Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Lucasnz]

What I imagine helicopters embarked on the OPVs doing are things like the following.
1. Vertrep: max lift/cargo weight would be a factor
2. maritime search: advanced avionics, E/O systems and datalink useful here
3. SAR: like maritime search but also should have some form of rescue winch
4. Personnel transport: able to insert/extract boarding parties and/or NZSAS

I do not really see an advantage to having a significantly armed helicopter on the OPV as the OPV should never be in a position where it is either attacking or being attacked by a force or vessel where missiles or torpedoes are needed. Particularly since the OPV armament is so limited (25mm cannon, with no real room to upgrade it) as are the sensors/electronics fitout.

-Cheers

I'd agree with the roles you've defined for an embarked OPV.

I quess where I'm coming from with an armed (even if limited to what can be fitted in a container) OPV helicopter is the lack of NGS capability in the navy should things go down hill in the Pacific, and the inability to upgrade the OPV's.

 

[greenie]

I thought one of the reasons for spending so much for the NH90 was so we could have a medium/ heavy lift chopper, for day to day lifting the A 109 would be more than able , maybe we have to use the NH90,S2G/ Canterbury,FFH combo for the medium/ heavy lift taskings.
The A109 spec says that the helo can lift 500kg over 50 miles and up to 1000kg , assuming a simple ship to shore transfer of 800kg should cover most things, bearing in mind that the S2G VERY rearly lifts more that 1000kg at any one time, the difference isnt that big when you also factor in operating costs.

 

[Todjaeger]

I'd agree with the roles you've defined for an embarked OPV.

I quess where I'm coming from with an armed (even if limited to what can be fitted in a container) OPV helicopter is the lack of NGS capability in the navy should things go down hill in the Pacific, and the inability to upgrade the OPV's.

I would agree with that concern, particularly since the 25mm Bushmaster is so useful for fire support missions...

To my mind, it is a little disturbing that a naval vessel sent into harms way could have the greatest and most effective combat capability concentrated into a single naval helicopter.

As for Greenie's post. AFAIK the NH-90 is for the medium/heavy lift and troop movements. However, due to the helicopter size, it is not able to operate on a platform as small as the OPVs. What I (and I believe others like Lucasnz) was talking about was the ability to use either the Seaspite or A109 to transfer equipment, personnel, etc. to and from the OPV and other vessels, shore, etc. Such a situation could potentially arise if there was an intervention or humanitarian crisis in which and OPV was deployed to an area to provide support, security, etc. Then depending on the situation, the ability to lift equipment and/or personnel could become quite important.

-Cheers

 

[greenie]

Heres a silly thought.... Perhapes on one OPV we remove the crane at the rear of the ship and extend the flight deck right to the end of the ship.... or maybe we design a clip on removable extension for the times a NH90 in embarked.
Sorry just a boring day at work.

 

[ThePuss]

Heres a silly thought.... Perhapes on one OPV we remove the crane at the rear of the ship and extend the flight deck right to the end of the ship.... or maybe we design a clip on removable extension for the times a NH90 in embarked.
Sorry just a boring day at work.

Nice idea mate but I think there existing top weight problems would not permit.

 

[Sea Toby]

I would agree with that concern, particularly since the 25mm Bushmaster is so useful for fire support missions...

To my mind, it is a little disturbing that a naval vessel sent into harms way could have the greatest and most effective combat capability concentrated into a single naval helicopter.

As for Greenie's post. AFAIK the NH-90 is for the medium/heavy lift and troop movements. However, due to the helicopter size, it is not able to operate on a platform as small as the OPVs. What I (and I believe others like Lucasnz) was talking about was the ability to use either the Seaspite or A109 to transfer equipment, personnel, etc. to and from the OPV and other vessels, shore, etc. Such a situation could potentially arise if there was an intervention or humanitarian crisis in which and OPV was deployed to an area to provide support, security, etc. Then depending on the situation, the ability to lift equipment and/or personnel could become quite important.

-Cheers

With any such operation I would assume the Canterbury or an Anzac class frigate would also be deployed. The Canterbury has the space and weight available to carry tons of equipment and supplies, along with up to 150 troops as well. She is capable of operating Chinook sized helicopters from her flight deck, although she is not able to house a Chinook.

