Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Gibbo]

IPV issues

All quite manageable I'm sure, but I've always wondered how the aluminium superstructure mating with a steel hull would perform.

Govt unfazed by Navy ships' cracks - National - NZ Herald News

 

[Gibbo]

ANZAC Frigate cracks

Impacts both RAN & RNZN - design flaw!?!

Navy works out plan to repair cracks in Anzac frigates - National - NZ Herald News

 

[StingrayOZ]

NZ I think has approprate sealift. I don't think thats a major priority esp with Australia getting two LHD and a 3rd sealift ship and significant sealift on other vessels within its fleet. While it would pay to keep all vessels as flexable as possible in regards to sealift, because sometimes you have you use what you got, I don't see the point in more specific sealift vessels. While no project is perfect NZ actually has a reasonably capable vessel (for NZ concidering past history).

I think a much harder question is does NZ want to get involved with OCV and Anzac replacement programs with Australia.

While I think it would be better strategically for the region to get two new Anzac II's, if they were to step down to a OCV level (~3,000t) NZ could afford significantly more ships. If they were to get 5 or 6 Trimeran hulled OCV but in NZ specs. The of course things might get downsized and you replace two reasonably capable Anzacs with two OCV's.

Questions
1) What does NZ want to do regionally? Low level patrol, humanitarian or right up to partipating in international conflict zones.
2) How reliant on Australia and other allies does it need to be? None or total?

While the NZ anzacs aren't exactly armed to the teeth, they can be easily upgraded and enhanced and intergrate into an international force. So if they need to be, 12 months and you can have a very capable ship at short notice to meet realistic timeframes. Without the Anzacs, you lose that option completely. NZ would fall out of international training, procurement, conflict activities and withdraw to isolationalism.

Personally future RNZN:
2 x new frigates (either Australian or UK or OZ/UK/NZ build) with minimal arming (ie utilising equipment off the current Anzacs 5", SM, CIWS etc). While a large hull (yet smaller than Cantabury) this still allows NZ to upgun whenever, utilising a willing neighbour know how and perhaps even equipment. Providing infinate room for expansion and multirollings. While the ship might diverge due to cost and requirement that hull gives it capability.

2 x OCV in combination with Australia (or again OZ/UK/NZ). Minimal crewing but real offshore capability. Could be upgunned with harpoons or simular. Weapons load could be shared. CIWS etc bolt out bolt on capability. Perhaps even some VLS fitted with missiles swapped in as needed.

While not ideal, NZ would be able to deploy 1 pretty capable warship at all times (either frigate or loaded OCV) and a lighter armed vessel as well. Potent capability.

 

[recce.k1]

I think a much harder question is does NZ want to get involved with OCV and Anzac replacement programs with Australia.

Just speculation on my behalf: that's the interesting question. Hopefully the Defence Review will provide some answers.

In recent years NZ could participate in the Australian ship programmes (thus guaranteeing orders).

Now, there appears to be global interest in the future UK and Australian Frigate replacement programmes. If BAE's Type 26 is chosen by both the UK and Australia, will NZ get to bid for any contract work?

Hopefully yes, and an astute NZ Goverment would see the economic potential, and take an interest in the Frigate type as ANZAC replacements (But T26 or OZ mod'ed F100)?

Hopefully the lesson has been learnt, 3 are required not 2, otherwise the 2 are overworked meaning higher-than-projected support costs and less-than-projected meeting of Govt "outputs" (funded objectives). (The bean counters might actually be on Defence's side in regards to this aspect)!

Whatever the outcome it suits NZ's foreign and regional objectives to have a 2 or 3 tier blue-water combat/patrol capability; for local/regional patroling - something with a gun for NGS, helo, self-defence system, MCM and possibly ASW; for combat functions - SE Asia/Gulf, appropriate defensive systems/sensors to detect higher threat systems (air/surface/sub-surface), NGS and (knowing NZ) an anti-ship missile rather than LACM (fitted for but not with)?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Well I think NZ needs to decide either to have a capable navy of 3 decent "frigates" or perhaps 2 frigates and 2 capable OCV (less good but I could see it being an argument for it) or 3 corvette type ships (less good again but again I can see an argument that would be popular in NZ) or just op out completely and have "patrol vessels" of sorts.

NZ does really need 3 frigates, anything else is a huge compromise on the objective they set out for.

