Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

contedicavour said:
Ah interesting to read. A couple of days ago you were screaming against such wish lists.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument: Actually a couple of day ago I was asked this question

Whiskyjack said:
Accepting what has already been done with the RNZN, what do you see as being needed in addition?
Click to expand...

You will have noticed that this was prefaced by a proposed role for NZDF.



You were insisting any such wish lists would help politicians reduce defence spending.
Click to expand...

Strawman argument. Your comments were not prefaced by proposed force roles, mine were, big difference there.

Last but not least, you insisted on having sound reasons to justify every single line of spending.
Click to expand...

That is blatently false. Show me, with links, where I ever said that.


Now I see you are requesting material worth several times what I was requesting before, and without justifying the logic of the spending :rolleyes:

snip
cheers
Click to expand...

Yeah, and? I was asked what I thought was needed in addition to PP, I wasnt asked for costings, so I didnt provide any!

Whiskyjack said:
Accepting what has already been done with the RNZN, what do you see as being needed in addition?
Click to expand...

Where does he ask for costings? Thats right! he dosent!
 
Last edited:
Whiskyjack said:
I agree with the first, price I think is going to be $750m-$1b, with a combined crew of 180-240. If the MRV is kept then halve the above figure.
Click to expand...

My reason for two was civil defence issue, where you need to move a lot of gear/personell quickly and constantly bring in more. If a sole battalion group was needed then yes, only the one would be required.

I think a pair of frigates will be a big ask, I think one is also,:) but I am thinking a budget of $1.25b will get one extra and the 2 Anzacs upgraded. an extra 170 crew.
Click to expand...

*shrugs* Four frigates, all up, is a big ask, but if we are expected to operate in a high threat environment, should the sacrifice be made? Of course what is the definition of 'High Threat', I should have speld that out, my bad.




Agree with MCM, but have no idea as to costs. Also OPV is a good idea as well.
Click to expand...

With respect to MCM, well there are those German mines of Lyttleton from the last war to remind us of what can be done, even when protected by the most powerfull navies in the world.

It needs to be funded over a decade minimum, and recruitment is also going to be an issue
Click to expand...

Yeah. The funding is always going to be a the sticking point, and funding would need to be done in a similar manner to Aus with continual increases to account for inflation etc. Unemployment is at 3.6 at the moment and the population is ageing...
 
Sea Toby said:
snip

The Anzac class frigates replacement will consume the next ten year LDTP as far as the navy is concerned. More than likely these will cost much more than one billion New Zealand dollars.
Click to expand...

Interesting, what makes you think so?
 
Stuart Mackey said:
My reason for two was civil defence issue, where you need to move a lot of gear/personell quickly and constantly bring in more. If a sole battalion group was needed then yes, only the one would be required.

*shrugs* Four frigates, all up, is a big ask, but if we are expected to operate in a high threat environment, should the sacrifice be made? Of course what is the definition of 'High Threat', I should have speld that out, my bad.

With respect to MCM, well there are those German mines of Lyttleton from the last war to remind us of what can be done, even when protected by the most powerfull navies in the world.

Yeah. The funding is always going to be a the sticking point, and funding would need to be done in a similar manner to Aus with continual increases to account for inflation etc. Unemployment is at 3.6 at the moment and the population is ageing...
Click to expand...

I agree two LPDs would be nice an do suit NZ's wider role in the region and general isolation from the rest of the world.

I think I would rather have three frigates and three OPVs to allow for a continuous deployment out side of the South Pacific but also allow for deployable assets in the South Pacific where the threat level is low.

Completely agree with the MCM capability, would add ASW to that as well, P3s most likely rather than a surface combatant.

If NZ funded $400m a year and increased it by 5%, that should cover a large amount of equipment, I am not saying all we talk about by any means, but it is where NZ is now so it would not take a lot more, especially if it is a annual increase.
 
Considering the cheapest price of a frigate is around $250-300 million US., in twenty years they will probably run at least $500-600 million US. Adding an average of 4 percent per year, 300 becomes 312, 312 becomes 325, 325 becomes 339, I hope you get the picture, inflation sets in. And since New Zealand dollars will probably be around 50-60 percent of an American dollar, two frigates should run EASILY over a billion New Zealand dollars.