The New Zealand government bought EEZ patrol ships, the OPVs. They should never be confused with a full size frigate ever. Even if they could house heavier helicopters, there isn't any space and weight reserved for the heavier helicopters, or the equipment and supplies. Their ability to haul and deliver by crane one 20 foot sea container is it. In the USA we call such trucks bobtails. I would never attempt to use them as warships, that is what frigates are for.

 

[MrConservative]

With only 2 or 3 Seasprites serviceable at any one time, at best they will be primarily tasked with the ANZAC's and the 'Sealift' Ship Canterbury. With only five A-109LUH's the OPV's seeing much chopper action is also minimal. They have more pressing NZDF priorities. Any action they do see will be more in the line of ship to shore transfers of DOC staff in places like Raoul or Auckland Island during the summer months.

OPV's were envisaged as mainly EEZ only and their primary role is to support the various civilian agencies of the Government. The Maritime Forces Review 2002 and the Maritime Patrol Review 2001 were the last comprehensive evaluation of the NZDF and Govt wide requirements in terms of a Naval focus. The magic figure in the reviews was a 1376 surface patrol days requirement within our extended EEZ. That was the total amount of SPD's that all government agencies required in meeting their minimum policy objectives.

With the now unlikely prospect of the Canterbury adding to the maritme patrol capability in the Southern EEZ, it is more likely the ship will be available and managed for more the sealift / humanitarian / mission support role that was initially envisaged for it in the Land Forces/Sealift Review 2000 with a sea training and a EEZ patrol /support role. That means it will be more likely to respond to situations other than a programmed EEZ Patrol vessel. We still have limitations that have to be managed in terms of the OPV's and the fact is that we are still one dedicated OPV and / or IPV short as per the total EEZ requirements per the MFR and MPR .

Assuming that Project Protecter gets sorted out soon and what is there we will have to live with it, early next decade we will have a dedicated sealift and humanitarian support capacity and we will have sufficent inshore EEZ capability and outer North Island / South Pacific EEZ capability that we meet the surface tasking requirements in those sectors.

However, what we still lack is the Ross Sea / Southern Ocean EEZ capability and the ability of operationally maintaining a sole Naval Combat vessel anymore than six months a year unless considerable risks and disruption are undertaken. Two frigates also have a risk in terms of availability under urgent circumstances in escorting the Sealift Ship. These remain the weaknesses in the NZDF and Govt Policy and will need to be dealt with in an future "Project Protector II"

If things were to start to go downhill in the Pacific and a small intervention is required I would rather call upon a 3rd Frigate than a tarted up overweight OPV.

Experience has told me that all things tarted up and overweight must be avoided.

 

[Lucasnz]

Two frigates also have a risk in terms of availability under urgent circumstances in escorting the Sealift Ship. These remain the weaknesses in the NZDF and Govt Policy and will need to be dealt with in an future "Project Protector II"

If things were to start to go downhill in the Pacific and a small intervention is required I would rather call upon a 3rd Frigate than a tarted up overweight OPV.

While I agree that a 3rd Frigate is needed I think the Defence review needs to ask a couple of questions....

1. Do we need more sealift capability and
2. Could another type of ship, besides the ANZAC's perform the escort role.

I think the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, given Canterbury by choice was limited to 250 troops. A corvette, with improved range and sea keeping might be able to, the Abolsom class could. I think a smart defence review writer would argue for the Abaslom class on the basis of verstility, increased flexibility to government response, compability in some areas like the 127mm, reduced in reduced operating, logistics and training costs not to mention the reduced wear and tear on the existing ANZAC's.

A corvette, or even a different class of frigate to the MEKO design is likely to increase logistics and training costs, leaving the navy with an orphan (like the Royalist) again. And here we come to the numbers came - Can 3 modern ships do the work of 4 Leanders over a 30 year life span - short answer yes, given Canterbury's existence.

Experience has told me that all things tarted up and overweight must be avoided.

I'd whole heartly agree with that statement :shudder

 

[Sea Toby]

There is a reason why New Zealand bought a sea lift ship capable of lifting no more than a enlarged company group. The army isn't large enough to lift more and sustain more of them abroad for more than six months. The smaller detachment to Afghanistan is currently pressing the Kiwi army.

