Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ThePuss]

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.

I am a maintainer / operator of the Mk 45 5'/54 cal Gun mount and I can tell you that it is extremely effective in the AA role. The HEVT or High Explosive Variable Time round has a Doppler radar in the fuse which detects the aircraft/missile and detonates the round creating a wall of shrapnel several meters wide which destroys the target when it fly’s through it.

On the old MK 42 5"/54Cal gun mount (as found on Perth class DDG's) we used to use VTNF or Variable Time Non Fragmenting round for practice AA shoots. This had the same radar fuse but a was a low explosive round as to not damage the target. However when the Mk 45 was introduced when the ANZAC's where brought online we very quickly stopped using VTNF rounds for practice AA shoots as even the low explosive rounds where knocking the targets out of the sky.

We now use Ballistic (Inert) rounds for the AA shoots and the targets often get recovered with the blue paint of the Ballistic rounds scraped down the side, which shows the phenomenal accuracy of the MK 45.

The MK 45 is really the only "All Rounder" out there that can do it all (with the exception of the OTO Melera 5" gun) . One gun to do NGS, AA and surface engagements!

 

[shanes_world_05]

Putting my silly fantasy to rest.

P, thats is pretty awesome. Showing my ingorance but I really didnt expect that level of capability in such big gun (I know its only medium calibre in naval terms but to me that is still a big weapon). I'll have three.

AD i wouldn't expect the 76mm to take out a sub....they just to damn sneaky. :
And the choppers would get jealous. They're kinda like my missus like that.
But your right the manning would kill the RNZN let alone the DF. There is no budget for such things and short of open war little reason to be ( I dont rely on reason, gets in the way of my assumptions)I guess. However I would hate to be right (more likely by coincidence than any skill or intellect) in the reassuring glow of hindsight. That is I must say unlikely.

I did think though that it would be need to be no more than 8,000 ton at load and that would mean 5 to 6 helicopters (?) which is still beyond us. But we do need more chopper pilots in the aviation sector soon (alot are nearing retirement) and heli hunting wont provide like it did in the sixties so could be a way to feed in new talent to a small but vital sector of the economy. All the while providing new levels of capability, sensory perception and army/ navy mobility?

The air defence would have to be primarily the VLS. Then an overkill on ciws/DP for the reason that if you look at say WW 2 the armament and sophistication in 1939 and 1945 grew exponentially to meet realised threats. The revision of AA armament particulary and even whole doctrine regarding battleships and seaborne airpower.
By my estimation for a high subsonic or supersonic sea skimming missile or aircraft you have about 90 to 45 seconds from horizon to consequence if you can see at the horizon. Thats quite scary. If that happened to me I would rather be swimming.

With NZ being such a small and timid (well I am) nation might be good to go overkill now to leesen the shock should anything high intensity come along regardless of what shape the replacement takes. Dreaming I know. Best thing I think for national and regional safety and security is to see a monetary reform and a domestic independent energy solution. I definitely am dreaming. Must be bedtime.

Cheers,

 

[Aussie Digger]

The air defence would have to be primarily the VLS. Then an overkill on ciws/DP for the reason that if you look at say WW 2 the armament and sophistication in 1939 and 1945 grew exponentially to meet realised threats. The revision of AA armament particulary and even whole doctrine regarding battleships and seaborne airpower.
By my estimation for a high subsonic or supersonic sea skimming missile or aircraft you have about 90 to 45 seconds from horizon to consequence if you can see at the horizon. Thats quite scary. If that happened to me I would rather be swimming.

With NZ being such a small and timid (well I am) nation might be good to go overkill now to leesen the shock should anything high intensity come along regardless of what shape the replacement takes. Dreaming I know. Best thing I think for national and regional safety and security is to see a monetary reform and a domestic independent energy solution. I definitely am dreaming. Must be bedtime.