While I understand NZ lack of fighter capability, I think abolishment of the navy would be a huge step. While Australia has not used a fighter/bomber in anger since WWII, the navy sees plenty of action afar and locally.

With several commonwealth countries pooling assests together I think its the right program for NZ to jump in on and may break ground on more common procurement. If not of entire ships, of atleast common subsystems.

I hear NZ is atleast at the table and talking about this at higher levels. I take that as a very positive sign. T26 or Aussie Frigate are both really good options. There won't be any loosers in choosing either of those for anyone..

 

[Todjaeger]

While I understand NZ lack of fighter capability, I think abolishment of the navy would be a huge step. While Australia has not used a fighter/bomber in anger since WWII, the navy sees plenty of action afar and locally.

A bit of a correct here. Aussie aircraft have been in combat since WWII, specifically in Korea, (South) Vietnam then in Iraq in 2003. There have been a number of other occasions when RAAF aircraft fighters have been deployed as force protection elements but did not see combat.

-Cheers

 

[1805]

Would NZ not be better off with a commercially standard concept like the Absalon (maybe slightly larger at 7,500t). 3 of these replacing the current 2 frigate and eventually the Canterbury. Maybe supported by an OPV/Light frigates based on a FS2000 like the KD Lekiu

 

[recce.k1]

Well I think NZ needs to decide either to have a capable navy of 3 decent "frigates" or perhaps 2 frigates and 2 capable OCV (less good but I could see it being an argument for it) or 3 corvette type ships (less good again but again I can see an argument that would be popular in NZ) or just op out completely and have "patrol vessels" of sorts.

NZ does really need 3 frigates, anything else is a huge compromise on the objective they set out for.

I suppose the real answer is, it depends on the thinking of the Govt of the day.

NZ still needs to fly the flag (and exercise) around SE Asia so Frigates are still the best option in that regard. At this point in time, perhaps the question is, is two enough? When the ANZAC's are to be replaced in the 2020's, in the lead up the other question might be "what with? ANZAC II's or well armed OCV's" etc.

Once more details of the ANZAC II/OCV are released we can certainly debate the merits or otherwise of the two (and it will be good practice before the peaceniks get involved in pushing their barrow)!

But there's also a place for "patrol vessels", it's an area that is visible and tangible to the public and people of the Pacific (in terms of EEZ, customs and general assistance etc).

(And now NZ has patrol vessels, it makes it easier to better define the roles of Frigates and patrol vessels operationally and their strength's and weaknesses etc. Meaning the peaceniks have lost another public disinformation campaign along the lines of the Frigates don't do enough EEZ patroling and thus the Navy isn't orientated correctly in terms of their perception of NZ foreign policy and aid etc).

I'm comfortable with the OPV's - NZ needs more hulls in the water and eyes at sea, as long as the OPV's are connected into the military networks (eg Siprnet etc) which I assumed they were(?), then they're (with helo and future UAV) another ISR type asset useful for NZ and other like minded nations mapping movements in the south Pacific etc.

All I'd like is for the OPV's or future OPV/OCV's to have better sensors for detecting surface and sub-surface objects, the ability to add on some torp tubes on the container deck (as and when required), possibly the replacement of the 25mm bushmaster with a 57mm gun with minimal deck penetration (eg the BAE 57-mm Mk 110 or other) and they should be able to sink any raider/spy vessels or subs, that are most likely to be encountered around the South Pacific. Anything more threatening would be detected and passed onto a NZ (or friendly) P-3 or Frigate (or Destroyer or Sub) to sink etc.

In other words for the Pacific, all manner of eyes and ears from the air and at sea, be that NZ, Aus, French, US etc, monitoring sea and air traffic, via secure networks back to command posts etc.

In terms of combat operations, NZ will always be the junior partner if applicable, but as events in East Timor demonstrated, the NZ Frigates do need to have the top of the line sensors and counter-measures, and that's not too far from home let alone somewhere more distant in high threat environments. For these reasons I can't really see the two major NZ political parties ditching the Frigates.