For sure, other classes of ships can do the escort role, including the Absalons. But none of the other classes were built nearby in Australia and with New Zealand built modules. To assume such an economic arrangement could be arranged with other nations outside of Australia is misleading. For example, the Canterbury was built mostly in the Netherlands without any New Zealand built modules, the Endeavour was built entirely in South Korea without any New Zealand built modules. Without these offsets, I doubt whether New Zealand could afford the Anzacs and/or the OPVs, much less an Absalon frigate that displaces twice as much.

Keep in mind our New Zealand shipyard couldn't deliver patrol boats, IPVs on time. Yes, we always knew three Anzacs could replace four Leanders, that three was the magic number for warships, to be able to sustain one abroad or in the South Pacific. But we are approaching the time of their mid-life refit, when hopefully, we will have one available for an emergency. Let us hope the one ship won't be alone for long.

 

[Todjaeger]

While I agree that a 3rd Frigate is needed I think the Defence review needs to ask a couple of questions....

1. Do we need more sealift capability and
2. Could another type of ship, besides the ANZAC's perform the escort role.

I think the answer to 1 and 2 is yes, given Canterbury by choice was limited to 250 troops. A corvette, with improved range and sea keeping might be able to, the Abolsom class could. I think a smart defence review writer would argue for the Abaslom class on the basis of verstility, increased flexibility to government response, compability in some areas like the 127mm, reduced in reduced operating, logistics and training costs not to mention the reduced wear and tear on the existing ANZAC's.

A corvette, or even a different class of frigate to the MEKO design is likely to increase logistics and training costs, leaving the navy with an orphan (like the Royalist) again. And here we come to the numbers came - Can 3 modern ships do the work of 4 Leanders over a 30 year life span - short answer yes, given Canterbury's existence.

As a practical matter, I do not see the RNZN being able to escort the Canterbury (or any other ship for that matter) with any ship classes other than either the Anzac or the OPV in the near term. The consensus does seem to agree that having a 3 frigate navy is really what NZ needs, in order to ensure that one vessel is always available for deployment. However, I would expect that if the decision were made to acquire a 3rd frigate or other escort vessel right now, the initial entry into service of whatever design was chosen would likely occur only shortly before the entry into service of the Anzac replacement. If that view is accurate, then the NZDF should be making an effort to predict what is wanted/needed to provide the mission availability it (and NZ) require, as well as the ships fitout. Once requirements are drawn up (likely take 2 years, give or take) then planning on the Anzac replacement can begin.

The only circumstance where I can see the RNZN getting an additional escort without such a lengthy delay, is if a decision was made that such a vessel is a critical requirement and that purchase of an existing or nearly completed ship has been approved. Given the concerns voiced about operating an orphan, the only vessel IMO which would be suitable would be for the RNZN to purchase an Anzac FFH from the RAN, if they are willing to part with one.

I'd whole heartly agree with that statement :shudder

However, one often cannot avoid an overweight woman. Afterall, it is not over until the fat lady sings, right?

-Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

There is a reason why New Zealand bought a sea lift ship capable of lifting no more than a enlarged company group. The army isn't large enough to lift more and sustain more of them abroad for more than six months. The smaller detachment to Afghanistan is currently pressing the Kiwi army.

For sure, other classes of ships can do the escort role, including the Absalons. But none of the other classes were built nearby in Australia and with New Zealand built modules. To assume such an economic arrangement could be arranged with other nations outside of Australia is misleading. For example, the Canterbury was built mostly in the Netherlands without any New Zealand built modules, the Endeavour was built entirely in South Korea without any New Zealand built modules. Without these offsets, I doubt whether New Zealand could afford the Anzacs and/or the OPVs, much less an Absalon frigate that displaces twice as much.

Keep in mind our New Zealand shipyard couldn't deliver patrol boats, IPVs on time. Yes, we always knew three Anzacs could replace four Leanders, that three was the magic number for warships, to be able to sustain one abroad or in the South Pacific. But we are approaching the time of their mid-life refit, when hopefully, we will have one available for an emergency. Let us hope the one ship won't be alone for long.

