Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Ocean1Curse]

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.

Agree

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

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

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.

Hope you don't mind if I skip over a lot of that.

I'v spent a bit of time over the last month looking at European equities markets and the dramatic effect the Turkish Lira has had on Europe. But in context the Turkish Lira crises has been going on the whole year. When you look at Spain's exposure to Turkey, Turkey owes about $80 billion but that's dwarfed by European banks who're exposed to something like $20 trillion to the whole universe of emerging markets. So it's not just Turkey or the Middle East, people are talking about contagion from Turkey to Brazil to South Africa to India. These countries have similarities, not only do they have large deficits and balance of payment issues they're debt to GDP is denominated in US dollars and the U.S dollar has been a strong performer this year so we're back to this theme about what the U.S administration has been up to in the U.S. I think normally in this type of risk environment you'd expect to see New Zealand do well but the other one that's been behaving strangely is NZDF during recent periods. These just to much wrong to list. But putting government funds into different areas is supposed to act in certain ways too. So I think trading government bonds and thinking it's supposed to act the way people think is a major risk to any military expansion. And this is complicated stuff.

So things really are in the here and now. TBH I think we can say the New Zealand economy is about 70% of the way. And if we speak with familiar voices we could get all the way in the next 10-20 years. If.

 

[MrConservative]

Hope you don't mind if I skip over a lot of that.

I'v spent a bit of time over the last month looking at European equities markets and the dramatic effect the Turkish Lira has had on Europe. But in context the Turkish Lira crises has been going on the whole year. When you look at Spain's exposure to Turkey, Turkey owes about $80 billion but that's dwarfed by European banks who're exposed to something like $20 trillion to the whole universe of emerging markets. So it's not just Turkey or the Middle East, people are talking about contagion from Turkey to Brazil to South Africa to India. These countries have similarities, not only do they have large deficits and balance of payment issues they're debt to GDP is denominated in US dollars and the U.S dollar has been a strong performer this year so we're back to this theme about what the U.S administration has been up to in the U.S. I think normally in this type of risk environment you'd expect to see New Zealand do well but the other one that's been behaving strangely is NZDF during recent periods. These just to much wrong to list. But putting government funds into different areas is supposed to act in certain ways too. So I think trading government bonds and thinking it's supposed to act the way people think is a major risk to any military expansion. And this is complicated stuff.

So things really are in the here and now. TBH I think we can say the New Zealand economy is about 70% of the way. And if we speak with familiar voices we could get all the way in the next 10-20 years. If.

The above has nothing to do with the RNZN. You have recently been given a 3 month ban and that will soon turn to a permanent one if you persist in using this forum to perpetuate your pet theories. This is a Final Warning if your posts do not improve.

 

[Ocean1Curse]

The above has nothing to do with the RNZN. You have recently been given a 3 month ban and that will soon turn to a permanent one if you persist in using this forum to perpetuate your pet theories. This is a Final Warning if your posts do not improve.

If you don't mind me asking. Which parts are theoretical?

 

[ngatimozart]

If you don't mind me asking. Which parts are theoretical?

You have been given two warnings today, one being a final warning, for posting material that is against the rules, specifically:

• Rule 3. Do not post off-topic,
• Rule. 18 Discussion of politics is prohibited apart from that which is directly involved with or impacts defense matters, like procurement and budgetary decisions,
• Rule 27.
  
  • Do not ignore requests, recommendations or requirements from the Moderator Team, and
    
    • Rule 30. If members have an issue with how a member of the Mod team responds, either PM that Mod or another member or members of the Mod team.

I very strongly suggest that you follow the Moderators guidance or your time on here will be very short indeed. Your next post determines your future on here, so think very carefully about it.