Would NZ not be better off with a commercially standard concept like the Absalon (maybe slightly larger at 7,500t). 3 of these replacing the current 2 frigate and eventually the Canterbury. Maybe supported by an OPV/Light frigates based on a FS2000 like the KD Lekiu

Maybe and some kiwis here would support that. Although personally I'm not so sure nowadays, as NZ now has a Sealift vessel and OPV's so these existing vessels would be better suited to duties in the Pacific than Absalon Frigates that offer additional (capability, not necessarily needed) but limited sealift capability. If the Absalon's were suitable for NZ's presence in SE Asia then perhaps, but realistically would NZ in SE Asia need an Absalon mult-purpose type (over a Frigate)? I'm not sure that would be so (but happy to be corrected by others).

What I'd like instead is the ANZAC II (T26/F100 mod etc), seeing it has all that extra space, is room to house troops and some of their cargo (eg for SF insertion etc) or govt agency staff etc. That would go along way to justifying the ANZAC II to the NZ public - greater utility (over the ANZAC's) etc.

 

[1805]

Maybe and some kiwis here would support that. Although personally I'm not so sure nowadays, as NZ now has a Sealift vessel and OPV's so these existing vessels would be better suited to duties in the Pacific than Absalon Frigates that offer additional (capability, not necessarily needed) but limited sealift capability. If the Absalon's were suitable for NZ's presence in SE Asia then perhaps, but realistically would NZ in SE Asia need an Absalon mult-purpose type (over a Frigate)? I'm not sure that would be so (but happy to be corrected by others).

What I'd like instead is the ANZAC II (T26/F100 mod etc), seeing it has all that extra space, is room to house troops and some of their cargo (eg for SF insertion etc) or govt agency staff etc. That would go along way to justifying the ANZAC II to the NZ public - greater utility (over the ANZAC's) etc.

I think the Absalon's offer more than just additional sea lift capability, they are designed for flexible modules covering the things you suggest a T26 might do, and more. This would obviously be an old design, by the time the Canterbury/ANZACs are replaced, so I would see a imporived version. The key elements the concept bring over a T26: is commercial build standard will be much cheaper than anything the RN can bring themselves to accept, the flex deck and capability for 2 big helicopters (though I wouldn't be surpised if the T26 ended up with the same). Other than that the fit might be similar, I would have thought even a TAS was a possibility, if that was something RNZN required.

 

[StingrayOZ]

A bit of a correct here. Aussie aircraft have been in combat since WWII, specifically in Korea, (South) Vietnam then in Iraq in 2003.

Sorry, I exagerate the point on the RAAF, they do get used, but not to the same level as the navy IMO. The real point I was trying to make was that losing the RNAF was proberly a fair call given its cost, capability and functionality, I don't think it was dissolved in the best possible way, but it was a fair call and allows the kiwis to focus on more important things (like the Navy).

In other words for the Pacific, all manner of eyes and ears from the air and at sea, be that NZ, Aus, French, US etc, monitoring sea and air traffic, via secure networks back to command posts etc.

Exactly, for that to happen NZ needs to do this in and around there waters, and dependancies. To do that they need capable vessels across a range of types (inc Frigates). Even if NZ vessels didn't have VLS tubes all fully loaded on launch, sensors, hull, personel etc need to be there.

Would NZ not be better off with a commercially standard concept like the Absalon (maybe slightly larger at 7,500t).

I think NZ would perfer to see what exactly hatches out of the Aus/UK relationship. Australia's white paper has put forward a very aggressive specification. 7,000T, ABM, surface and subsurface threats, large helo fac... Commonality with Aus would provide huge cost benefit for NZ. Common training, logisitic tap, intergration, upgrades etc. The UK spec is somewhat lower, but more warfighting capability than a regular absalon. NZ could choose one of these hull and tick fewer options but still get commonality with Aus and UK (and a huge amount of compatability with US) for not much more dollars.

We are talking potentially 30+ hulls (other nations may also be interested, Canada, Singapore etc). These would be the commonwealth version of the Burkes. With lower costs, lower procurement, common training, perhaps even an extended cross posting and development model (ala F-35). The Absalon doesn't offer any of that.

 

[Lucasnz]

I think the Absalon's offer more than just additional sea lift capability, they are designed for flexible modules covering the things you suggest a T26 might do, and more. This would obviously be an old design, by the time the Canterbury/ANZACs are replaced, so I would see a imporived version. The key elements the concept bring over a T26: is commercial build standard will be much cheaper than anything the RN can bring themselves to accept, the flex deck and capability for 2 big helicopters (though I wouldn't be surpised if the T26 ended up with the same). Other than that the fit might be similar, I would have thought even a TAS was a possibility, if that was something RNZN required.