Cheers,

You might have that timeframe, maybe not, but horizon search and air defence radars are usually mounted as high as possible on the super-structure of the vessel, giving a larger horizon than a person standing at sea level, so it really comes down to the air warfare skills of the crew and your fire control and weapons system, as to whether your vessel can handle such a threat or not. ESSM and it's associated systems, for example IS designed to address such a threat. Whether it would be enough in conjunction with Phalanx, medium gun and decoy/EW systems, is a matter of debate.

In addition to your radars, you will have an IRST system that is looking for the thermal bloom of missile launches, EW capability, ships operating within a taskforce and finally, naval helos and most likely radar equipped UAV's in future years, so it is rarely going to be a matter of 1x ship, on it's own trying to detect incoming missiles with basic physics and curvature of the Earth working against you...

I don't know if RNZN vessels will get CeC in future years (Co-Operative Engagement Capability) but they will be networked to some degree and they will more than likely have a reasonable capability to work in a high threat environment. The point of this network is obviously early warning, which is key to defeating such advanced missile threats, as the UK showed in the Falklands, early-warning provides a much greater safety margin and chance to defend.

I guess RNZN in the end will get what the politicians allow them to spend and it probably won't ever be enough to keep us all happy...

Aah politicians... Whoever thought THEY were a good idea? Give me an ego-maniacal king or emperor any day. Your defence force (or perhaps offence force) would be pretty sweet at least...

 

[StingrayOZ]

NZ already has huge experience with 5", already has them, Aus has them and will use them on the AWD. Theres no real point in "saving money" when the 5" is already really pretty good in this regard.

So thats a 5", ESSM NZ already has that, Phalanx CIWS again.. I would be using simular systems to what you already own and operate if they are good enough (they are) if you are trying to lower costs.

Helicopters are expensive (to own, operate, arm, train), and NZ has a limited number and enough for the assets they operate already. NZ does pretty well with what its got (at the cost of real warships) in terms of helos, helo compatable platforms and sealift. Australia just next door as the biggest pair of LHD's globally of a non superpower. NZ however has nothing to escort any of its vessels, so they would be reliant on Australia.

Problem with that is that Australia doesn't exactly have a surplus of escorts. Who then? Singapore? the UK? US (I doubt the US would spare a cruiser or destroyer!)? No escorts means no deployment, NZ defence dollars are essentially pissed away because they aren't usable when required.

You will want something that can extend your protection envolope as part of a an existing fleet, or provide basic escorting by itself in lower risk/low intensity conflicts.

Then you go back to the AnzacII/ T26... That is why NZ needs. Sure, cut it down, fitted for but not with etc lower level missile load outs, but that is the type of ship NZ needs.

 

[Aussie Digger]

So thats a 5", ESSM NZ already has that, Phalanx CIWS again.. I would be using simular systems to what you already own and operate if they are good enough (they are) if you are trying to lower costs.

I believe that RNZN has not yet invested in ESSM upgrades for it's ANZAC Frigates and is still running the legacy Sea Sparrow SAM. (8x missiles in total).

RNZN had planned to conduct an ANZAC Ship self defence upgrade in the Long Term Development Plan (2006) along with a platform habitability and supportability (engine upgrade, cooling systems etc) and Phalanx CIWS upgrade, but the self defence upgrade is now on hold, pending the 2010 White Paper release.

I expect the ESSM upgrade will remain, because the legacy Sea Sparrow missiles are becoming unsupportable (if they aren't already) and have been basically obsolete for a long while now, but theoretically there is no proof to confirm that the NZ Government will elect to fund the upgrade as yet. A support program (similar to that conducted by some SM-1 Standard missile users) might be conducted to prolong the service of the legacy Sea Sparrow instead of upgrading to the new missile.

We will all have to wait until at least October 2010, to find out...

 

[shanes_world_05]

We'll definitely put the idea to rest now.