There seem to be two different ideas covered here. With regards to ship/troop lift, yes, the Canterbury was sized because that is essentially the maximum number of troops NZ can sustain on a single deployment. However, NZ also has a number of smaller deployments regionally and there are situations where have the ability to land or extract personnel from a number of different deployments concurrently would be quite useful. Whether an Absalon-style ship is the right choice in the future or not is certainly worth discussing.

As for NZ being able to afford such a vessel... That might not be a significant concern. IIRC one of the reasons why NZ did not exercise the option for a third Anzac frigate was that popular opinion in NZ felt that NZ tax dollars were being used to subsidize Australian shipyard workers. In essence, that if NZ had purchased vessels built elsewhere, they would have cost less. IMO that is likely a true statement, what I do not know though is whether the net effect through localized construction ended up costing less in total. From prior discussions and readings, it is possible to have local construction cost up to 30% more and still be economically viable due to the increased tax base in the local economy.

It would be interesting to see if the numbers are available on what NZ spent on the Anzacs, and what NZ received in the way of taxes for the money spent of their Anzacs.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

I don't remember the exact figures, but as I recal using New Zealand dollars the Anzacs cost around $470 million each, whereas the offsets of building several Anzac class modules represented 60 percent of the fabrication of the ten ships, about a billion dollars in value... in other words New Zealand broke about even on the Anzac ship project during that time.

Since Australia didn't purchase any Project Protector ships, New Zealand did not do as well, spending $500 million and generating over $100 million of New Zealand value. An order for a third Anzac would probably reveal similar numbers.

The Absalons, I like this ship too. But the Absalons only carry two helicopters; have 240 lane meters of vehicle deck space, any hospital facility will have to use the vehicle deck space, And they cost more than an Anzac, and as I mentioned before, would not have any New Zealand construction. While an Absalon would fit well replacing an Anzac, it will take two to replace the Canterbury.

 

[Lucasnz]

The Absalons, I like this ship too. But the Absalons only carry two helicopters; have 240 lane meters of vehicle deck space, any hospital facility will have to use the vehicle deck space, And they cost more than an Anzac, and as I mentioned before, would not have any New Zealand construction. While an Absalon would fit well replacing an Anzac, it will take two to replace the Canterbury.

Given were only getting 8 NH-90 two hangars isn't really an issue. I don't see the Absalon as a another Canterbury, but rather a compromise between the need for more lift and combat capability. I don't mind that the over the beach capability is extermely limited during a pacific operation as sending more than a company of LAV's would be an overkill in most cases.

 

[Todjaeger]

I don't remember the exact figures, but as I recal using New Zealand dollars the Anzacs cost around $470 million each, whereas the offsets of building several Anzac class modules represented 60 percent of the fabrication of the ten ships, about a billion dollars in value... in other words New Zealand broke about even on the Anzac ship project during that time.

Since Australia didn't purchase any Project Protector ships, New Zealand did not do as well, spending $500 million and generating over $100 million of New Zealand value. An order for a third Anzac would probably reveal similar numbers.

The Absalons, I like this ship too. But the Absalons only carry two helicopters; have 240 lane meters of vehicle deck space, any hospital facility will have to use the vehicle deck space, And they cost more than an Anzac, and as I mentioned before, would not have any New Zealand construction. While an Absalon would fit well replacing an Anzac, it will take two to replace the Canterbury.

The figures above might be correct, though I am recalling a different per unit cost for the Anzacs of around $200 mil/per but I do not recall where I saw it, or what the currency was, be it US$, A$, or NZ$...

Regardless, I do not foresee NZ being able to participate in a project like it did with the Anzac again. For one thing IIRC, BAE is shutting down the Whangarei facilities which means NZ will have less industrial capacity to contribute. Secondly, the workshare on the Anzac programme seems to have been disproportionate to the quantity ordered. I do not see Australia, or another country which NZ might try to participate with, allowing that kind of an imbalance.

After all, NZ only ordered 20% of the vessels, yet performed ~60% of the module construction. Granted, NZ does not have the facilities for final assembly, I would still think only 30% or no more than 40% of the modular construction would result in a "fair" division of the programmes construction workshare.