While the Abalson would be a good supplement to the lift capability of Canterbury, the limited production run may pose logisitical problems in the future. Having seen some of the issues supporting Southland, I loathe to support one off / limited run designs. The way I see it the best way forward for NZ is to acquire 3 T26 and 4-6 OCV to replace the OPV's, DT and Resolution.

 

[MrConservative]

I have long admired the Absalon concept and personally felt if Protector was provided $1B as opposed to just $500m in funding it may have been able to have found a place within the Protector fleet. However, that is well behind us now and a widely covered topic over the last 5 years by most of the usual suspects - me included.

Looking to the future as what this post is about, I am interested in the General Purpose or C2 version of the FSC not the C1 or Type 26 for the RNZN. If the RNZN was part of a multi-national effort I would support it. The economies of scale really do offer something and I feel that it is a logical choice. Whilst the early ideas from both Aust & the UK discussing the project are musing over different capability levels as their respective strategic and fiscal outlooks are foremost, that could change as indeed our requirements.

Nevertheless, the mentioning of the Absalon of course begs the question – What of the Iver Huitfeldt class or what we have previously called the F370 the Abs feisty younger brother? It is worth throwing it into the discussion mix in my view.

Regarding the Anzac frigate replacement, my thoughts are that three is the minimum number and four is the ideal. I think most of you would agree with this. Again with the OCV’s the multi-national and multi-functionality nature is a huge plus to NZ and our requirements. The only thing is whether what the RN needs or wants or what the RAN needs or wants maybe too divergent. Will they agree on even the basic platform in regards to any conceptual marriage for the OCV/C3? There was chatter about the Austral Cat design being a early front-runner for the OCV platform - I dont know where that has gone other than "How about this idea".

The other concern is the timeframe of all this. What do we do if we have to bring forward our procurement tempo in the next 5-10 years due to a change in strategic circumstances as opposed to the next 15-20 years when we can expect to replace the OPV’s and the current Anzac’s.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Drunken idea.....not necessarily a good one.

Hey guys. This is probably a flawed concept. Its one that came up over a few beers with a mate who spent sometime in a ship board intelligence role with RNZN. It was over what would be the best bet for the replacement frigates.
We both agreed that the major threat in any high/med intensity scenario would be subs (a recent population explosion in Asia pacific being a concern) and then anti-ship missiles. That a frigate replacements major taskings would be humanitarian assistance, training, flying the flag and EEZ patrol. But its major purpose would be the employment in war.

It seems that the best option for deterring or killing subs was helicopters. And the best approach to anti ship missiles was first off a capable air defence radar (CEAFAR?) matched to effective shipboard SAM, then a heavier caliber DP gun like 76mm then last ditch 20 mm minimum but option to bolt in something heavier in place of.
Rationale was that that the speed and size of Brahmos could become a trend and that typical systems like Phalanx might not have the weight of fire to limit the damage impact to tolerable levels.