A good rule of thumb in the defence industry is that a replacement for what is purchased today will cost at least twice as much 30 years into the future. With the navy receiving less than one third of the capital budget, with the capital budget currently being $3.5 billion New Zealand over a decade, its obvious that 2 frigates will consume all of the navy's capital fund during that decade. Even if New Zealand increases the capital budget, anyone planning 30 years ahead would agree two replacement frigates twenty years from now will consume all of the navy's capital budget that decade.

I didn't notice much naval expenditures from New Zealand during the decade of the 1990s. This will likely repeat again in the future.
 
Last edited:
Sea Toby said:
Considering the cheapest price of a frigate is around $250-300 million US., in twenty years they will probably run at least $500-600 million US. Adding an average of 4 percent per year, 300 becomes 312, 312 becomes 325, 325 becomes 339, I hope you get the picture, inflation sets in. And since New Zealand dollars will probably be around 50-60 percent of an American dollar, two frigates should run EASILY over a billion New Zealand dollars.

A good rule of thumb in the defence industry is that a replacement for what is purchased today will cost at least twice as much 30 years into the future. With the navy receiving less than one third of the capital budget, with the capital budget currently being $3.5 billion New Zealand over a decade, its obvious that 2 frigates will consume all of the navy's capital fund during that decade. Even if New Zealand increases the capital budget, anyone planning 30 years ahead would agree two replacement frigates twenty years from now will consume all of the navy's capital budget that decade.

I didn't notice much naval expenditures from New Zealand during the decade of the 1990s. This will likely repeat again in the future. And if you noticed, its the next decade after this next decade, if you are going to quote me please quote all of my message.
Click to expand...

Agree with you on the cost issue, thats why I go for one, even then I think I may be kidding myself:rolleyes: .

Just a comment on naval budget in the 90s that is when NZ paid most of the NZ$1.2b for the ANZACs.
 
Back to the PP fleet ...

I recently asked a CPO what 'built to civilian standards' meant in relation to the new PP fleet. He said that, as far as he knew, the ships themselves were still military spec (bulkheads, design etc) but that the machinery was commercially sourced.

Can anyone comment on this?
 
mug said:
Back to the PP fleet ...

I recently asked a CPO what 'built to civilian standards' meant in relation to the new PP fleet. He said that, as far as he knew, the ships themselves were still military spec (bulkheads, design etc) but that the machinery was commercially sourced.

Can anyone comment on this?
Click to expand...

I'm no maritime expert but I understand this can (like most things!) have a number of different interpretations. I guess the key difference is that Military vessels must be designed to operate autonomously and if something fails it shouldn't be enough to prevent the mission - hence all systems are designed with not only shock-impact resistance, but also multiple systems redundancy (ie: every system has a back-up; dual inputs sources; dual output sources etc, etc).

With regard to the hulls I understand this means there is fewer bulkheads & possibly less stringent requirement for watertightness - but that's not to say those aspects are not met. Remember they still must meet commercial shipping standards which are generally fairly stringent.

I have heard that the RNZN makes no secret of the fact that the new PP vessels will not have the 'survivability' of true military spec vessels (if attacked) but that they will still carry damage-control equipment over & above what you would expect in a commercial vessel. This is basically due to them not being designed for front-line combat operations.

I'd argue the MRV must have high 'survivability' simply because of the fact it will have so many persons on board (hell you can replace equipment!). A recent Navy News article describes the MRV as having 17 'voids' (hull cavities) that almost make it a double-hulled vessel. They are designed to ensure that if the vessel goes down, it remains upright to enable life-saving equipment to be used until the very last moment - that's a rather smart concept which I'd suggest is the result of a 'commercial' spec rather than a military one!?!

As far as mission systems go they are commercially sourced & supported, which is not necessarily a bad thing as they are less likely to be 'orphaned' - although suppliers can go bust!!!

The PP vessels are certainly getting military spec comm's & weapons (altho' the latter is surely a given!).
 