The way I see it, NZ should be starting to think about whatever will be the follow-on to the Anzac frigate now, given that this sort of project is a long lead time. There are four potential paths which I feel NZ can take in acquisition of replacement frigates, these are as follows.
1. Joint programme with Australia for the Anzac follow-on frigate
2. Construction within Oz/NZ of a different frigate design
3. Overseas frigate construction
4. Purchase of second-hand/surplus frigates from another country

The advantages of options #'s 1 & 2 are that NZ might see a return of some of the costs due to industrial participation, however there could be a premium paid in terms of conducting local construction.

For option #2 specifically, the design itself could cost more, as it would likely be an "NZ only" design or variant which means any project risk etc would be NZ's burden. Also, by operating an essentially unique design, there might be issues with other support from the RAN and/or Australian facilities.

Option #3 would likely have the lowest cost in terms of new construction, however NZ might have greater difficulties in getting a ship fitted out to the desired specifications that the RNZN might have. Also, there would likely be little if any NZ workshare or local content.

Option #4 is likely the one with the lowest total acquisition cost, however given that the vessels are second hand, they would likely not have the same operating costs or service life as a newly built ship. Also, NZ would essentially be restricted to whatever was available for sale from other navies which means NZ might find itself without certain capabilities it wants or needs.

It would be interesting to find out what avenues the RNZN is exploring for frigate replacement.

-Cheers

 

[stryker NZ]

sorry for the slightly off topic post but i was wondering how much it would cost to purchase and run a ship similar to the oceanic viking which the australian customs service uses. From what ive been able to gather this type of vessel would be quite capable of patroling the southern ocean instead of the OPVs and shouldnt have too higher price tag due to its commercial origins.

 

[Sea Toby]

sorry for the slightly off topic post but i was wondering how much it would cost to purchase and run a ship similar to the oceanic viking which the australian customs service uses. From what ive been able to gather this type of vessel would be quite capable of patroling the southern ocean instead of the OPVs and shouldnt have too higher price tag due to its commercial origins.

To charter Oceanic Viking Australia spent A$48 million and A$41 million over a two year period recently. Oceanic Viking displaces over 9,000 tons.

http://www.oilpubs.com/oso/article.asp?v1=1482

 

[Lucasnz]

The figures above might be correct, though I am recalling a different per unit cost for the Anzacs of around $200 mil/per but I do not recall where I saw it, or what the currency was, be it US$, A$, or NZ$...

The total NZ project cost was around $NZ960 million on the MOD website a few years ago. This would include additional spares over and above the joint ANZAC spares pool.

The way I see it, NZ should be starting to think about whatever will be the follow-on to the Anzac frigate now, given that this sort of project is a long lead time. There are four potential paths which I feel NZ can take in acquisition of replacement frigates, these are as follows.
1. Joint programme with Australia for the Anzac follow-on frigate
2. Construction within Oz/NZ of a different frigate design
3. Overseas frigate construction
4. Purchase of second-hand/surplus frigates from another country

I think the other option is to consider a high / medium / low mix, that would factor in current projects and long term replacement. Under this
Now OPV's would replace Resolution and Manawauni and have modular outfits for MCM / Hyrography.
2010 Contract to replace Endeavour with a Joint Support Ship (as the navy as indicated it prefers) - Delivery 2012
2011 Contract for 3 mid level surface combatants, similar to LCS, but with improved range and reduced speed. Sensor outfit based on the Danish Thetis class or similar. - Delivery: 2013, 2014, 2015.
2019 Contract for 2 ANZAC Replacements, asumming a life expectancy of 25 years due to increased wear and tear due to increased operational tempo. Delivery - 2022, 2024
After this commence replacement of Canterbury, IPV, OPV's. Somewhere in here you would need to fit the replacement of the SH2G and the P3.

The result is a continous and ongoing renewal of the navy which would see a new vessel commissioned every 15 - 24 months. It would avoid block obsolence that the service has faced in the past with the irregular purchases made and spread the government capital spending for the navy.

Similar processes would be in place for the Army and Airforce.

 

[mattyem]

The total NZ project cost was around million on the MOD website a few years ago. This would include additional spares over and above the joint ANZAC spares pool.