Hey fullas,
Stingray, I can appreciate that you are very correct in what you say. I accept that as I envisioned it its not a concept that was going to flot. But to clarify the change in calibre was not a fiscally driven idea at all. Infact the whole ship idea neglects any fiscal reality at all. The gun change was to increase the ROF so as to increase the last ditch efficacy of the ships antimissile defence. But after what the Puss has said that doesnt look to be a correct assumption anyway.

Also this virtual ship was not so much a amphib first that would be needing escort but a different take on the escort itself. Same typical sensor fit out sub surface and air defence etc, guns, torpedoes and VLS with decoys etc like a frigate or even a destroyer I guess. But the change was in tonnage (by a large margin maybe even 9,000 tonnes say? The shape obviously is different. This would I imagine would come with a physical performance penalty?
But mainly instead of having maximum sustained helicopter capacity of 2 helicopters you might get say 5 or say 6. I know we dont have them or the crews and support staff to main them but when push comes to shove we could have a platform for them where they could be where needed with support to keep them flying when needed.

When it comes to the natural advantages of a sub vs escort/s encounter or say a escort vs a antiship missile (even taking into account other fleet assets and network capabilities) having some degree of overkill (in regards to subs anyway) would really help in any confrontation let alone conflict with another nation state. I think helicopters particularly sub hunting helicopters that can be rapidly re-roled will provide some of that. But as I think we all see it won't happen.
Flawed concept from the outset (we were getting pretty lubricated when this was given birth) but maybe something of use in it?

Thing in my mind is that our particular sphere we will likely face new challenges that perhaps the US may not have the economic position to under write our efforts. With some of the doom and gloom talk coming some people say Gerald Celente (bit extreme but sterling track record), Jim Rogers even David Rockefeller and Evelyn De Rothschild are positive about the coming events. Basically we can't rely on the US to be there like they have in the past. They will still be our stronger ally but perhaps we might not be able to intervene in our economic interests like we have before. Indonesia (considering the maritime traffic and strategic interests at stake there) is facing significant internal troubles. Any disintegration there will force great changes on NZ and the rest of the world. China and the other south china sea reliant nations have a situation conducive to a confrontation based on economics that perhaps might be hijacked by idealogy and cultural difference. That is too dangerous for my humble little brain to really assess
To this end we really should develop a strong naval capacity like you guys in Australia will have or we will be piggy backing again. And that idea really does upset me (like a petulent younger sibling).
And the old wisdom - you either grow or you stagnate. Over time there is no standing still.
Anyway enough doom and gloom.
Hope you've all had a good day.

Shane

 

[shanes_world_05]

Oh god,
My apologies I just read my rant back to myself. Sorry for the long windedness of it.
I hope it conveys abit more what I was meaning and maybe provide something to think on even though its out of left field and formulated with 3 parts naivety, 2 parts speights and the slight after taste of rum and petrol.

Cheers again,

Shane

 

[1805]

Hey fullas,
Stingray, I can appreciate that you are very correct in what you say. I accept that as I envisioned it its not a concept that was going to flot. But to clarify the change in calibre was not a fiscally driven idea at all. Infact the whole ship idea neglects any fiscal reality at all. The gun change was to increase the ROF so as to increase the last ditch efficacy of the ships antimissile defence. But after what the Puss has said that doesnt look to be a correct assumption anyway.

Also this virtual ship was not so much a amphib first that would be needing escort but a different take on the escort itself. Same typical sensor fit out sub surface and air defence etc, guns, torpedoes and VLS with decoys etc like a frigate or even a destroyer I guess. But the change was in tonnage (by a large margin maybe even 9,000 tonnes say? The shape obviously is different. This would I imagine would come with a physical performance penalty?
But mainly instead of having maximum sustained helicopter capacity of 2 helicopters you might get say 5 or say 6. I know we dont have them or the crews and support staff to main them but when push comes to shove we could have a platform for them where they could be where needed with support to keep them flying when needed.

