Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[RegR]

I recall an article by Jim Dorschner at the now closed casr.ca site that proposed an Absalon as a replacement for Canada's Iroquois class destroyer. He proposed a hull plug that would allow for two additional engines to jack the speed up. Even without modifications this ship would be a useful ship to both the RCN and RNZN just for the RO/RO feature alone. As you say, the masses would be pacified by the HADR capability. Of course NZ would fare better as the ship would be built in Asian yard for an amount not to much higher than OMT charged the Danes. In Canada, Irving, Davie, or SeaSpan wouldn't do one for less than a billion and this amount is optimistic.

Yes I did see that proposal but always thought was it really worth all the effort for an extra few knots as I recall the abs topped 24 and the ivers 27 so to me not that much difference but I guess speed is handy when in a pinch or on the prowl.

Exactly, the other options scenario is what I believe would make an absalon more acceptable, justifiable and sellable than another pure frigate as I remember the controversy when the ANZACs were first mooted and we signed up for 2 firm and 2 options to replace the leanders 1 for 1 which eventually led to where we are today, a 2 only frigate navy, so essentially if we could'nt manage to replace what we already had then due to cost then I can't see us adding to what we have now for similar reasons without an offset/option/improvement pitch of some kind. Military minded see the logic in numbers for military kit, civilians only see the costs and guess who holds the govts ear more... A frigate is somewhat harder to sell than say a P8 due to their perceived single use, combat (a big no no according to some) and at least the orions have paved the way with years of widely publicised SAR, HADR, fisheries patrols etc to placate the public perception in a "safe" country such as ours (and yes yours to a degree) with the combat side of the house just seen as a sidenote.

TBH I can see a similar struggle to replace the ANZACs as when we tried to replace the Leanders in terms of vocal opposition and look how that turned out, an eventual 50% loss in the fleet! Luckily for us it surely can't go any lower numbers wise but could potentially be dummed down which IMO would be just as detrimental. The veiws of the current govt regarding international/regional influences seem promising but I've seen this talk before and we will no doubt have a few more of these papers, policies and perceptions between now and actual replacement time so who knows what the thinking will be like then.

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes I did see that proposal but always thought was it really worth all the effort for an extra few knots as I recall the abs topped 24 and the ivers 27 so to me not that much difference but I guess speed is handy when in a pinch or on the prowl.

Exactly, the other options scenario is what I believe would make an absalon more acceptable, justifiable and sellable than another pure frigate as I remember the controversy when the ANZACs were first mooted and we signed up for 2 firm and 2 options to replace the leanders 1 for 1 which eventually led to where we are today, a 2 only frigate navy, so essentially if we could'nt manage to replace what we already had then due to cost then I can't see us adding to what we have now for similar reasons without an offset/option/improvement pitch of some kind. Military minded see the logic in numbers for military kit, civilians only see the costs and guess who holds the govts ear more... A frigate is somewhat harder to sell than say a P8 due to their perceived single use, combat (a big no no according to some) and at least the orions have paved the way with years of widely publicised SAR, HADR, fisheries patrols etc to placate the public perception in a "safe" country such as ours (and yes yours to a degree) with the combat side of the house just seen as a sidenote.

TBH I can see a similar struggle to replace the ANZACs as when we tried to replace the Leanders in terms of vocal opposition and look how that turned out, an eventual 50% loss in the fleet! Luckily for us it surely can't go any lower numbers wise but could potentially be dummed down which IMO would be just as detrimental. The veiws of the current govt regarding international/regional influences seem promising but I've seen this talk before and we will no doubt have a few more of these papers, policies and perceptions between now and actual replacement time so who knows what the thinking will be like then.

Honestly I think it would be a mistake for the RNZN to go down the Absalon-class support ship route as a frigate replacement. Using the StanFlex modules and some built in sensors and systems, the RDN's support ships can match some of the capabilities of a frigate, while also providing a command/control and ro-ro sealift capability.

Aside from the fact that the RNZN does not use the StanFlex system of modules, which would requite either a vessel redesign to accommodate systems in use by the RNZN, or adopting StanFlex modules into the RNZN along with weapons not in RNZN service, or adapting weapons into new StanFlex modules... the design itself is really neither frigate nor LPD. IMO the sort of capabilities could be useful for the RNZN, but more as an augment to current and likely future capabilities, and not as a replacement for either existing capabilities, or to cover existing capability gaps.