 

[beegee]

@beegee All for a strong defence force but if we (Australia) had the money to buy an extra 2 ships much rather we buy 1 extra for our selves and use the rest to field it over its life. At best you are going to get Australia subsidizing the build, More likely doing it at cost but no way will we be gifting them to a nation that while we love you guys has on there own volition weakened there own armed forces. Would be one thing if we had a threat from our East but we don't, All of our threats are to the north and the west so if we give ships away for our own defence would be to those nations to the north and west that we have good relations with.

OK, so if you won't give us free frigates (meanies) then maybe you could do us a mates rates deal on some second hand sensors?

After your ANZACs decommission you're going to have a number of these lying around:

Nice bit of kit. L band long range search, S band air and sea volume search and X band missile control and guidance. All AESA, no moving parts, low maintenance.
They'd look great on our ANZAC replacements (whatever they will be).

 

[t68]

OK, so if you won't give us free frigates (meanies) then maybe you could do us a mates rates deal on some second hand sensors?

After your ANZACs decommission you're going to have a number of these lying around:

Nice bit of kit. L band long range search, S band air and sea volume search and X band missile control and guidance. All AESA, no moving parts, low maintenance.
They'd look great on our ANZAC replacements (whatever they will be).

You already missed your chance for mates rates you ran off to Canada

 

[Novascotiaboy]

And we aren’t giving our Kiwi brethren any deals based upon the LM blowout.

 

[Todjaeger]

OK, so if you won't give us free frigates (meanies) then maybe you could do us a mates rates deal on some second hand sensors?

After your ANZACs decommission you're going to have a number of these lying around:

Nice bit of kit. L band long range search, S band air and sea volume search and X band missile control and guidance. All AESA, no moving parts, low maintenance.
They'd look great on our ANZAC replacements (whatever they will be).

What do you think the effective value of the sensors, CMS and associated workstations would actually be, once the Future Surface Combatant actually starts production? The CEAFAR2-L will be a decade or more old by the time the RAN ANZAC-class frigates start decommissioning, and unless the NZ gov't brings forward the Future Surface Combatant (which I think is should) the frigate replacements will not start occurring until sometime after 2030. In short, the designs are likely going to be 15+ years old and in need of updates/upgrades to remain effective.

Now there is potential for future developments of CEAFAR, and/or AUSPAR which CEA is apparently still working on. What I would be concerned about with going this route, it just what CMS would also be selected and relating to that, if the CMS is not one in use by a nation using CEA radar arrays, who is going to handle integrating the radar arrays with the CMS.

The greater the requirement to integrate different systems together for the first time, the greater the developmental costs and project risk.

 

[hauritz]

What do you think the effective value of the sensors, CMS and associated workstations would actually be, once the Future Surface Combatant actually starts production? The CEAFAR2-L will be a decade or more old by the time the RAN ANZAC-class frigates start decommissioning, and unless the NZ gov't brings forward the Future Surface Combatant (which I think is should) the frigate replacements will not start occurring until sometime after 2030. In short, the designs are likely going to be 15+ years old and in need of updates/upgrades to remain effective.

Now there is potential for future developments of CEAFAR, and/or AUSPAR which CEA is apparently still working on. What I would be concerned about with going this route, it just what CMS would also be selected and relating to that, if the CMS is not one in use by a nation using CEA radar arrays, who is going to handle integrating the radar arrays with the CMS.

The greater the requirement to integrate different systems together for the first time, the greater the developmental costs and project risk.

Here is an idea out of left field. If Australia continues with its ongoing shipbuilding plan it could look at replacing the Hobart class from the early 40s after those ships have completed around 25 years service.

That means that if Australia were to replace its ships at a rate of a new ship every two years but only maintain its surface fleet at its current size there should be a constant supply of fairly large and capable warships that still have about a decade of life left in their hulls.

This could be a perfect opportunity for NZ to pick up these ships at mates rates and maintain a fleet of about 4 or 5 large frigates for not much more than the cost of the crew.

 

[Todjaeger]

Here is an idea out of left field. If Australia continues with its ongoing shipbuilding plan it could look at replacing the Hobart class from the early 40s after those ships have completed around 25 years service.