When it comes to the natural advantages of a sub vs escort/s encounter or say a escort vs a antiship missile (even taking into account other fleet assets and network capabilities) having some degree of overkill (in regards to subs anyway) would really help in any confrontation let alone conflict with another nation state. I think helicopters particularly sub hunting helicopters that can be rapidly re-roled will provide some of that. But as I think we all see it won't happen.
Flawed concept from the outset (we were getting pretty lubricated when this was given birth) but maybe something of use in it?

Thing in my mind is that our particular sphere we will likely face new challenges that perhaps the US may not have the economic position to under write our efforts. With some of the doom and gloom talk coming some people say Gerald Celente (bit extreme but sterling track record), Jim Rogers even David Rockefeller and Evelyn De Rothschild are positive about the coming events. Basically we can't rely on the US to be there like they have in the past. They will still be our stronger ally but perhaps we might not be able to intervene in our economic interests like we have before. Indonesia (considering the maritime traffic and strategic interests at stake there) is facing significant internal troubles. Any disintegration there will force great changes on NZ and the rest of the world. China and the other south china sea reliant nations have a situation conducive to a confrontation based on economics that perhaps might be hijacked by idealogy and cultural difference. That is too dangerous for my humble little brain to really assess
To this end we really should develop a strong naval capacity like you guys in Australia will have or we will be piggy backing again. And that idea really does upset me (like a petulent younger sibling).
And the old wisdom - you either grow or you stagnate. Over time there is no standing still.
Anyway enough doom and gloom.
Hope you've all had a good day.

Shane

Are you describing a ship like the Shirane class destroyers or Andrea Doria class of helicopter cruisers? If so the RN did consider with the original concept of the T23 a very basic ship with no hanger, the helicopters being stationed on RFAs with big hangers, the Fort IIs?

 

[shanes_world_05]

Same same but a little different

Hi there 1805.
Yes and no. Same purpose. Flexible helicopter focused ship able to deter (to some extent) attacks from either submarines, ships, aircraft and missile. Or last have some degree of retort to them. But instead of an extensive rear deck I was thinking a through deck with an sensor suite fitted in the bow or on the left sided superstructure (ala a carrier) with accommodation for VLS either to the rear or front of the superstructure. Depending on how space works out maybe mounting a DP gun in front of the main citadel but elevatated so at least the left side gun can complement the fire of the right hand side (sorry starboard side) gun. So a gun on the other side of this clear deck mounted in some type of sponson. And another gun at the rear to cover the bum. And then two sets of double or triple tubes each side mashed in there somewhere. So we have VLS (pick a number), three DP guns and torpedo tubes and then leave some space for Phalanx or such type as needed and dedicate as much space as possible to the hanger/ cargo decks which feed down to a rear ramp like the Canterbury or a well deck maybe. Like I mentioned none of this has any fiscal reality to it.
How feasible this all would be in a 5000-9,000 tonne package I don’t know. Probably isn’t. Also it would need the speed and maneuverability not too dissimilar to a conventional frigate.
As to not having enough helicopters in NZ that is a good point. But it might be possible (more so than a conventional frigate deck) to deploy larger UCAV type helicopters also and in greater numbers which provides some future proofing against any future space and infrastructure requirement as this technology matures. With a screen of remotely operated helicopters performing Sub surface and air defence picket this could offer a whole new way tactically and strategically the challenges we might soon face.
Engineering wise - that is something I am starting out as (don’t feel like one yet) - I realise how flippantly ignorant this all sounds. Part A mashed into Body B with sprinkles of C. But if this sort of idea has any merit it might be that it might guard against obsolescence with such space available. Actually I am kind of copying the BAE UXV Combatant warship concept. Huh, I caught myself out.
Hope this further rant is helpful

Cheers

 

[1805]

