The problem as I see it, is will the items ordered during this period suffer down graded abilities and what if they comtinue to be elected. This could have a serious affect on what equipment the NZ defence forces wind up with in the preceeding decades. It may not come to pass but I would not bet on it. RM's reduced status in his party and the apperent lack of suport by Winston is also a troubling factor.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Pretty much no role at all, but that isn't the purpose of the LOSC (or whatever they are calling it now). In some ways, it will be a true like-for-like replacement, as the Manawanui was built in the 1970's as a North Sea oil rig tender before being press-ganged by RNZN. The good news (such as it is) is that modern offshore support vessels are much larger and more capable than they were in the 1970s, and are very cheap to buy due to the downturn in the offshore oil sector.
Still can't help feeling sorry for the MoD procurement team who have doubtless spend years of work finalising the specs for a purpose-built vessel, only to have their work set aside for a cheap off-the-shelf commercial vessel.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
For non-Kiwi's, Ron Mark was formerly deputy leader of his minor party NZ First. He was recently dumped in favour of newcomer Fletcher Tabuteau, whom party leader Winston Peters seems to be pushing as this week's heir to the throne. Not sure what former wonderboy Shane Jones thinks about this, but with his established profile and independent views it was inevitable Winston would clash with him.
While 99% of Wellington gossip is bullshit, there are concerning stories about Winston's state of mind. He certainly has lost his flair for stirring trouble, and in public engagements keeps very closely to whatever script he is reading from - a big departure. He has had 73 years of hard living, and supposedly his memory and ability to take new information on board are none too flash. An interesting prospect, given he will soon be acting PM for six months while Jacinda is having her baby.
t68
Well-Known Member
small article in NZ Navy today about HMNZS Te Kaha upgrade, doesn't mention taking out MK41
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt218.pdf
http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/navy-today/nt218.pdf
My understanding is the same and that weight was a significant factor, espesially as the Mk 41's are carried so high. I heard that if the 41's had been retained that the Phalanx might have to go. Not a good swap.
The first bit about Endeavour being the first Western Government-owned ship to be recycled in Alang isn't quite correct. RFA Regent was scrapped there in 1993 & RFA Resource in 1997. Cheers
I believe the previous Endeavour was decommissioned in 1971 & handed back to the United States.
She was then handed over to the Taiwanese Navy (ROCN). Cheers.
Interesting tidbit of info Frosty thanks. Have you managed to find out whether we are storing them or selling them?
I assumed that they would have been removed by LM in Canada so fascinating to find out it was done here before they left.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I came across this article from Jan. with the NZD$4.3 mil. Hawk V entering service with Customs NZ. When I saw that the patrol boat was an 18 m aluminium cat and would be primarily patrolling between Auckland and Napier, I could not help thinking about older discussions regarding the RNZN's 60 m Lake-class IPV's purchased as part of Project Protector, and how it was expected that the RNZN would end up disposing of most of them early, since they were not really fit for purpose. The IPV's being too large for much of the real inshore Fisheries and Customs patrolling, yet too small to do the offshore patrolling.
While I think the IPV's need to be kept to provide training and service berths while the ANZAC-class frigates are being upgraded, I would still expect the IPV's to start getting taken out of service once the frigates are back. What I am concerned about conceptually or in terms of doctrine, is the degree to which the RNZN (and this extends to the rest of the NZDF) was expected to perform civil missions and as a result purchased several vessels which do not really fit with the service outputs the civil agencies seemed to desire, and also do not provide a significant benefit to the rest of the RNZN, especially given their cost.
While I think the IPV's need to be kept to provide training and service berths while the ANZAC-class frigates are being upgraded, I would still expect the IPV's to start getting taken out of service once the frigates are back. What I am concerned about conceptually or in terms of doctrine, is the degree to which the RNZN (and this extends to the rest of the NZDF) was expected to perform civil missions and as a result purchased several vessels which do not really fit with the service outputs the civil agencies seemed to desire, and also do not provide a significant benefit to the rest of the RNZN, especially given their cost.
Todj - Yes all this relates back to the Maritime Forces Review of 2001. It has been well traversed over the years. Concerned is really not the right word when revisiting something 17 years ago. It was not until DWP10 that changes could be made - however focus on economic issues post GFC - post CHCH as we know put this on the back-burner for 5 years.