I think the other option is to consider a high / medium / low mix, that would factor in current projects and long term replacement. Under this
Now OPV's would replace Resolution and Manawauni and have modular outfits for MCM / Hyrography.
2010 Contract to replace Endeavour with a Joint Support Ship (as the navy as indicated it prefers) - Delivery 2012
2011 Contract for 3 mid level surface combatants, similar to LCS, but with improved range and reduced speed. Sensor outfit based on the Danish Thetis class or similar. - Delivery: 2013, 2014, 2015.
2019 Contract for 2 ANZAC Replacements, asumming a life expectancy of 25 years due to increased wear and tear due to increased operational tempo. Delivery - 2022, 2024
After this commence replacement of Canterbury, IPV, OPV's. Somewhere in here you would need to fit the replacement of the SH2G and the P3.

The result is a continous and ongoing renewal of the navy which would see a new vessel commissioned every 15 - 24 months. It would avoid block obsolence that the service has faced in the past with the irregular purchases made and spread the government capital spending for the navy.

Similar processes would be in place for the Army and Airforce.

The OPV's simply put, would be stupid to use as replacements for Manawanui and reso. They are two support class ships and you are using ships that are designed for a more aggressive patroling capacity. They are all ready far over weight and adding modular support systems on top of this will not only greatly reduce the ships operational life span but also completly override the purpose of the OPV's in the first place. The navy also needs a dedicated dive tender (complete with hypabaric chambers) , not some half arse approach to cost cutting and taking short cuts. In terms of reso, weight will also be an issue as the surveying equipment isnt some little black box that bolts to the bottom of the ship. Surveying in itself is a slow in tedious process for a ship and to use an OPV for this tasking is just plain stupid! 4 knots back and foward for days on end isnt what the OPV's should be tasked to do!

A multi service ship replacement for the big easy (endevour) makes sense, having a fueling capacity combined with a stores and maybe a workshop facility would be of a more helpfull role with us and on support with other nations overseas.

ANZAC replacement is only fesable if we join in with a another nation that has some on order as we did with the Aussies for the ANZAC's. This is because we simply can't afford to go out and by two frigates by our lonesome. I dont think that buying second hand is an option. Buying second hand will not only result in buying someone elses potential problem, but also will result in ships reduced lifespan, and in the long run (as we found with the F-421 canterbury) ships spare parts become rare, and obsolete which forces us into getting parts made at a costly expense.

The Kamen seasprites will need to be replaced soon too I feel, but we may see the NH-90 take on some of the role of the Seasprite. though I am not too sure if the NH-90 is able to be landed and stored on the ANZAC's at the moment, Though they can be on Canterbury as she was designed with the NH-90 in mind also.

With the Navy's current manning state, I dont think bringing ships online that often is a wise idea as it generally takes about 18 months per ship to get her from delivery into a fully operational state. having ships arrive that often will put the support and training areas of the navy to great stress and will also result in many officers and ratings spending a very long time on sea going platforms and less time ashore doing required courses for advancement and promotion. Also taking in unaccounted factors like machinery faults and other warranty issues may result in several ships back logging and pushing the production and acceptment phases back like we are seeing now. Plus it will be expensive.

The p3 is a reliable platform and will be around for many more years like the mighy hurc because of the many nations using them and the many upgrades available. but in the end replacement will be needed as with everything, it will be a matter of finding the right platform for the right price

I dont really see a need for 3 mid level surface combatants, realistically thats what we want the OPV's to be, although to really forfill that tasking they would need a missile facility onboard, but for New Zealands requirements on the world stage, they will fill our needs fine.

Thats just my viewpoint of it all anyway,

 

[Lucasnz]

The OPV's simply put, would be stupid to use as replacements for Manawanui and reso. They are two support class ships and you are using ships that are designed for a more aggressive patroling capacity. They are all ready far over weight and adding modular support systems on top of this will not only greatly reduce the ships operational life span but also completly override the purpose of the OPV's in the first place. The navy also needs a dedicated dive tender (complete with hypabaric chambers) , not some half arse approach to cost cutting and taking short cuts. In terms of reso, weight will also be an issue as the surveying equipment isnt some little black box that bolts to the bottom of the ship. Surveying in itself is a slow in tedious process for a ship and to use an OPV for this tasking is just plain stupid! 4 knots back and foward for days on end isnt what the OPV's should be tasked to do!