Hi there 1805.
Yes and no. Same purpose. Flexible helicopter focused ship able to deter (to some extent) attacks from either submarines, ships, aircraft and missile. Or last have some degree of retort to them. But instead of an extensive rear deck I was thinking a through deck with an sensor suite fitted in the bow or on the left sided superstructure (ala a carrier) with accommodation for VLS either to the rear or front of the superstructure. Depending on how space works out maybe mounting a DP gun in front of the main citadel but elevatated so at least the left side gun can complement the fire of the right hand side (sorry starboard side) gun. So a gun on the other side of this clear deck mounted in some type of sponson. And another gun at the rear to cover the bum. And then two sets of double or triple tubes each side mashed in there somewhere. So we have VLS (pick a number), three DP guns and torpedo tubes and then leave some space for Phalanx or such type as needed and dedicate as much space as possible to the hanger/ cargo decks which feed down to a rear ramp like the Canterbury or a well deck maybe. Like I mentioned none of this has any fiscal reality to it.
How feasible this all would be in a 5000-9,000 tonne package I don’t know. Probably isn’t. Also it would need the speed and maneuverability not too dissimilar to a conventional frigate.
As to not having enough helicopters in NZ that is a good point. But it might be possible (more so than a conventional frigate deck) to deploy larger UCAV type helicopters also and in greater numbers which provides some future proofing against any future space and infrastructure requirement as this technology matures. With a screen of remotely operated helicopters performing Sub surface and air defence picket this could offer a whole new way tactically and strategically the challenges we might soon face.
Engineering wise - that is something I am starting out as (don’t feel like one yet) - I realise how flippantly ignorant this all sounds. Part A mashed into Body B with sprinkles of C. But if this sort of idea has any merit it might be that it might guard against obsolescence with such space available. Actually I am kind of copying the BAE UXV Combatant warship concept. Huh, I caught myself out.
Hope this further rant is helpful

Cheers

Its not such a strange idea. I could see the value of a through deck if you planned to operate UAVs from it, if that was possible? However if you just wanted to put 4 NH90s at sea, an enlarged Absalon type vessel of say 7-8,000t would do, say 150 crew and a lift capability of 350 troops. If you have a speed of 25 knot and just diesel propulsion built to commerical standards (still fitted with sonar/ESSM/5" gun/CIWS) you would probably be able to procure 3 for less than 2 T26/ANZAC II and you wouldn't need a replacement for Canterbury.

I wouldn't rule out the T26/ANZAC II but I think there is a danger of buying what others want NZ to have, not what NZ needs, which I think is where ANZAC I went off track.

If you backed this up with 6 patrol firgates based on a C3 type or heavy OPVs of say 2-2,500t, a crew of 50+25 optional mission crew. Armed with a 57mm, capabile of taking 16+ quad backed ESSM or hopefully even CAMM, a CIWS, TT, Sonar, and helicopter landing/replensihment facilities and maybe even capable of being fitted with a TAS. If the deck could handle a couple of standard containers for missions modules. I guess this would almost be a basic cut down 25 knot LCS 1 without the hangers and the price tag!

This 9 ship fleet (3+6) with a couple of replenishment ships say 12,500t and hangers for a couple of NH90 each, you would have a massive increase in capablitiy probably at no more cost.

 

[shanes_world_05]

Hmmmm...