But then to hedge against the dreaded decades of peace it might be best to have a ship that could be easily used for moving large amounts of gear aswell. Aid, evacuation etc.
So this is what we amateurishly came up with. I’m and ex army so please forgive my naivety. Instead of a typical sleek frigate how about something resembling a Hyuga class but half the size. Drawing inspiration from the damage control facilities of the Cantebury (my mate tells me that they are very comprehensive – not the same as a full fledged warship but amazing considering the size of the vessel). Objective here would be to provide a large clean deck for say 4 to 5 helicopters at a guess to mitigate some of the sub threat. But also something that can double as cargo carrying ability or mix of the two.
This means more helicopters. Which means a lot more money. I have heard that they have been 50% of the initial cost of RN’s latest frigates and destroyers. We were thinking better to have the option later to buy and then actually deploy powerful force multipliers like helicopters. Sort of equip for but not with.
So that’s the reason for the hull shape and size. As the Japanese have done and as we have tried with Cantebury try to automate where possible to keep crewing down to the magical 180. My mate thinks that’s possible. I am not so sure. I subscribe to 1 is none and 2 is 1 philosophy. Even if built and unable to be crewed its easier to explain away a tied up ship for ten years and train up a crew in time of emergency then be naked and defenceless in time of need because of penny pinching. Only takes a year to crash train a company instead of two to three years to build a good ship.
But if possible, combine a well deck or floating dock in the rear with a landing craft or two as this would make these vessels true Multi role as opposed to the useful but misrepresented Cantebury.
Now this is were we depart for the surreal but after a few beers made sense.
Port and Starboard and one to the rear have sponsons for 76mm Oto malera Super rapids.
Step down from 5 inch for NGS. But acceptable for longer range CIWS and sort of credible minimum (used to be a popular term for defence policy) for NGS. Have the two port and starboard weapons mounted further forward with room for some bolt on CIWS like phalanx or millennium gun amidships so the arcs over lap. Wouldn’t so much at the rear I would imagine. Then tie this into the first tier which would be ESSM or SM what ever.
Then fill out with torp tubes off the ANZAC’s or some appropriate equivalent.
Direct one for one replacement for ANZAC’s and Cantebury and the you have a powerfulish (maybe) fleet which might just cover all bases (even the ones we don’t see now) and provides a strategic influence as the opposition wouldn’t know if you are landing forces or patrolling.
OK that’s the dreaming. My reasons this wouldn’t work are in order
Lack of political resolve to acquire such, huge fiscal commitment, untried naval doctrine for a small naval force with little ability to absorb unnecessary risk, technical such as large hull shape – affecting through life economics, support facilities available, agility and speed/endurance. And most of all it doesn’t exist. We don’t have the corporate knowledge to develop, test and manage such a product. And we probably don’t have the time either.
There are heaps more but I just don’t know them. So if you could settle this for me and tell me why the conventional shape is better for us I would appreciate it.
Again we arrived at this because Subs don’t like helicopters and anti ship missiles are sneaky fast little buggers that need a good strong hand to knock down. It looked to us (coming from a guy who knows SFA and a former serving member of the RNZN) that the odds will be against conventional frigates in the future.
Be brutal not too brutal…..I’m really sensitive.

Cheers
Shane

 

[Aussie Digger]

Shane,

It sounds like top weight would absolutely kill this thing. I'm not sure why you'd want to forgoe the 127mm gun capability you already have extant in the ANZAC frigate, in favour of 3x 76mm guns?

Cost and manning would massively increase for an overall loss in capability...

New generation munitions such as Vulcano also the offer the opportunity to massively increase your NGS capability and range of your weapon system, at a relatively modest price that even NZ would probably be able to afford and they'd contribute significantly to improving NZ's contribution to a Coalition effort, but they are only made in 127mm calibre...

For a replace frigate, I'd suggest RNZN would want a modern 3D radar air surveillance capability, a multiple channel of fire control capability (to terminally guide more than one SAM at a time) an ISRT capability, plus the usual nav and surface search radar systems. I'd suggest RNZN would want a sonar system for anti-sub work, probably including bow mounted and towed systems and basic EW self protection capability (including on-board chaff and Nulka type EW systems), some ESM capability and a modern comms, data-link and SATCOM capability.

On the weapons side, I think RNZN would want a vertically launched air defence missile system, (with planned upgrades of the ESSM missile system evolving very much into a hybrid point defence/area defence capability NZ could well end up with an 'area air defence' lite' capability, this way).

The aforementioned 127mm gun in an upgraded form, whether by new generation long ranged munitions and existing guns, or an upgraded gun capability as a whole, would be the minimum acceptable capability, I'd suggest.

I'd suggest an anti-ship missile capability might be an option that depends on funding, but a close in weapon system for air defence, would be a definite starter, as would a close in anti-surface capability (mini-typhoon with 12.7mm guns or similar) and a pair or triple torpedo launchers for anti-sub work.

I'd guess RNZN would want the ability to operate one or two helos at best and potentially one helo and a UAV system simultaneously.

This would all be packed into a 3500 - 5000t mono-hulled vessel with reasonable range and speed and some ability to operate in the Southern Ocean for some time, would be included. Modern support systems and amenities for the crew would also be included without question.

In short, something similar to what you have now, but with some moderate capability enhancements in a few key areas, is what I would expect. I can't see anythung too radical making it's way into RNZN in the near future...