My personal take on the Kiwi future surface combatant is that it should be brought forward, preferably so that the first vessel could be in service by ~2028. In addition I would hope gov't would specify a minimum of three and preferably four frigates be ordered, with the first vessel or two entering service prior to the RNZN starting to decommission the ANAZAC-class frigates. I personally believe the realistic capabilities of even the RNZN's planned frigate upgrades will be insufficient by the early 3030's if not sooner, and therefore the RNZN would need to have a more capable platform entering service by then. Given the likelihood of increased clashes in the Asia/Pacific region over territorial claims and resources and the resulting impact on SLOC, a pair of frigates each armed with 20 short-ranged air defence missiles, a 5" gun, a pair of triple LWT launchers, hull-mounted sonar and a naval helicopter, is IMO going to be insufficient. Such a range of capabilities might (and easily might not) be sufficient for a frigate to protect itself, but would be hard-pressed to defend merchant shipping or support ships transiting a contested area. The numbers need to be increased because two vessels is insufficient to enable a frigate deployment at all times. Four would be better since that could permit a frigate deployment and potentially have an additional frigate available for deployment.

With respect to the IPV's being withdrawn from service by 2025... I am okay with that and from my POV I am also okay with the entire Project Protector fleet being withdrawn early and replaced with properly resourced replacements that are designed and tasked appropriately. That would mean no more plans to have a dual-use sealift/patrol vessel with an ice-strengthened hull. With regards to the IPV's specifically, a question that I would like others to consider is what set of capabilities does the IPV provide to the RNZN, and are there alternative ways to provide that same (or improved) set of capabilities, perhaps at a more effective cost?

The IPV's themselves are fairly sizable vessels, being ~2/3rds the size of the OPV's, with over half the crew of the OPV's, and a 5th the displacement. As I understand it, this makes them really too large to cover some of the inshore patrol areas in support of other gov't agencies, where much smaller boats operated by detachments along the coast are (or would be) more effective. By the same token, the vessels are really too small in size and displacement to effectively patrol some of the more distant offshore patrol areas of interest. Now the IPV's might be able to provide some service to various Pacific island nations, but I suspect the size would again be problematic, since they are about twice that of the Pacific-class patrol boats and AFAIK are more complex in terms of machinery and electronics.

With regards to NZ providing patrol coverage for distant S. Pacific island nations and territories, either larger and much longer-ranged assets based in NZ are needed, or much smaller assets that based 'locally' in the area they are assigned to patrol, and operated by a rotating detachment of kiwis, or a mixed local/kiwi crew, again with the kiws being rotated. While 'local' basing would likely provide a faster response time, and possibly lower operating cost, I could easily see how the locals/local gov't could be resistant to having a permanent detachment based on their soil, given how that could be viewed as a return to colonialism.

Finally, I would like to see the RNZN specifically, and the NZDF generally, re-think and re-argue some of these 'whole of government' initiatives which they have become ensnared with. On the surface, the concept of increasing efficiency by enabling/requiring different departments or agencies to work together and share assets to meet needs sounds good... IMO the practice, at least with respect to defence has gotten out of hand. The IPV's, which do not provide a significant naval/defence capability, cost ~NZD$35 mil. to acquire, while the MPI acquired a new 7.5 m Naiad RHIB as a Fisheries patrol boat less than a year ago for ~NZD$340,000 to base in Gisborne and patrol from the East Cape to Mahia. While one cannot really directly compare two patrol boats of such different sizes and capability sets, the fact that Fisheries purchased a RHIB to patrol a sector of coastline ~200 km long, does strongly suggest to me that Fisheries sees a patrol need which was not being met by the IPV's, and can be met by much smaller vessels for less than 1/100th the cost.

 

[beegee]

I love the idea of an Absalon as our third combat ship. It's such a perfect ship for a small navy (those Danes know their stuff). The ultimate multi-role vessel. It would add to our sea lift capacity, add to our combat capability and they were designed to also act as command ships, so it could be our flagship. There is a lot of commonality with the existing Absalon sensor and weapon fit with our upgraded/un-upgraded ANZACs; SMART-S Mk2 radar, Ceros 200 FC radar, Mk 45 gun, Mk 32 torpedo tubes, which would have training and supply benefits. The weapons deck has space for five StanFlex modules, so there is plenty of space for Sea Ceptor and (dare I even dream it) SSMs. If we fit the same CMS as the upgraded ANZACs we could use the ANZAC's new training facilities and allow easier personnel switching between ships.

Aside from the fact that the RNZN does not use the StanFlex system of modules, which would requite either a vessel redesign to accommodate systems in use by the RNZN, or adopting StanFlex modules into the RNZN along with weapons not in RNZN service, or adapting weapons into new StanFlex modules... the design itself is really neither frigate nor LPD. IMO the sort of capabilities could be useful for the RNZN, but more as an augment to current and likely future capabilities, and not as a replacement for either existing capabilities, or to cover existing capability gaps.

NZ would never take the vessel exactly as designed for the Danish navy, it would be modified for NZ's requirements. We certainly would never adopt Stanflex modules.

If there was any hope whatsoever of the NZ Govt approving a third or fourth frigate then the Absalon would be unnecessary. The Absalon idea is an exercise in pragmatism. A way of getting a third combatant that could be sold to the Government as not a warship, but a multi-role vessel.