Personally I find my cat to be more agressive than the OPV's I'm going to disagree with you on this. The RN looking at the concept or using OPV in the MCM role etc. Yes the navy does need a MCM vessel, I note that Manawanui is already used in the Patrol role. When you look on the net there are a range of options for Decompression chambers see -http://www.msi-dsl.com/diving.html and they are fitted to the RNMCM vessels. I don't think the weight as big an issue as you make out as these things will only be embarked as needed. My understanding is that a 1/3rd of the weight growth margin on the OPV's has been used up. Sorry but Surveying isn't a core navy role anymore Land Information NZ has responsbility for that - the navy only requires a maritime GIS function for military / civil defence (clearing entrances to a harbour) purposes and yes 4 knots back and forth isn't fun (especially with one engine stopped in a swell).

A multi service ship replacement for the big easy (endevour) makes sense, having a fueling capacity combined with a stores and maybe a workshop facility would be of a more helpfull role with us and on support with other nations overseas.

Common ground - excellent.

ANZAC replacement is only fesable if we join in with a another nation that has some on order as we did with the Aussies for the ANZAC's. This is because we simply can't afford to go out and by two frigates by our lonesome. I dont think that buying second hand is an option. Buying second hand will not only result in buying someone elses potential problem, but also will result in ships reduced lifespan, and in the long run (as we found with the F-421 canterbury) ships spare parts become rare, and obsolete which forces us into getting parts made at a costly expense.

Regretfully there is some truth, I think in what you say. Unit costs have increased, partly because in my view production runs are so small, hence you lose the economy of scale. Buying second hand leaves us with the same problem that we had with the Leanders, they'll all be due for replacement at the same and theres no way NZ can afford 4 frigates at once - 3 maybe.

With the Navy's current manning state, I dont think bringing ships online that often is a wise idea as it generally takes about 18 months per ship to get her from delivery into a fully operational state. having ships arrive that often will put the support and training areas of the navy to great stress and will also result in many officers and ratings spending a very long time on sea going platforms and less time ashore doing required courses for advancement and promotion. Also taking in unaccounted factors like machinery faults and other warranty issues may result in several ships back logging and pushing the production and acceptment phases back like we are seeing now. Plus it will be expensive.

My whole point here is that defence re-equipment has been done in batches rather than spread over time. This seriously hinders the ability of the government to maintain and improve the capabilities of the Defence Force, because all three services need re-equipping at the same time. It should be remembered also that inflation on Defence equipment is at least double that of the civilian sector. If New Zealand is to maintain and develop its capabilities it must purchase ships a continuous basis - for a 15-16 ship fleet over a 30 year life span that means 1 every 18-24 months. I am only too aware (having come from a sea going family and having being at sea) of the impact on families, training and career advancement, but then I the navy needs at least 2500-3000 people in order to provide effective sea/shore rotation. I think some of your problems would be overcome by purchasing proven designs.

I dont really see a need for 3 mid level surface combatants, realistically thats what we want the OPV's to be, although to really forfill that tasking they would need a missile facility onboard, but for New Zealands requirements on the world stage, they will fill our needs fine.

Short of buying two new frigates I fail to see the alternative. What I'm proposing is what the ANZAC frigate project was orginally meant to deliver: a ship with a medium calibre gun and point air defence. These capabilities are inherent in the Meko Corvettes, through range and sea keeping are vital to NZ and these generally require a larger hull. Nor can I think anyone can deny NZ is short on its naval combat capability, in areas like the gunfire support role for the South Pacific.

 

[greenie]

I dont think we will see our NH90s operating off the ships much , its been discovered that the stroke of the undercarriage (how much it compresses) is not enough unless the platform is very much stationary , The various array of aerials are too low....Bugger eh.
As for the mighty herks they are stuffed! they might get a new wiring set up and dash but the major prob of the worn out engines /props and associated systems is still the same...should have taken lockheeds offer of a swap and cash difference for new Js ....another bugger!