 

[1805]

Sorry, I exagerate the point on the RAAF, they do get used, but not to the same level as the navy IMO. The real point I was trying to make was that losing the RNAF was proberly a fair call given its cost, capability and functionality, I don't think it was dissolved in the best possible way, but it was a fair call and allows the kiwis to focus on more important things (like the Navy).


Exactly, for that to happen NZ needs to do this in and around there waters, and dependancies. To do that they need capable vessels across a range of types (inc Frigates). Even if NZ vessels didn't have VLS tubes all fully loaded on launch, sensors, hull, personel etc need to be there.



I think NZ would perfer to see what exactly hatches out of the Aus/UK relationship. Australia's white paper has put forward a very aggressive specification. 7,000T, ABM, surface and subsurface threats, large helo fac... Commonality with Aus would provide huge cost benefit for NZ. Common training, logisitic tap, intergration, upgrades etc. The UK spec is somewhat lower, but more warfighting capability than a regular absalon. NZ could choose one of these hull and tick fewer options but still get commonality with Aus and UK (and a huge amount of compatability with US) for not much more dollars.

We are talking potentially 30+ hulls (other nations may also be interested, Canada, Singapore etc). These would be the commonwealth version of the Burkes. With lower costs, lower procurement, common training, perhaps even an extended cross posting and development model (ala F-35). The Absalon doesn't offer any of that.

I think the RNZN would be right to wait and see how the T26 turns out, but I suspect the RN's natural tendancy to over spec and the stated heavy fit of the RAN, probably would make even a stripped down version expensive for what NZ wants/can afford.

From an outsiders perpective RNZN seems to have two quit different and not that well aligned forces:medium tech frigates of insufficient numbers to truly be effective and a commerical spec very functional focus "Protector"

The point about the Absalon concept is the logistic capability can defend itself (the Abs actually have the equvilant armament of what we know of a T26, apart from maybe TacTom which I suspect RNZN would not require?). The challenge for RNZN is to have a more intergated fleet in the future and I would put my money on this swinging the way of a Protector II not tradtional frigates.

Lets face it the way to deal with subs is big helicopters, the way to deal with surface targets is helicopers armed with AShM (RN has never fired a MM38 or Harpoon in anger, but must have fired dozens of Skua in 3 wars). Humanitarian relief.....you guessed it big helicopters! Abs = Big Helicopters.

Backed up by say 6 heavier armed OPV (57mm fitted and SAM, Phalanx & ASW TT capable)

 

[shanes_world_05]

Good points

T26 sounds like it will be a very capable platform once it is developed abit more. However both UK and US are in financially troubling times that we can't see the sunset of. My concern is that wth economics so follows military capability. So my inclination would be to see if more of the overall construction and vision could be Australia based so that we have the option to insulate ourselves from any negative circumstances that may arise in the future regarding the UK's budget for such things as multirole frigates. This isnt a remark on UK's ability to design and produce the best product but more the ability to afford it if the doomsayers are even half right.
AD I believe that you have industry experience (?) that I really dont so please excuse me and my ignorance.
But what I was looking at was more a helicopter focused ship. A flat top in miniature with the ability to land cargo and troops. With the artillery, VLS and Torpedoes there to protect it those abilities. The chose and fitout of sensor suite like you suggested might be dictated by hull shape (?) I dont know but is it poosible to put on something like a helicopter carrier. The Hyuga's seem very well equiped but then they have aegis equipped destroyers that would screen them.
Topweight would indeed be an issue but possibly making it a wider platform (with resultant effect on speed, economy and overall agility) might overcome this? The downgrade from NGS focused 127mm to 76mm was to getter a better antiship missile ability while retaining a modest NGS capability. I could be wrong. I and my mate were under the impression that the SR's higher rate of fire would be better for AshM defence. I believe that there are available or in development steerable rounds for 76mm focused on high velocity, high agility targets like missiles and fighters. But couldn't find a link so that proves nothing.
What we were thinking of was to provide as much deterrence as possible against subs (in the form of helicopters and UAV/UCAV's and as much hitting power against AshM as could be put to sea in economical numbers.
Anyway our hedge against the future but not all bets are made nor do all work out.
Hope all is well

 

[MrConservative]

For a replace frigate, I'd suggest RNZN would want a modern 3D radar air surveillance capability, a multiple channel of fire control capability (to terminally guide more than one SAM at a time) an ISRT capability, plus the usual nav and surface search radar systems. I'd suggest RNZN would want a sonar system for anti-sub work, probably including bow mounted and towed systems and basic EW self protection capability (including on-board chaff and Nulka type EW systems), some ESM capability and a modern comms, data-link and SATCOM capability.