The NZDF enemy isn't China, it's the NZ Government.

 

[RegR]

Honestly I think it would be a mistake for the RNZN to go down the Absalon-class support ship route as a frigate replacement. Using the StanFlex modules and some built in sensors and systems, the RDN's support ships can match some of the capabilities of a frigate, while also providing a command/control and ro-ro sealift capability.

Aside from the fact that the RNZN does not use the StanFlex system of modules, which would requite either a vessel redesign to accommodate systems in use by the RNZN, or adopting StanFlex modules into the RNZN along with weapons not in RNZN service, or adapting weapons into new StanFlex modules... the design itself is really neither frigate nor LPD. IMO the sort of capabilities could be useful for the RNZN, but more as an augment to current and likely future capabilities, and not as a replacement for either existing capabilities, or to cover existing capability gaps.

My personal take on the Kiwi future surface combatant is that it should be brought forward, preferably so that the first vessel could be in service by ~2028. In addition I would hope gov't would specify a minimum of three and preferably four frigates be ordered, with the first vessel or two entering service prior to the RNZN starting to decommission the ANAZAC-class frigates. I personally believe the realistic capabilities of even the RNZN's planned frigate upgrades will be insufficient by the early 3030's if not sooner, and therefore the RNZN would need to have a more capable platform entering service by then. Given the likelihood of increased clashes in the Asia/Pacific region over territorial claims and resources and the resulting impact on SLOC, a pair of frigates each armed with 20 short-ranged air defence missiles, a 5" gun, a pair of triple LWT launchers, hull-mounted sonar and a naval helicopter, is IMO going to be insufficient. Such a range of capabilities might (and easily might not) be sufficient for a frigate to protect itself, but would be hard-pressed to defend merchant shipping or support ships transiting a contested area. The numbers need to be increased because two vessels is insufficient to enable a frigate deployment at all times. Four would be better since that could permit a frigate deployment and potentially have an additional frigate available for deployment.

With respect to the IPV's being withdrawn from service by 2025... I am okay with that and from my POV I am also okay with the entire Project Protector fleet being withdrawn early and replaced with properly resourced replacements that are designed and tasked appropriately. That would mean no more plans to have a dual-use sealift/patrol vessel with an ice-strengthened hull. With regards to the IPV's specifically, a question that I would like others to consider is what set of capabilities does the IPV provide to the RNZN, and are there alternative ways to provide that same (or improved) set of capabilities, perhaps at a more effective cost?

The IPV's themselves are fairly sizable vessels, being ~2/3rds the size of the OPV's, with over half the crew of the OPV's, and a 5th the displacement. As I understand it, this makes them really too large to cover some of the inshore patrol areas in support of other gov't agencies, where much smaller boats operated by detachments along the coast are (or would be) more effective. By the same token, the vessels are really too small in size and displacement to effectively patrol some of the more distant offshore patrol areas of interest. Now the IPV's might be able to provide some service to various Pacific island nations, but I suspect the size would again be problematic, since they are about twice that of the Pacific-class patrol boats and AFAIK are more complex in terms of machinery and electronics.

With regards to NZ providing patrol coverage for distant S. Pacific island nations and territories, either larger and much longer-ranged assets based in NZ are needed, or much smaller assets that based 'locally' in the area they are assigned to patrol, and operated by a rotating detachment of kiwis, or a mixed local/kiwi crew, again with the kiws being rotated. While 'local' basing would likely provide a faster response time, and possibly lower operating cost, I could easily see how the locals/local gov't could be resistant to having a permanent detachment based on their soil, given how that could be viewed as a return to colonialism.

Finally, I would like to see the RNZN specifically, and the NZDF generally, re-think and re-argue some of these 'whole of government' initiatives which they have become ensnared with. On the surface, the concept of increasing efficiency by enabling/requiring different departments or agencies to work together and share assets to meet needs sounds good... IMO the practice, at least with respect to defence has gotten out of hand. The IPV's, which do not provide a significant naval/defence capability, cost ~NZD$35 mil. to acquire, while the MPI acquired a new 7.5 m Naiad RHIB as a Fisheries patrol boat less than a year ago for ~NZD$340,000 to base in Gisborne and patrol from the East Cape to Mahia. While one cannot really directly compare two patrol boats of such different sizes and capability sets, the fact that Fisheries purchased a RHIB to patrol a sector of coastline ~200 km long, does strongly suggest to me that Fisheries sees a patrol need which was not being met by the IPV's, and can be met by much smaller vessels for less than 1/100th the cost.

Dam fat finger causing me grief agan.