Yeah that sounds pretty potent to me. Again I am no expert at all but sounds lovely.
Alas I don't see the nation ever (perhaps ever needing too aswell) dedicating the resources and time to anything so ambitious. It would literally take something like having the nations nose punched in before it would be sufficiently justified and acted on.
The main thing would be manpower. 6 x 50 per crews would alone challenge the navy I think.
The major vessels I couldn't hazard a guess but in would be alot for us I reckon.
The budget isnt there but even in these times of recession I dont think we could get those numbers of skilled people and be able to sustain them long term. In a previous occupation I used to deal at a lower level with Treasury here for a different ministry. It is a tough job they have there and I wouldn'ttake it for whatever you gave me (if I was even fractionally qualified). But frankly I have seen more generousity from stones with their blood.
Ironically its in a global recession or even depression that you need a top notch defence force just incase a group of anxious people start something nasty. But the boom times have past so we missed the boat to really gear up for rough weather (Lets play spot the pun). I like the Canterbury and the OPV/IPV's for being better than what was previously available. I heard this saying that in nature we have the test first and then the lesson. I hope our lesson won't be "could have tried harder" (I used to get that alot).
I would say though the Absalon is a great starting point. I myself would prefer the through deck as it gives us other options for operations other than war and in terms of developing either/and helicopters and UCAV's (rotary wing or even maybe fixed wing) which lends more force multiplication. We could increase the effective foot print of the navy just by deploying more choppers and UCAVs and actually deploy and sustain them at a higher tempo than with a space solely at the rear of the ship where they live and take off from. This would all require a much longer, wider and taller vessel but if you have the assets to potentially keep the enemy at greater distance would the size increase be a worthy trade off? Thats the advantage I see over the conventional frigate type shape. I sort of see the modern frigate being very much the prey of the submarine (less so in task forces obviously but we might get to choose the circumstances of a neccessary deployment at our sailors might be on a ship in contested waters by themselves) which if that does not match reality please feel free to set me straight. It would be appreciated.
Those are more impressions though with no backround to back them up.

Cheers

 

[MrConservative]

For a long range surface combatant to replace / compliment the Anzacs I am waiting for the future combat ship C2 derivative and feel that it may be the best bet for us than either the Type 26/Anzac II or C3/OCV. I also doubt 1805 that we would see 6 patrol frigates/corvettes in the RNZN, no more than four could be envisaged – anymore would not be even contemplated.

The through-deck ship as outlined by Shanesworld possibly does mingle into areas which could be done better using a more conventional platform – per ASW platform/127mm…That said semi through-deck designs such as HDW’s MRD-150 or MRD-10000 that give underway replenishment, increased helicopter op capacity from the bigger deck, further sealift support, dock etc… could be an option.

However, in some respects we have a unique set of maritime circumstances and unfortunately what maybe the best solution for us conceptually may be in itself difficult. For instance even though we may find that a MRD-10000 design might tick all our boxes and be our perfect solution to a number of capability gaps it may not meet another nations requirements. Thus we may be the only nation with such a vessel. How that would impact us versus how would something proven yet not entirely right for our circumstances balance out is really the big question. Such a ship may well be a one off – recent history shows that we have not got our act together when introducing one off designs. The MRD is sort of the vessel in which I could see no use for more than one whilst we have the Canterbury.

The Anzacs as laid down were needed both operational and strategically, but the great dilemma, even drawback in Kiwi defence thinking, was the fact that politically on the domestic scene there was the attitude that they were not needed. We did need the Anzac – nevertheless would we need what may well end up as basically a 7000t Anzac II “destroyer” could be a moot point?

 

[StingrayOZ]

I guess this would almost be a basic cut down 25 knot LCS 1 without the hangers and the price tag!

Welcome to the Australian Offshore Combat Vessel (OCV) Australia will be building 20 of them, most likely with a 25mm gun, But could easily accomodate 57mm (or even harpoons), not that I think NZ would be interested in either on them. 3,000t. NZ can't operate 6 unless that was their navy. 3-4 would be more reasonable. If you go down this road, then you might as upsize your tier 1 combat unit. These ships would be able to operate 3+ rotary UAV's and multiple UUV.

We did need the Anzac – nevertheless would we need what may well end up as basically a 7000t Anzac II “destroyer” could be a moot point?

Its a Frigate not a destroyer... ask the spanish!

But if you want a real combat capable ship and for NZ being able to contibute to national and international security then you need that type of ship. NZ can't mount a .50 cal on a commerical ship and participate in operations in the gulf and with operations with Australia and allies. If NZ does want to go different, fine, but where ever you purchase off will have to train, handle logistics, upgrade, you and your systems.