On the weapons side, I think RNZN would want a vertically launched air defence missile system, (with planned upgrades of the ESSM missile system evolving very much into a hybrid point defence/area defence capability NZ could well end up with an 'area air defence' lite' capability, this way).

The aforementioned 127mm gun in an upgraded form, whether by new generation long ranged munitions and existing guns, or an upgraded gun capability as a whole, would be the minimum acceptable capability, I'd suggest.

I'd suggest an anti-ship missile capability might be an option that depends on funding, but a close in weapon system for air defence, would be a definite starter, as would a close in anti-surface capability (mini-typhoon with 12.7mm guns or similar) and a pair or triple torpedo launchers for anti-sub work.

I'd guess RNZN would want the ability to operate one or two helos at best and potentially one helo and a UAV system simultaneously.

This would all be packed into a 3500 - 5000t mono-hulled vessel with reasonable range and speed and some ability to operate in the Southern Ocean for some time, would be included. Modern support systems and amenities for the crew would also be included without question.

In short, something similar to what you have now, but with some moderate capability enhancements in a few key areas, is what I would expect. I can't see anythung too radical making it's way into RNZN in the near future...

It may well be that a 5000t frigate incorporating exactly what you have outlined above could be that yet to finalised C2 or General Purpose Frigate part of the RN Future Surface Combatant project. If so that would be pretty much perfect.

 

[Norm]

Navy open Day Saturday October 9 2010

Mark it in your Calender! The Navy Community Newsletter in our local community Newpaper "The Devonport Flagstaff" 20 August 2010 is publicising that as part of the Navy's 69th Birthday the Base & Ships will be open to the public.Worth a visit,the new Navy Museum in Torpedo Bay Devonport also worth a visit has its official opening the day before.

As part of the Defence White paper [not yet released] Norm hears that a close look at the number of Officers in the NZDF is a work in progress.Mean while the associate Minister of Defence, Heather Roy has resigned following a bust up with her ACT party leader Rodney Hide.

The Insider column in Fridays Business Herald "what's going on behind the scenes" had this to say.

"...Treasury officials have for some time {Norms thoughts this is like YES Minister the TV Show]
been expressing their concern that a white paper review of the defence forces was turning into a cheque-writing exercise.Roy a member of the territorial forces,was said to have been "captured" over the issue...One Treasury official told the Insider that they too had been pulling their hair out trying to understand her thinking on the issues."

Norm does not have a lot of time for Treasury , full of Academics ,cut it by 50% I say.But all very interesting never the less.

 

[Aussie Digger]

AD I believe that you have industry experience (?) that I really dont so please excuse me and my ignorance.

Not really. I'm just well read... My handle gives a clue as to my occupation in a former life...

But what I was looking at was more a helicopter focused ship. A flat top in miniature with the ability to land cargo and troops. With the artillery, VLS and Torpedoes there to protect it those abilities. The chose and fitout of sensor suite like you suggested might be dictated by hull shape (?) I dont know but is it poosible to put on something like a helicopter carrier. The Hyuga's seem very well equiped but then they have aegis equipped destroyers that would screen them.

But the problem RNZN faces is the need for a new frigate. Not a new amphibious ship. The Canterbury has only just been acquired and goes some way to addressing NZ's amphibious needs. It isn't perfect by any means, but a ship similar to the Hyuga's is a massive overkill as far as NZ is concerned and she would not be able to afford to run it, let alone man it, or provide the level of equipment necessary to actually equip the vessel for a mission.

A Hyuga carries 11x helos. NZ just bought 8x NH-90's and 5x A-109's and whilst some more A-109's might be bought in future, NZ is not going to have enough helos to even equip 2x such vessels, let alone the need to deploy so many...

Such a vessel is going to far exceed the NZ budget to acquire a replacement type for the ANZAC Class Frigates and is almost entirely unsuitable for the role of a frigate. The Japanese may call them "destroyers" but in reality they are Helicopter Carriers and the "destroyer" nomenclature says more about Japanese domestic politics than it does about the vessels capability.