Yes I am not suggesting absalon as a direct frigate replacement, in fact somewhat seperate from the ANZACs altogether, but instead a 3rd vessel that just so happens to have combat capabilities (which IMO still exceed our current frigates anyway) as TBH I am sceptical at best govt will stump for another frigate in its current capacity nevermind an extra 2 as we would probably at best option gain 2 semi-decent replacements along the same line or 3/4 appropriately watered down versions to keep within the same budget so a new approach will be required to gain hulls in water and bums in seats with any decent skillsets. Absalon would not be a true frigate, but lets be honest can be for us and also not be a true sealift ship but again for us, can be but will surely be seen as a lot more usable. Alot easier to sell and justify a multi role vessel with combined functions (much like the new Manawanui) to the guys picking up the tab than merely another frigate to add to the other 2 that have worked for X amount of years in its current format and doing the same perceived singular job. If the powers hav'nt realised the rule of 3 after all these years then why exactly would they pay particular attention now all of a sudden?

Another reason to go for seemingly a seperate ship is to split the project and spread the cost as if we baulked at the prospect of trying to buy 4 ANZACs at once back in the day then obviously not alot will have changed now bar us striking oil/gold/a money forrest to warrent but then when frigate replacement time finally does roll around aqquire 2 ivers to then maintain a familiar family.

I think the pacific deployments and reactivation of the IPV fleet speaks for itself and the fact that we are now all of a sudden able to put them to sea just as the frigates are in refit and we are a couple of support ships down is just that, coincidence, and not at all any reflection on their ability or lack of..

The other agencies are having to aqquire alternate methods of patrolling out of nesscessity as much as anything as mothballed patrol boats are not much use to them or the navy in terms of days at sea and not because they don't have a need for naval assistance, it's because there is none available because they were parked up. The whole of govt approach allows for a certain proportion of funding and justification for many a military asset and without it could/would see a very different outcome in operation, training, numbers, hours and even aqquisition as NZDF is not only there to defend NZ but more importantly to support it. It also creates savings by avoiding duplication of assets and maintaining expertise with subject matter experts which comes to fruition with things like SAR, HADR, police operations etc.

 

[Todjaeger]

I love the idea of an Absalon as our third combat ship. It's such a perfect ship for a small navy (those Danes know their stuff). The ultimate multi-role vessel. It would add to our sea lift capacity, add to our combat capability and they were designed to also act as command ships, so it could be our flagship. There is a lot of commonality with the existing Absalon sensor and weapon fit with our upgraded/un-upgraded ANZACs; SMART-S Mk2 radar, Ceros 200 FC radar, Mk 45 gun, Mk 32 torpedo tubes, which would have training and supply benefits. The weapons deck has space for five StanFlex modules, so there is plenty of space for Sea Ceptor and (dare I even dream it) SSMs. If we fit the same CMS as the upgraded ANZACs we could use the ANZAC's new training facilities and allow easier personnel switching between ships.


NZ would never take the vessel exactly as designed for the Danish navy, it would be modified for NZ's requirements. We certainly would never adopt Stanflex modules.

If there was any hope whatsoever of the NZ Govt approving a third or fourth frigate then the Absalon would be unnecessary. The Absalon idea is purely a way of getting a third combatant that could be sold to the Government as not a warship, but a multi-role vessel.

The enemy isn't China, it's the NZ Government.

The Absalon-class design works for the RDN in part because of the features of the design, and in part because of it's place in the overall structure of the RDN. More specifically, the RDN has a pair of them in commission, alongside a trio of frigates and six patrol boats in the 2nd squadron. By the same token, the 1st squadron has four patrol frigates (armed like larger OPV's generally), three arctic OPV's and some additional vessels. All up, the Danes have a dozen ocean-going vessels which either on their own, or with the inclusion of the appropriate StanFlex modules, are capable of Chapt VI operations with some also suitable for Chapt. VII operations.

With the RNZN only having a pair of frigates, that introduces the potential for the Kiwi frigates to be undergoing maintenance, upgrades, training, or on a pre-deployment of post-deployment cycle when something happens which requires a RNZN combatant presence. If the RNZN keeps to operating a pair of frigates and then an Absalon-class type vessel, that would add a third combatant, but with a different configuration and likely a different capability set. Having a third combatant that is a one-off would likely increase the difficulties of any cross vessel postings since the vessel layouts would be different, and there would likely be differences in some of the systems, electronics and machinery. In terms of capability itself, one also needs to look to the future and what likely and potential threats would exist, as well as the capabilities future combatants would be required to have in order to effectively meet those threats.

The RNZN's frigate upgrade will introduce the Sea Ceptor into service to provide a short-ranged air defence replacement for the now obsolete RIM-7 Sea Sparrow. Future iterations like the CAMM-ER may provide/extend the air defence capability out to medium range, but does seem like most navies think major warships will also need a long-ranged air defence capability to operate effectively either as independent vessels or as escorts in a task force. That IMO would strongly suggest that the RNZN future surface combatant should have some A50 or Mk 41 Tactical VLS cells either in addition to or in place of any Sea Ceptor VLS cells. I do not see how the Absalon-class design could be fitted with something like a Mk 41 or A50 VLS, plus the other required design changes associated with not using the StanFlex system (different databus, CMS, cabinets, workstations, weapons systems and mountings, etc.) without forcing a significant redesign of the vessel's overall structure. Relating to that, I believe the level of redesign required would be expensive, especially for a just a single example to be built by a small navy.

