there is a thermal expansion stress factor as well, especially where your are talking disimilar materials or even thicknesses. Another factor is microbiological attack, there are areas RAN and RNZN ships operate that have some real nasties that bore straight through steel. There are environmental exstremes that the RAN and RNZN have to deal with that no other navies do.

As an engineer in the RNZN, these issues are world wide, and incorporated in the hull construction when building them world wide regardless of where they are to be operated