Yeh, NZ could buy 2 modified Absalon type ships, but honestly how useful will they be? Will you save much money after purchase price over something like a T26/ANZACII whos upgrades are shared among 2 huge partners, who logisitics would be miles ahead, who offers an extensive capability to train with and operate with. Can Absalon intergrate into a UK or US or AUS fleet? Or will NZ operate as a tiny individual force with maybe 1 ship capable some of the time completely ignoring Ran near 30+ combat ship regional presence in the region that ties into US and UK resources.

Australia is big enough to pick and choose and build custom programs and projects. NZ is not, she is going to have to choose from one of her allies, which is basically UK, US, AUS or someone who can regionally support her with effort (France?). NZ is a heck of a long way from europe. Im not convinced Absalon is the right vessel either, and Im sure its going to be more expensive to operate and purchase as a custom orphan.

 

[1805]

For a long range surface combatant to replace / compliment the Anzacs I am waiting for the future combat ship C2 derivative and feel that it may be the best bet for us than either the Type 26/Anzac II or C3/OCV. I also doubt 1805 that we would see 6 patrol frigates/corvettes in the RNZN, no more than four could be envisaged – anymore would not be even contemplated.

The through-deck ship as outlined by Shanesworld possibly does mingle into areas which could be done better using a more conventional platform – per ASW platform/127mm…That said semi through-deck designs such as HDW’s MRD-150 or MRD-10000 that give underway replenishment, increased helicopter op capacity from the bigger deck, further sealift support, dock etc… could be an option.

However, in some respects we have a unique set of maritime circumstances and unfortunately what maybe the best solution for us conceptually may be in itself difficult. For instance even though we may find that a MRD-10000 design might tick all our boxes and be our perfect solution to a number of capability gaps it may not meet another nations requirements. Thus we may be the only nation with such a vessel. How that would impact us versus how would something proven yet not entirely right for our circumstances balance out is really the big question. Such a ship may well be a one off – recent history shows that we have not got our act together when introducing one off designs. The MRD is sort of the vessel in which I could see no use for more than one whilst we have the Canterbury.

The Anzacs as laid down were needed both operational and strategically, but the great dilemma, even drawback in Kiwi defence thinking, was the fact that politically on the domestic scene there was the attitude that they were not needed. We did need the Anzac – nevertheless would we need what may well end up as basically a 7000t Anzac II “destroyer” could be a moot point?

You probably are right on the actual outcome, however what I was proposing was far closer to an OPV build, my use of the term light frigate a bit misleading.

The current in scope fleet is 9 ships, of 4 designs (Canterbury, ANZAC I, OPV & IPV) 2-3 of which are fairly unique to the RNZN, able to project c9 helicopters.

What I was proposing was the same number, although heavier tonnage, about the same crew (ANZAC I c320 together?) and only 2 designs.

If this was changed to say only two Absalon types and scaled back to the original fit of 2 helicopters. For the OPV go for an improvement over the current design (fitted with a 57mm gun, sonar & 1 triple TT a hanger/helicopter; with say 2-3 having a full fit of ESSM/Phalanx added). You would still have 8 platforms and access to 10 helicopters

 

[KiwiRob]

Whatever we get to replace the ANZAC's I feel pretty confident that we will get 3 of them. The former Labor govt realised there mistake in not ordering the 3rd ANZAC, (anyone know what we would have called it?).

So I think we will tag on to the the ANZAC II program, it makes sence, we are a small country, i

 

[furstimer]

hey guys, sorry to be off topic here. I was wondering if anyone has been through the RNZN Officer Selection Board and have tips on what to expect and to prepare for.