The final thing to consider is the time frame. If an existing design was acceptable and a contract was able to be signed today, it would likely be 18+ months before the completed ship could be delivered, assuming there was a build slot available. Given the time required for RFP and/or RFT documents and the associated assessments, contract negotiations, etc. It would be much more likely that it would be 24+ months before a contract could be signed, and then another 18+ months before the ordered vessel could be delivered. That means the hypothetical vessel would most likely not start sea trials until 2023, and again most likely not viable for a deployment until 2024 or 2025. If the hypothetical RNZN Absalon-class were to be armed in line with the planned RNZN frigate upgrades, does that really seem like it would be a viable configuration out to ~2040 when the vessel would reach service mid-life?

 

[beegee]

...but does seem like most navies think major warships will also need a long-ranged air defence capability to operate effectively either as independent vessels or as escorts in a task force.

Is that really true, though? The Royal Navy is happy for their T26 ships to have Sea Ceptor as their sole AD missile and they're designed to operate effectively as independent vessels or as escorts in a task force. Are you suggesting the Royal Navy has got it wrong?

Mate, I would love to see a serious AD capability in the RNZN, I just don't think it's something the navy would push for or get. I think they (like the RN) are happy with Sea Ceptor and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[Todjaeger]

Is that really true, though? The Royal Navy is happy for their T26 ships to have Sea Ceptor as their sole AD missile and they're designed to operate effectively as independent vessels or as escorts in a task force. Are you suggesting the Royal Navy has got it wrong?

Mate, I would love to see a serious AD capability in the RNZN, I just don't think it's something the navy would push for or get. I think they (like the RN) are happy with Sea Ceptor and will be for the foreseeable future.

The Type 26 design under construction for the RN will have 24 Mk 41 VLS cells, in addition to the Sea Ceptor-specific VLS cells of which there are 48 IIRC.

Again IIRC they are to be strike-length VLS cells, and while I do not recall coming across specific statements on what the RN plans on loading into the Mk 41 VLS cells, I would consider it highly likely that at least some of those cells will be fitted with long-range air defence missiles. After all, the RN only has six Type 45 destroyers in service for area air defence and having both additional cells and launching platforms available in a task force just seems sensible to me.

 

[beegee]

The Type 26 design under construction for the RN will have 24 Mk 41 VLS cells, in addition to the Sea Ceptor-specific VLS cells of which there are 48 IIRC.

Again IIRC they are to be strike-length VLS cells, and while I do not recall coming across specific statements on what the RN plans on loading into the Mk 41 VLS cells, I would consider it highly likely that at least some of those cells will be fitted with long-range air defence missiles. After all, the RN only has six Type 45 destroyers in service for area air defence and having both additional cells and launching platforms available in a task force just seems sensible to me.

What missile do you think could be fitted in the Mk 41s? The RN doesn't use American SAMs and the Aster missile can't be fired from the Mk 41.

More importantly, the T26 doesn't have the equipment needed to guide long-range air defence missiles. As designed, they would need a major upgrade to launch them. The Artisan 3D radar isn't capable of guiding SM-2, ESSM or Aster. There is no system on the T26 capable of CW illumination for SM-2 or ESSM. Sea Ceptor works because it's sensor agnostic.

 

[ngatimozart]

I would actually rather us to get an absalon to be the third "frigate", easier to sell to the masses and arguably just as/if not more useful for what we actually do with its added lift and comparitively just as/if not more capable defensively/offensively as our current frigates at least so nothing technically lost but still a considerable gain, especially since we only have 2 frigates now and have had for sometime with seemingly no issues so "just another frigate" will be quite an ask at this point in time, heck there's even talk of downsizing to upgraded OPVs so there's definately some convincing to do as is.

Get an absalon ball rolling soonish and in service before the timecard expires on the ANZACs and then replace those as per normal with 2 Ivers so as we are not left in a situation like we have now with multiple big ticket items needing replacement all around the same time.

Much like the ACF once gone a very hard, and expensive capabilty to justify getting back (the current govt was the axeman at that time so shows their "combat colours") so perhaps what is needed is an alternate angle for a goal.

We should really never have downsized the frigate fleet to begin with but then again we did gain a semi-decent sealift ship and 2 OPVs in lieu so not a bad deal as far as capability goes just a hard trade off but as per now a hard decision for a small navy to make IOT stay afloat so to speak.