That means that if Australia were to replace its ships at a rate of a new ship every two years but only maintain its surface fleet at its current size there should be a constant supply of fairly large and capable warships that still have about a decade of life left in their hulls.

This could be a perfect opportunity for NZ to pick up these ships at mates rates and maintain a fleet of about 4 or 5 large frigates for not much more than the cost of the crew.

Unless the RAN or RNZN were to do a fairly significant update either just before the RAN decommissioned them, or immediately upon purchase by the RNZN, I would have some significant reservations about the value of the hulls. Yes, 25 year old hulls might be able to soldier on (strange saying for a vessel full of sailors, but I digress) for another decade or so, but the machinery, sensors and electronics fitout will be older by then if not actually obsolete. If the RAN did do a major MLU at around the 15 year mark, that would put the updated or replaced systems and machinery at a decade old when the RNZN would start getting the vessels. While the systems might be adequate at that time, I would have serious doubts about how effective and/or reliable the systems would be towards the end of a decade of Kiwi service.

I would also be seriously concerned about the time frame. HMAS Hobart has been in commission for less than a year. If the RAN were to retire her in 2040, it would be after only 22 or 23 years of service. While I do not have a fundamental problem with that, depending on what the replacement would be, I believe 2040 is a decade too late for the RNZN to be getting replacements for the frigates. By that time, HMNZS Te Kaha will have been commissioned for ~42 years while HMNZS Te Mana will have been in commission for ~40 years. Also of significant importance is that the MLU/combat systems upgrades which are being done now for the Kiwi frigates will be 18+ years old by that time (assuming upgrade completion in 2022) which will likely be several years past their effective use date. That in turn means that either another upgrade would be required for the current frigates, likely around the 2030-2032 time frame, or the frigates would become obsolete and still retained for service likely in the mid-2030's.

There would also be the concern about what the RNZN would do next, if it were to follow such a procurement path. If the RNZN were to start getting the Hobart-class DDG's in 2040, and then operate the vessels for a decade, when 2050 approaches the RNZN would again have to find a replacement.

 

[beegee]

You already missed your chance for mates rates you ran off to Canada

And we aren’t giving our Kiwi brethren any deals based upon the LM blowout.

Ouch. You guys are harsh.

I'm trying to come up with a plan to get two high capability ANZAC replacements at a cost that the NZ Gov't won't choke on. Two Arrowhead 140s with the price kept close to the T31e tender's 250m quid due to a major pull through of equipment from the outgoing ANZACs (LM CMS, Sea Sentor torpedo defence, Sea Ceptor, Mk 45 gun, Mk 32 torpedo launchers, MASS countermeasure system, floating missile decoys, Vampir IRST, ESM, ECM, Sharpeye surface radar, Nav radar, datalinks, communications (internal and external), .50 cal guns, Toplite EO and mini-Typhoons, Phalanx).

Add to that a second hand CEAFAR2-L (or a new build CEAFAR2 if the Aussies are going to be dicks about it ) and a couple of strike length Mk 41s per ship (using the Finnish FMS package as a rough guide, US$70mil for four systems with maintenance, spares, etc.) and a new sonar (spherion B is too long in the tooth).

So accounting for systems integration, upgrade/refurb of legacy systems, training, entry to service and the inevitable cost overruns and delays, we should be able to swing it for under NZ$2b. Maybe.

 

[Todjaeger]

Planning really needs to be for at least three vessels, not two.

In an April 2015 interview with Defence News, Rear Adm. Jack Steer (then Chief of Navy) indicated a need to move away from having only two combat platforms.

EDIT Additional comment:

My reservations about the RNZN going with the CEAFAR2-L for the future surface combatant has nothing to do with whether it is a second hand unit, or brand new manufacture. The concern I have is with regards to how old the design would be, by the time the RNZN future surface combatant construction gets started and then the vessels themselves are commissioned. Under the current plan, the first future surface combatant will not be commissioned until some time after 2030, and possibly not until ~2035. Fitting a radar array that is almost old enough to be up for a mid-life upgrade or replacement, onto a brand new warship IMO is asking for problems and/or going to led to an earlier than normal cycle of upgrades.