Cheers

 

[RegR]

Another question, why did we not take up one (or even both) of the aussie adelaides when they were retired? were they past their use by date? too expensive to man/maintain/upgrade? or maybe project protector was seen as good enough? multiple types? crewing issues??
Surely training and assimilation would not have been a problem as it would just be like us and Aus with the ANZACs and we could just glean off their experience with the FFG7 type and even have a mixed crew till they were settled in. Commonality would have been a bonus (although there are also alot of other freindly user countries) and just thought this may have been a simple, painless and quick way to bring the frigate fleet back up too a comfortable 3 or even better historic 4. Whatever happened to them anyway, sold? scrapped? parked up??
If we did not take up the option too bolster numbers then to cover until replacement time then whats saying we will boost numbers when the ANZACS are finally due for replacement, maybe not looking good aye?? If we had of aqquired them then we could of just tagged onto the RANs replacement of both types respectively whenever they occurred with a single shared type over time. Makes me think about the future numbers and what exactly (frigate/OPV/something in between) composition our navy will have and also if we will maintain our international responsibilities or reign in our sphere to a more regional veiw depending on what type of platform is finally selected. Im not much about all these weapons/sensor systems added debates as we seem to usually undergun/underequip anyway for what they are designated but I guess seeing what our future intentions are in regards too ships(and numbers) will clear up if we maintain a navy or establish a big stick having coast guard. Hopefully the professionals that improved our air force have gotten a bigger office with even less responsibilities and moved on.

 

[Sea Toby]

While the FFG-07s may have some life left in them, and still have the Standard/harpoon Mk13 missile launcher, that SAM is approaching obsolescence. There is a reason why the Aussies have upgraded four of their six ships, and there is a reason why the Americans have discarded those SM-1MR missiles. Since the gas turbine is basically the same gas turbine on the Anzacs as well as the Perrys/Adelaides, surely the Aussies have stripped their retired ships for spares. Without a diesel those frigates aren't as economical to operate as the Anzacs either.

A better investment for the navy would be to upgrade the Anzacs SAMs to ESSM, an investment yet to be done. I would rather buy a used Aussie Anzac frigate whether its been upgraded or not than buy a used FFG-07. Doing so may eventually lead to the Aussies buying a new fourth Hobart AWD which in my eyes would be much more important to allied defense posture overall.

If NZ really wanted to step up and be a better ally, NZ should buy the fourth Hobart AWD... But that price is beyond NZ's ability to afford, when a decade ago NZ couldn't afford a third Anzac...

 

[RegR]

While the FFG-07s may have some life left in them, and still have the Standard/harpoon Mk13 missile launcher, that SAM is approaching obsolescence. There is a reason why the Aussies have upgraded four of their six ships, and there is a reason why the Americans have discarded those SM-1MR missiles. Since the gas turbine is basically the same gas turbine on the Anzacs as well as the Perrys/Adelaides, surely the Aussies have stripped their retired ships for spares. Without a diesel those frigates aren't as economical to operate as the Anzacs either.

A better investment for the navy would be to upgrade the Anzacs SAMs to ESSM, an investment yet to be done. I would rather buy a used Aussie Anzac frigate whether its been upgraded or not than buy a used FFG-07. Doing so may eventually lead to the Aussies buying a new fourth Hobart AWD which in my eyes would be much more important to allied defense posture overall.

If NZ really wanted to step up and be a better ally, NZ should buy the fourth Hobart AWD... But that price is beyond NZ's ability to afford, when a decade ago NZ couldn't afford a third Anzac...

Cheers ST, So I guess it was a combination of operating and upgrade costs involved that did not get our fiscally tight govt biting. I agree a surplus RAN ANZAC would be ideal just did not think they would have one spare however if it frees up capital, crew and resources for their desired 4th AWD(yes which we could never afford let alone sell to parliament) then maybe some kind of arrangement could be made whereas we buy an ANZAC off them and they justify another AWD to fill the void and partially offset cost, helps both countries in a way depending how you look at it.

 

[Sea Toby]

This is the kind of combined allied defence thinking and posture highly desired... What is good for one nation is good for both in the overall picture... New Zealand needs a third frigate and Australia could use the fourth AWD... Both nation's navies getting what they want may be the ticket to a proper and just solution...