I recall an article by Jim Dorschner at the now closed casr.ca site that proposed an Absalon as a replacement for Canada's Iroquois class destroyer. He proposed a hull plug that would allow for two additional engines to jack the speed up. Even without modifications this ship would be a useful ship to both the RCN and RNZN just for the RO/RO feature alone. As you say, the masses would be pacified by the HADR capability. Of course NZ would fare better as the ship would be built in Asian yard for an amount not to much higher than OMT charged the Danes. In Canada, Irving, Davie, or SeaSpan wouldn't do one for less than a billion and this amount is optimistic.

Whilst the Absalon, per se, is an ideal capability for the RNZN, it is not a FFG replacement and to suggest to our pollies acquiring it next, would have them saying "oh we can replace the ANZACs with these". It gives them an out and an excuse to further reduce NZDF capabilities.

However if it was suggested that an OMT Iver Huitfeld is acquired as a third FFGP at a cost of say NZ$600 - 700 million vs NZ$1.0 - 1.5 billion for other FFs, e.g., T26, it would give them significant food for thought. This ship should be fitted with the same weapons, sensors, decoys, comms gear, CMS etc., that the ANZAC FFHs are having fitted, plus 2 millennium guns & SSM. After the Iver has been accepted suggest the Absalon with a 76 mm gun and FFBNW SSM, ASW LWT and sell it to the pollies for what the RDN use it as: a C2 and support vessel. In RNZN service that could be expanded to included littoral warfare support as well. It can go places that Canterbury cannot. When the two ANZACs come up for replacement you just build two more Ivers, pulling through kit, then a second Absalon, or from now go Iver, Absalon, Iver, Absalon, Iver, LHD.

 

[RegR]

Whilst the Absalon, per se, is an ideal capability for the RNZN, it is not a FFG rep

Whilst the Absalon, per se, is an ideal capability for the RNZN, it is not a FFG replacement and to suggest to our pollies acquiring it next, would have them saying "oh we can replace the ANZACs with these". It gives them an out and an excuse to further reduce NZDF capabilities.

However if it was suggested that an OMT Iver Huitfeld is acquired as a third FFGP at a cost of say NZ$600 - 700 million vs NZ$1.0 - 1.5 billion for other FFs, e.g., T26, it would give them significant food for thought. This ship should be fitted with the same weapons, sensors, decoys, comms gear, CMS etc., that the ANZAC FFHs are having fitted, plus 2 millennium guns & SSM. After the Iver has been accepted suggest the Absalon with a 76 mm gun and FFBNW SSM, ASW LWT and sell it to the pollies for what the RDN use it as: a C2 and support vessel. In RNZN service that could be expanded to included littoral warfare support as well. It can go places that Canterbury cannot. When the two ANZACs come up for replacement you just build two more Ivers, pulling through kit, then a second Absalon, or from now go Iver, Absalon, Iver, Absalon, Iver, LHD.

I guess it all depends on what navy and govt deem more relevant and a priority (if at all) for operational outputs, alternate sealift or another frigate? I'm sure they would love both if they could but just like the IPV vs OPV they would only be able to afford to have one type to cover off their "main" tasks whichever they maybe, a juggling act in some regards.

 

[Todjaeger]

I guess it all depends on what navy and govt deem more relevant and a priority (if at all) for operational outputs, alternate sealift or another frigate? I'm sure they would love both if they could but just like the IPV vs OPV they would only be able to afford to have one type to cover off their "main" tasks whichever they maybe, a juggling act in some regards.

IMO what the RNZN and gov't really need to consider is what capabilities are required to be available, and then resource the appropriate platforms and systems to enable the delivery of the required capabilities.

As NZ will see over the next few years, between now and ~2022, there will be prolonged periods where the RNZN has no frigates/combatants available. Hopefully, nothing will occur and no situation will arise where the RNZN, NZDF, or NZ gov't suffer from that deficiency.

Looking back at the history of the ANZAC-class frigate project and more specifically Kiwi participation, as well as NZ defence reviews which were done during the Lange gov't, it does seem that while there was an element of fiscal concern about ordering frigates, it seems to me that the deciding factor was politics, and not cost, capabilities, or need.

In that regard, Project Protector would likely be viewed as a success. In 1985 and 1986, various interest groups that either were affiliated with the Labour gov't, or had a similar political orientation, entered submissions regarding defence, advocating for replacing the RNZN's frigate force with Castle-class OPV's or similar type vessels and the replacement of the frigate force with smaller vessels suitable for fisheries protection. In 1987, PM Lange was reported to have stated that the planning for the replacement of RNZN frigates was bit have them replaced by a frigate. All of this was occurring, despite the 1983 Defence Review having reinforced a pre-existing review that a reduction in capability to a coast guard-type role would be unacceptable.