 

[beegee]

Planning really needs to be for at least three vessels, not two.

In an April 2015 interview with Defence News, Rear Adm. Jack Steer (then Chief of Navy) indicated a need to move away from having only two combat platforms.

Indeed. But this isn't about what the navy needs, it's about what the Gov't will approve. My biggest fear for the ANZAC replacement is that the navy will push for three vessels (as they should), but the Gov't will only fund cheap low capability ships (think armed OPVs).

If the Gov't funds three high capability vessels, then all is well and there will be joy, laughter and dancing in the streets (at least on this thread). I just have no confidence that's actually going to happen. I think the navy needs to be a little creative. Find a way of acquiring two high capability vessels, at a reasonable cost, and pitch that as a like for like ANZAC replacement to the Gov't. Then, as a separate project, pitch for an Absalon class multi-role vessel emphasizing it's HADR, patrol, transport, training, command, army/SAS support and SAR capabilities. Hey presto, three combat vessels. Is it ideal, no, Is it pragmatic, yes.

 

[MrConservative]

What do you think the effective value of the sensors, CMS and associated workstations would actually be, once the Future Surface Combatant actually starts production? The CEAFAR2-L will be a decade or more old by the time the RAN ANZAC-class frigates start decommissioning, and unless the NZ gov't brings forward the Future Surface Combatant (which I think is should) the frigate replacements will not start occurring until sometime after 2030. In short, the designs are likely going to be 15+ years old and in need of updates/upgrades to remain effective.

Now there is potential for future developments of CEAFAR, and/or AUSPAR which CEA is apparently still working on. What I would be concerned about with going this route, it just what CMS would also be selected and relating to that, if the CMS is not one in use by a nation using CEA radar arrays, who is going to handle integrating the radar arrays with the CMS.

The greater the requirement to integrate different systems together for the first time, the greater the developmental costs and project risk.

Generally my views align with this sentiment.

While everyone has been discussing Type 26, 31e, Hunter Class new builds and the Halifax and Anzac upgrades - the reality is that the RNZN Anzacs will not be replaced until after 2030. It will very likely be 14-16 years until the replacements Te Kaha and Te Mana.

There will be a volume build, off the shelf Frigate programme from a FVEY's partner during this period which in my view will provide for a realistic and appropriate pathway to keep a very close eye on. The USN's FFG(X) programme with Raytheon EASR, NGSSR, Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 and CEC/NIFC-CA at the heart of it. Also compared to the Type 26 and Hunter Class likely to be more attractive in the cost-benefit department.

Even if we do not select the FFG(X) programme winner in a completed "turnkey" hull sense - the integrated package of Raytheon's EASR, NGSSR and Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 as key government furnished elements in our future frigate design would provide for a common sense solution. It might sound a little trite but whatever the USN are up to in the frigate space over the next 2 decades would be good template for the RNZN to follow considering that we will work closely with them and that the platform will have inter-operability with a wide range of US Pacific allies and their platforms.

Nevertheless, we will desperately need an interim solution to expand the current Frigate force as it will be become evidently reckless not to do so by mid next decade. A single new build Absalon won't be the silver bullet as an interim solution. The reason why we require 3 or more capable long range surface combatants will become increasingly obvious as the strategic situation become more challenging in the Indo-Pacific. The DWP lays this out but the message has not sunk in yet - going on the solutions made in the 2018-2025 Naval plan.