Navy was forced into IPV's as the MFR was a multi agency report with a whole of Govt approach with only input from the Navy into the report directed by the DPM&C. Navy were not allowed to drive the agenda. Navy wanted out of the small ship business and the GOTD wanted to re-role the Navy effectively into a Maritime Resource Protection Service plus a soft power driven HADR/Sealift vessel as its prime foreign policy driver. Also Fisheries and Customs were told at the time not to explore their own small solutions as Navy would be the lead service provider - however they as the main clients would have significant project influence - thus the IPV was the poor compromise.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Presumably NZG can't sell the VLS without USG approval? If so, and this is mere speculation so happy to be corrected, perhaps 1 of 3 scenarios are in play:
1. The VLS is being stored, pending finding a buyer, that will meet USG approval to on-sell? If so could explain why it was removed in NZ(?).
(OTOH perhaps removal in Canada during the FSU would have meant incuring costs to store the VLS ... which suggests perhaps no "near-by" eg no US/Canadian interest in purchasing the VLS in the short term and the NZG didn't want to incur these ongoing storage costs plus additional costs to maintain the VLS in good working order overseas (i.e. travel and accomodation costs) to shore up buyer interest)?
2. It was removed in NZ(?) pending on-selling to a neighbouring country close by? Eg perhaps Australia, if so perhaps for their Future Frigate Programme (so that the early vessels could be built without having to purchase new VLS or decomission an ANZAC Frigate to re-use their VLS? However the AusGov presumably has the options of re-using the FFG7 Mk41 VLS's (i.e. those FFGUP/ship nos 3 & 4, assuming FFGUP/ship nos 5 & 6 are on-sold to Poland)?
OTOH wouldn't the AusGov simply purchase new Mk41 VLS's for the Future Frigates as the large project budget would surely accomodate the costs?
However will the Sea 5000 Frigates retain Tactical version Mk41's or step-up to the Strike version (meaning reusing existing RNZN/RAN Mk41 Tactical length VLS's is a no-goer)? Or will it be a mixture of both types? Is it in the public domain yet what version of Mk41 is being acquired?
3. It was removed in NZ and to be retained by the RNZN for future project re-use (eg ANZAC replacements 2030)? Personally I hope it is this option as Mk41 would give the RNZN more SAM options in the future plus ASROC etc.
Pity the Mk 41 wasn't retained as part of the FSU project, for SeaCeptor use and potentially a second 8 cell VLS fitted to each Frigate (to give more options eg additional SeaCeptor, plus ASROC or if future conditions warranted them - ESSM ... and SM2?), but if the RNZN was quite concerned about ANZAC Frigate stability then one can only accept the wisdom of the experts in choosing the option to remove the Mk41.
I do wonder then, perhaps whether the RNZN are being "crafty". Since the Frigates have followed an incremental upgrade programme over time, could space and weight be reserved for a future surface-to-surface missile capability if and when warranted (eg via a cannister system a la the RAN Harpoons?), like it had been when the ANZAC's were first mooted for NZ? After all the FSU is essentially a "self-defence" systems upgrade. What's not to say the Navy's "wish-list" thinking does or doesn't have an "offensive" systems upgrade path in reserve, should the strategic situation and NZG support finally justify the need? With the Mk41 and the large/heavy AN/SPS-49 radar system being removed, the RNZN ANZAC's do look rather clean and are presumably less "top heavy", i.e. compared to the original RNZN/RAN ANZAC configuration and the new RAN ANZAC ASMD configuration.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Could it be the Mk41 removal just makes the upgrade project in Canada easier and the system will be reinstalled when the ship arrives back in NZ?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Per the information provided, a new Sea Ceptor specific VLS will be installed which is smaller and lighter/less displacement than the Mk 41 VLS. Given that Sea Ceptor does not require a hot launch, it would make sense to replace a VLS which is overly large for the requirement. I would like to know the number of cells for the new VLS but that might not become public knowledge until after the first refit is complete.
IIRC it's five cells because I remember reading somewhere that a total of 20 Sea Ceptor missiles will be the load-out per ship. However I am not sure about the accuracy, because five cells does seem a strange number, when the Sylver launcher looks like it is in modules of three cells.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Funny that, I seem to remember reading a total of 20 missiles as well. It also might be that the Sea Ceptor VLS might not be quad-packed or even quad-packable. The Mk 41 VLS could have each cell quad-packed with Sea Ceptor, but if the new VLS is smaller, lighter, and not equipped for hot launches, then everything about it might have been shrunken down. Me being me, I would prefer there be more than 20 missiles, since that permits a maximum of ~10 warshots, which is not all that much when one considers it is the entirety of the air defence, and has an anti-surface/FAC role as well.
Good day
I doubt these are destined for the future frigate as I think they are the tactical length unit. Future frigate will need strike length for the SM2/6 missiles (and Tomohawk or similar if we get it).