It would seem that nearly 20 years after the ideas were first raised, Project Protector managed to expand/replace a significant portion of the RNZN's fleet while delivering vessels with capabilities that are insufficient for more than constabulary operations. IMO the worst part of that is that for at least the OPV's and MRV, the RNZN was basically committed to retaining those vessels for a generation.

 

[beegee]

IMO what the RNZN and gov't really need to consider is what capabilities are required to be available, and then resource the appropriate platforms and systems to enable the delivery of the required capabilities.

Absolutely, but the problem is that the required capabilities aren't a constant, they're a variable, and that variable keeps changing depending on who the Government is. The only way I can see of getting all the political parties to agree on defence requirements is for there to be a serious incident which shakes them (and the public) out of their complacency.

 

[spoz]

The T26 doesn't have the equipment needed to guide long-range air defence missiles. As designed, they would need a major upgrade to launch them.

I’m not sure that is true if the missiles under consideration are SM 2 Active, SM 6 or ESSM Block 2, although the CMS would almost certainly need modification; although that might be relatively minor.

If they don’t embark SAMs then 24 strike length seems more Mk 41 cells than needed for other purposes.

 

[beegee]

I’m not sure that is true if the missiles under consideration are SM 2 Active, SM 6 or ESSM Block 2, although the CMS would almost certainly need modification; although that might be relatively minor.

If they don’t embark SAMs then 24 strike length seems more Mk 41 cells than needed for other purposes.

I'll reply in the RN thread as this is OT for NZ.

 

[Rob c]

Absolutely, but the problem is that the required capabilities aren't a constant, they're a variable, and that variable keeps changing depending on who the Government is. The only way I can see of getting all the political parties to agree on defence requirements is for there to be a serious incident which shakes them (and the public) out of their complacency.

The biggest problem with defence is that neither of the 2 main parties want to be forced into spending more on defence than they absolutely have too, as they want any money that is available for political gains. There was an agreement between them in 2009 or 2012 not to debate Defence during election times so as to keep it low profile and keep the status quo in place. As far as I know they still follow this agreement.

 

[Todjaeger]

Absolutely, but the problem is that the required capabilities aren't a constant, they're a variable, and that variable keeps changing depending on who the Government is. The only way I can see of getting all the political parties to agree on defence requirements is for there to be a serious incident which shakes them (and the public) out of their complacency.

I tend to disagree, there is some movement on what the capability requirements are, due to changing variables regarding existing and emergent threats, but some things just do not change. The limitations in availability of a two vessel combat force does not change for instance. That in turn means gov't is gambling that no issue which would require a combat vessel as a response would occur during one of the periods when such a vessel was not available.

What does tend to change with changes in gov't is what official policy will be, as well as what gov't will admit to in terms of potential threats reviewed. Whether the policies and/or reviews are logical and supported by facts is another issue entirely.

The advocacy by the Green Party spokesman following the announcement of the P-8A Poseidon purchase, arguing against the purchase of any weapons for the Poseidon's, is a prime example IMO. To me, it seems as though people, groups and movements are advocating a sort of reverse of peaceful civil disobedience. To argue that authorities should be unable to employ force and are only able to use 'peaceful' means to resolve a situation, including when confronting force/violence or the threat thereof, is using "fluffy logic" or "magical thinking" IMO. Given the spokesman's experience participating in the legal defence of individuals charged with war crimes for atrocities committed when the accused were in positions of power enabling them to carry out the deeds they were charged with, I refuse to believe they are actually that naive. Rather I suspect the thinking is ideologically based and central to the thinking is that the power should reside with the individual and not society as a group, or those whom society charges with oversight (which would be gov't). Of course a major problem with such beliefs (and why I refer to them as "fluffy logic" or "magical thinking") is that having society powerless as a group only works when everyone abides by the same set of rules, or the person/people who refuse to follow the rules are weaker than everyone else and therefore unable to act against individuals in society.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

Yeah well, I think what comes next for RNZN can be summed up in one word - "justified" - Is a four frigate navy "justified." New Zealand governments has shredded, violated or abstained from treaty obligations under international law. We've refused to price carbon properly, backed out of human rights agreements and have killed foreign woman and children. And on that bases I'd say yes. A four frigate navy is justified on the bases that recovering from conflict is even more justifiable. Because a world with out treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation from a tinny monarchy to a first world liberal democracy, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others.

The modern two frigate RNZN has undone five decades of international cooperation largely put in place by the United States and thrust New Zealand into moral nightmares. We must not allow laws and treaties, ones that set minimum standards of behaviour and provide a frame work for competing social, political and economic, and trade and religious groups and interests, to just be discarded. The exercise of laws with out power is tyranny. The lust to create legal black holes where the lines run from Wellington to Virginia USA and Iraq, that we now know fabricates legal pretexts for war. And so fabrications outside of New Zealand's interests and controls are disseminated to a frightened and manipulated press and public. Yet time and time again the latest attack to grab the front pages can be found to be manufactured reports. In short, the public is being lied to, and we wonder why they do not believe us on these fundamental issues.