With the first of the RAN Anzacs decommissioning mid-late next decade, the first crew for HMAS Hunter to be commissioned in 2027, will likely be assigned to it quite some period before. It might be that a RAN Anzac could become available as soon as 2025. It takes 5-6 years to develop a fully trained Anzac crew. 2025 is just 7 years away. We should be now starting to embed RNZN personnel into RAN Anzacs and also maintain crew and training on our own upgraded vessels. Yes it will be a pain in the backside and will require a lift in the Naval Combat Forces output in the annual appropriation to cover this, but the cost and reputational penalty of likely naval policy failure between 2025 and 2035 of trying to muddle through on just 2 Anzacs will be avoided.

Furthermore, I am seriously of the view that by 2035 New Zealand should be fielding not just 3 Frigates - but 4. When we last had 4 Frigates (1999/2000) the population was under 4 million and the GDP was half what it is now. By 2035 the GDP will top half a trillion and the population over 6 million. Two way trade was worth $110 Billion last year - 98% of it by Sea. If trade growth mirrors GDP out to the mid 2030's then having just 2 Frigates protecting the SLOC on which $250B of two way trade is conducted, along SLOC that are the worlds longest - into and through this centuries most contested sealanes - then one must note the abject stupidity of thinking 2 frigates is somehow adequate in a risk management sense when it comes to national security.

In some respects having the RNZN take over initially a single and (and later another OZ Anzac) is that it would boost surface combatant numbers on a trans-tasman basis. So it would work to mutual benefit. Essentially NZ would be crewing and paying for the operation of their Anzac. Ownership models could even be arranged in the form of lease. Over the period from the time the first RAN ANZAC becomes available to the last one is decommissioned could see under a lease approach the RNZN swap over earlier upgraded RAN vessels to later ones as they come available. There would be added benefit to Australian industry as the "Kiwi" ex RAN vessel(s) would be supported in OZ alongside the remaining RAN Anzacs. The other advantage is that it would enable the development and training over time - between 2025 - 2035 of generating the 4th crew for the 4th Kiwi frigate.

 

[ngatimozart]

Ouch. You guys are harsh.

I'm trying to come up with a plan to get two high capability ANZAC replacements at a cost that the NZ Gov't won't choke on. Two Arrowhead 140s with the price kept close to the T31e tender's 250m quid due to a major pull through of equipment from the outgoing ANZACs (LM CMS, Sea Sentor torpedo defence, Sea Ceptor, Mk 45 gun, Mk 32 torpedo launchers, MASS countermeasure system, floating missile decoys, Vampir IRST, ESM, ECM, Sharpeye surface radar, Nav radar, datalinks, communications (internal and external), .50 cal guns, Toplite EO and mini-Typhoons, Phalanx).

Add to that a second hand CEAFAR2-L (or a new build CEAFAR2 if the Aussies are going to be dicks about it ) and a couple of strike length Mk 41s per ship (using the Finnish FMS package as a rough guide, US$70mil for four systems with maintenance, spares, etc.) and a new sonar (spherion B is too long in the tooth).

So accounting for systems integration, upgrade/refurb of legacy systems, training, entry to service and the inevitable cost overruns and delays, we should be able to swing it for under NZ$2b. Maybe.

Indeed. But this isn't about what the navy needs, it's about what the Gov't will approve. My biggest fear for the ANZAC replacement is that the navy will push for three vessels (as they should), but the Gov't will only fund cheap low capability ships (think armed OPVs).

If the Gov't funds three high capability vessels, then all is well and there will be joy, laughter and dancing in the streets (at least on this thread). I just have no confidence that's actually going to happen. I think the navy needs to be a little creative. Find a way of acquiring two high capability vessels, at a reasonable cost, and pitch that as a like for like ANZAC replacement to the Gov't. Then, as a separate project, pitch for an Absalon class multi-role vessel emphasizing it's HADR, patrol, transport, training, command, army/SAS support and SAR capabilities. Hey presto, three combat vessels. Is it ideal, no, Is it pragmatic, yes.

To be honest I can't see the poms getting the Arrowhead 140 for 250 million quid without drastic cuts to capability. It is based on the OMT Iver Huitfeld FFG and I feel that if we went directly to OMT, bypassing Babcock, we'd get a better deal because we wouldn't have to pay for all the pommy alterations to the design, and that's where all the added expense will be - pommy unique specific requirements that get pommy work share.