Something like the T26, Australia's intended "future frigate" or one of the newer MEKO designs, would be more appropriate to fill this capability need, if a full scale frigate can be afforded by NZ. If not there are multiple OPV designs, that offer most of the capabilities of modern frigates in a less expensive package.

Topweight would indeed be an issue but possibly making it a wider platform (with resultant effect on speed, economy and overall agility) might overcome this? The downgrade from NGS focused 127mm to 76mm was to getter a better antiship missile ability while retaining a modest NGS capability. I could be wrong. I and my mate were under the impression that the SR's higher rate of fire would be better for AshM defence. I believe that there are available or in development steerable rounds for 76mm focused on high velocity, high agility targets like missiles and fighters. But couldn't find a link so that proves nothing.

There are 76mm air defence rounds like the 3A and DAVIDE anti-air rounds, but these are unlikely to be more effective than dedicated anti-air missiles. Don't forget also that the existing 127mm gun on the ANZAC has anti-air capability today and there are almost the same range of options available for increased anti-air capacity for 127mm guns as there are for 76mm guns as well.

For overall air defence, you'd be far better off focusing on ESSM type capability than a gun based defence. No navy is investing heavily in gun based air defence and almost without exception, Phalanx type CIW systems are considered the better gun based option anyway.

A gun is a part of a layered air defence system, not the primary system in the current age, which is why Navies are rushing to adopt command and active guided air defence missiles and hardly choosing at all to introduce 3A or DAVIDE type guided gun rounds...

A system which includes command and active guided air defence missiles, a medium calibre gun anti-air capability and close in weapon systems for anti-air and anti-surface ops, with the appropriate sensor and EW support, will provide more than sufficient air defence capability for NZ's needs in the likely future.

What we were thinking of was to provide as much deterrence as possible against subs (in the form of helicopters and UAV/UCAV's and as much hitting power against AshM as could be put to sea in economical numbers.
Anyway our hedge against the future but not all bets are made nor do all work out.
Hope all is well

Any future RNZN frigate, will most definitely include helo's, ship-launched torpedos and probably unmanned aerial vehicles/unmanned underwater vehicles to provide options against submarines and something like the above systems to defend against air and missile threats.

I'm not sure a 76mm Super Rapido is much defence against a submarine...

Cheers,

AD

 

[1805]

Not really. I'm just well read... My handle gives a clue as to my occupation in a former life...

Something like the T26, Australia's intended "future frigate" or one of the newer MEKO designs, would be more appropriate to fill this capability need, if a full scale frigate can be afforded by NZ. If not there are multiple OPV designs, that offer most of the capabilities of modern frigates in a less expensive package.

Agree but would the RNZN be better off with say 5-6 KD Lekiu "type" ships or just 2 T26/ANZAC II

There are 76mm air defence rounds like the 3A and DAVIDE anti-air rounds, but these are unlikely to be more effective than dedicated anti-air missiles. Don't forget also that the existing 127mm gun on the ANZAC has anti-air capability today and there are almost the same range of options available for increased anti-air capacity for 127mm guns as there are for 76mm guns as well.

For overall air defence, you'd be far better off focusing on ESSM type capability than a gun based defence. No navy is investing heavily in gun based air defence and almost without exception, Phalanx type CIW systems are considered the better gun based option anyway.

A gun is a part of a layered air defence system, not the primary system in the current age, which is why Navies are rushing to adopt command and active guided air defence missiles and hardly choosing at all to introduce 3A or DAVIDE type guided gun rounds...

A system which includes command and active guided air defence missiles, a medium calibre gun anti-air capability and close in weapon systems for anti-air and anti-surface ops, with the appropriate sensor and EW support, will provide more than sufficient air defence capability for NZ's needs in the likely future.



Cheers,

AD

I didn't think the 127mm (US mount) did have an AA capability? Also isn't the USN planning to use 57mm guns on the new DD1000 as CIWS and the French/Italians have just installed 76mm on there new AWD as CIWS. Phalanx is wonderfully portable/bolt on but does it have the range/hitting power for faster/heavier AShM?

For a navy that wants to operate with some independence but does not have the money for AWD, carriers or even land based jets, a robust layered defence is important. I would go for 57mm, ESSM and Goalkeaper or Millennium 35 mm.