New Zealanders can no longer tolerate conflicts that have no legal justifications and wars waged in violation of international law. The grief visited on conflict children demand that we as New Zealanders begin to restore RNZN and NZDF in general back to its former glory, and go our own way in international affairs in the hope that it reactivates simple human decency and a return to a world of standards.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Unfortunately it's not just cuts to the hardware, ie Frigates, MPAs, transport planes etc the cuts to perks like accomodation doesn't help either, I think the wages need to be looked at too compared to what other allied militaries pay for the same trades, rank etc. Civilian jobs roles are always going to be competitive, national pride aside, there needs to be more incentives for recruits to raise the numbers

 

[John Fedup]

Yeah well, I think what comes next for RNZN can be summed up in one word - "justified" - Is a four frigate navy "justified." New Zealand governments has shredded, violated or abstained from treaty obligations under international law. We've refused to price carbon properly, backed out of human rights agreements and have killed foreign woman and children. And on that bases I'd say yes. A four frigate navy is justified on the bases that recovering from conflict is even more justifiable. Because a world with out treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation from a tinny monarchy to a first world liberal democracy, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others.

The modern two frigate RNZN has undone five decades of international cooperation largely put in place by the United States and thrust New Zealand into moral nightmares. We must not allow laws and treaties, ones that set minimum standards of behaviour and provide a frame work for competing social, political and economic, and trade and religious groups and interests, to just be discarded. The exercise of laws with out power is tyranny. The lust to create legal black holes where the lines run from Wellington to Virginia USA and Iraq, that we now know fabricates legal pretexts for war. And so fabrications outside of New Zealand's interests and controls are disseminated to a frightened and manipulated press and public. Yet time and time again the latest attack to grab the front pages can be found to be manufactured reports. In short, the public is being lied to, and we wonder why they do not believe us on these fundamental issues.

New Zealanders can no longer tolerate conflicts that have no legal justifications and wars waged in violation of international law.

Bloody hell, are you related to junior?

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeah well, I think what comes next for RNZN can be summed up in one word - "justified" - Is a four frigate navy "justified." New Zealand governments has shredded, violated or abstained from treaty obligations under international law. We've refused to price carbon properly, backed out of human rights agreements and have killed foreign woman and children.

These are serious allegations of possible war crimes so you have better have good quality evidence to back this up and the reason why I've bolded it and have used my Mods hat for the evidence is because of the seriousness of the allegations that you make. "We've refused to price carbon properly, backed out of human rights agreements" is not defence related and is a political statement which is against the rules, so you are skating on thin ice.

And on that bases I'd say yes. A four frigate navy is justified on the basis that recovering from conflict is even more justifiable. Because a world without treaties, statutes and laws is a world where any nation from a tiny monarchy to a first world liberal democracy, will be able to invoke its domestic laws to annul its obligations to others.

The modern two frigate RNZN has undone five decades of international cooperation largely put in place by the United States and thrust New Zealand into moral nightmares. We must not allow laws and treaties, ones that set minimum standards of behaviour and provide a frame work for competing social, political and economic, and trade and religious groups and interests, to just be discarded.

Agree

The exercise of laws with out power is tyranny.

I think that this should read: The exercise of power without law is tyranny.

The lust to create legal black holes where the lines run from Wellington to Virginia USA and Iraq, that we now know fabricates legal pretexts for war. And so fabrications outside of New Zealand's interests and controls are disseminated to a frightened and manipulated press and public. Yet time and time again the latest attack to grab the front pages can be found to be manufactured reports. In short, the public is being lied to, and we wonder why they do not believe us on these fundamental issues.

Again this is a political statement and regardless of whether or not it may be founded in fact, it is inadmissible here.

New Zealanders can no longer tolerate conflicts that have no legal justifications and wars waged in violation of international law. The grief visited on conflict children demand that we as New Zealanders begin to restore RNZN and NZDF in general back to its former glory, and go our own way in international affairs in the hope that it reactivates simple human decency and a return to a world of standards.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of restoring NZDF back to its former "glory" and I use that word wisely, the rest of the bolded quote I totally disagree with. We simply do not have the financial resources to have a completely independent foreign policy AND a NZDF restored back to it's former glory. It has to be a compromise of both. You only have to look at Switzerland, Sweden and Finland to understand the financial implications.

This post has been commented on by another of the Moderators and undoubtedly will be by another soon. Politics are against the rules of the forum so any future transgressions will be frowned upon by the Moderators and could result in sanctions.

Update: @Ocean1Curse You've already served a temporary ban for similar transgressions so consider this a really important warning because unless your posting behaviour significantly permanently changes for the better, the next ban could be permanent. The third Moderator has commented and he is extra grumpy at the moment.