From what spoz had posted earlier, I don't think we need a GT. The specs for the Iver Huitfeld state that with four diesels it can attain 28+ knots.

But the GT guzzles fuel; and from a silencing point of view the gear box (and indeed the complete shafting and the propellers) are, or at least can be, significant sources of noise. Depending on how the diesels are mounted they can be quietened; and driving through electric motors rather than gear boxes (a la T23 or T26) is the best solution - although the least noisy designs do have the diesels used for quiet state mounted above the water line. And of course GT ships driving through gear boxes need SSDGs (or dedicated GT driven alternators) to provide electrical power.

As for faster power availability, maybe - but there is a significant spool up time (partly because just fully opening the throttle from a lower power state without allowing the engine to catch up risks a flame out so that's normally automatically managed) and usually there is a need to bring an additional GT on line as, because of the inherent inefficiency of GTs low down in the power band, an all GT ship normally runs off the minimum number necessary to achieve the speed required.

However, even just changing out diesels for GTs would be a significant redesign with possibly knock on effects to stability etc, I'm not sure NZ would want to pay for that.

The latest published book cost (2014) for the Iver Huitfeld is US$353 million, so an Asian build with OMT overseeing the build, plus sensors weapons etc., could cost somewhere in the region of NZ$700 - 850 million depending upon fitout, built to NZ requirements. Still cheaper than the RAN Hunter class the UK build T-26, other Euro built FFGs, SK and Japanese FFGs. I would go with 3 FFGs and pull through the ANZAC gear for the two Absalons reducing their costs; or one Absalon and hopefully the LHD replacing Canterbury.

Regarding sensors, I'd stick to the same manufacturer as currently being fitted to the upgraded RNZN ANZACs except for the sonars, which I'd go for a more modern sonar system.

 

[hauritz]

Absolutely agree that NZ should be looking at getting at least 3 frigates and they need to be aware of the sort of environment those ships will be operating in.

When the decision was made to build the Anzac class this was a fairly benign part of the globe. It was a simple ship for simple times.

Now days I would not want to have anything less than a ship with top end ASW and anti-air capabilities. An updated version of the Anzac just wouldn't cut it. If the FREMM or Navantia designs get up then the FFG(X) could be perfect for NZ. but If any of the other contenders win selection for that project I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole.

 

[htbrst]

With the first of the RAN Anzacs decommissioning mid-late next decade, the first crew for HMAS Hunter to be commissioned in 2027, will likely be assigned to it quite some period before. It might be that a RAN Anzac could become available as soon as 2025. It takes 5-6 years to develop a fully trained Anzac crew. 2025 is just 7 years away. We should be now starting to embed RNZN personnel into RAN Anzacs and also maintain crew and training on our own upgraded vessels. Yes it will be a pain in the backside and

If the RNZN had eyes on going down this route then they should have fought tooth and nail to go down the Australian route for the current frigate upgrade. A few extra million dollars ( at the time, with the cost blowout actually a few less) would have saved a lot more hassle down the track to pick up ex-oz Anzacs.

That they didn’t implies to me they do not think an expansion in the combat force is on the books in the medium term.

 

[Todjaeger]

Indeed. But this isn't about what the navy needs, it's about what the Gov't will approve. My biggest fear for the ANZAC replacement is that the navy will push for three vessels (as they should), but the Gov't will only fund cheap low capability ships (think armed OPVs).

If the Gov't funds three high capability vessels, then all is well and there will be joy, laughter and dancing in the streets (at least on this thread). I just have no confidence that's actually going to happen. I think the navy needs to be a little creative. Find a way of acquiring two high capability vessels, at a reasonable cost, and pitch that as a like for like ANZAC replacement to the Gov't. Then, as a separate project, pitch for an Absalon class multi-role vessel emphasizing it's HADR, patrol, transport, training, command, army/SAS support and SAR capabilities. Hey presto, three combat vessels. Is it ideal, no, Is it pragmatic, yes.

There is a difference between what the RNZN wants, and what the RNZN needs. If gov't fails (or refuses ) to provide what the RNZN needs, then at some point the RNZN will not be able to meet gov't requirements for naval policy. Now there is the potential for new ideologues to take over gov't and then enact significant changes to naval and other defence policies, thus enabling a glorified coast guard-type force of armed OPV's to replace the frigates. However, even if naval policy gets changed to fit some individual or group's worldview, that would not disconnect NZ from global trade. Something like 98% of NZ trade by value is via international shipping, while over 99% by tonnage is. A very large portion of that trade passes through some of the most congested, and increasingly contested SLOC in the world. If NZ fails to maintain an adequate naval combatant force within the RNZN, then NZ would find itself unable to be involved or influence the outcome if (IMO not if, but when) a conflict breaks out involving one or more of those SLOC.

Consider the following hypothetical situation; the US and/or other int'l partners/allies requests that the NZ gov't deploy a RNZN frigate to patrol the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen, to protect int'l shipping from piracy and/or AShM launched by Houthi fighters at vessels transiting the Red Sea and/or Gulf of Aden.

What sort of impact would there be upon NZ influence and trade if the NZ gov't refused such a request? What about if the request was met with the offer of a vessel not up to the task? I personally could easily see members of the int'l community valuing NZ input less, as well as being less willing and interested in protecting Kiwi shipping (flagged or merely carrying cargo for NZ). This in turn could easily cause the cost of imports shipped to NZ to rise, as well as reducing the profitability of exports from NZ, as the shipping costs rise.

 

[beegee]

The latest published book cost (2014) for the Iver Huitfeld is US$353 million, so an Asian build with OMT overseeing the build, plus sensors weapons etc., could cost somewhere in the region of NZ$700 - 850 million depending upon fitout, built to NZ requirements. Still cheaper than the RAN Hunter class the UK build T-26, other Euro built FFGs, SK and Japanese FFGs. I would go with 3 FFGs and pull through the ANZAC gear for the two Absalons reducing their costs; or one Absalon and hopefully the LHD replacing Canterbury.

I'm on board. Lock it in.

I found this part in your book value source interesting:

The new OMT group made a strong play to supply a modified version of its 6,650-ton Iver Huitfeldt frigate to fulfill Australia's SEA-5000 requirement for nine large new frigates. OMT modified the basic design to give it the anti-submarine warfare focus specified by Australia. The changes included expanding the frigate's helicopter hangar to hold two ASW helicopters and installing a towed array sonar to hunt subs. Australia has been weak on ASW capabilities for many years, at a time when the submarines deployed in Pacific waters are rising in both numbers and operational capability. The bid did not meet with success, however, despite the Iver Huitfeldt class's unit cost of $340 million, less than half the projected costs of the other SEA-5000 competitors. Moreover, it would have been built from interchangeable modules that could be combined in various configurations to produce flexible, multirole ships.

We could use those ASW capabilities also.

 

[MrConservative]

If the RNZN had eyes on going down this route then they should have fought tooth and nail to go down the Australian route for the current frigate upgrade. A few extra million dollars ( at the time, with the cost blowout actually a few less) would have saved a lot more hassle down the track to pick up ex-oz Anzacs.

That they didn’t implies to me they do not think an expansion in the combat force is on the books in the medium term.

The Navy does not run the acquisition programmes or develop policy - the MoD does under direction of the GOTD. The policy was to upgrade the two Frigates. There was no policy developed at that time planned for a 3rd Frigate. The work on the Frigate upgrades was completed and signed off between the DWP10 and DPW16. It was after those decisions that RADM Steer on the eve of leaving his VCDF post and privy to the contents of the DPW came out with the view of at least a 3rd Anzac.