5 ships that can be deployed? The RNZN has 7 ships that can be deployed (as of 2007)
2 ANZAC Frigates
2 OPV's
1 MRV
1 Replenishg ship
1 Hydrographic survey

Ships that can not be deployed:
1 Diving Tender
4 Patrol Boats

As I stated earlier, the OPV's are a very capable ship when witha a frigate. It can support the frigate in assaults and with its armed helicopter, it is very substantial. The MRV will probably not deploy without escort either.
 
NZ will have these ships within its operating fleet but its very doubtful under the current number of ANZACs that they will be able to deploy both at the same time. Its more likely to be one, as the other will be in for maintenence or overseas on routine patrol. It would simply take too long for the frigate to get back in time for a deployment to be made else where.

I believe that NZ should have a 3rd ANZAC for this very reason, so 2 frigates can protect the other units, when needed.

Also i think we are stretched somewhat on our numbers of SH-2Gs on this very basis. The RNZN have 5 of them but i would calculate that another 3-4 should be purchased for use on our units. Here are the following stats i believe would help within our fleet.

2 x SH-2Gs (ANZACs)
1 x SH-2G (MRV)
2 x SH-2Gs (OPVS)

2 x SH-2Gs (Training)
1 x SH-2G (Spare Parts)

You are right. The MRV wont be deployed unless it hass a proper escort.




NZLAV said:
5 ships that can be deployed? The RNZN has 7 ships that can be deployed (as of 2007)
2 ANZAC Frigates
2 OPV's
1 MRV
1 Replenishg ship
1 Hydrographic survey

Ships that can not be deployed:
1 Diving Tender
4 Patrol Boats

As I stated earlier, the OPV's are a very capable ship when witha a frigate. It can support the frigate in assaults and with its armed helicopter, it is very substantial. The MRV will probably not deploy without escort either.
Click to expand...
 
Agree re lack of SH-2g's,Pacific Wings July 2006 issue Pg 25 " 6 Sqn is directed to be able to embark three of its five airframes (SH-2gs) at any-one time".Obviously purchased for an envisioned 3 Frigate Navy at the time , so everyone will have to share!!!
 
New Zealand has five ships that can carry a Seasprite helicopter, Te Kaha, Te Mana, Canterbury, Otago, and Wellington. While the Endeavour has a hangar and deck for a light helicopter, the medieum Seasprite helicopter won't fit into its hangar.

And since New Zealand will probably never ever deploy all of these ships at the same time, there should always be a Seasprite left behind in New Zealand. More than half the time there will probably be two left behind.

I do not see the need for more new Seasprites, surely a few used ones can be bought or leased from America. While New Zealand was waiting for its new Seasprites they leased three used helicopters from America. While they may not be the newest or latest versions of the Seasprites, they should fill any unforseen shortfall in an emergency.

Plus, I would rather have extra Air Force NH90s or LUHs, than extra Seasprites. They would be able to fill the search and rescue roles of the Seasprites on both the OPVs and MRV in a jam better than leasing used American Seasprites.
 
Last edited:
Personally i do see the sense in having another 3 air frames that are in good working order and as mentioned perhaps bought second hand, and in working condition.

I saw how delicate the proportion of spreading the numbers of SH-2Gs were when one of our Seasprites was damaged on board the Te Kaha recently when under going callebration tests. So to be able to replace and augment the replacement quickly is critical to the Navys resolve of being able to operate efficiently and effectively.

In my view the LUH or NH90 would not be a valid replacement for a SH-2G if it was ever damaged or lost, as it doesnt have the kitted out weapons system and the room to store the NH90 on the ANZAC. Maybe i stand corrected on that last statement.
 
Markus40 said:
Personally i do see the sense in having another 3 air frames that are in good working order and as mentioned perhaps bought second hand, and in working condition.

I saw how delicate the proportion of spreading the numbers of SH-2Gs were when one of our Seasprites was damaged on board the Te Kaha recently when under going callebration tests. So to be able to replace and augment the replacement quickly is critical to the Navys resolve of being able to operate efficiently and effectively.

In my view the LUH or NH90 would not be a valid replacement for a SH-2G if it was ever damaged or lost, as it doesnt have the kitted out weapons system and the room to store the NH90 on the ANZAC. Maybe i stand corrected on that last statement.
Click to expand...

I wonder if we are not seeing some learnings in the NH90 purchase where an attrition replacement has also been bought.

IMO the LUH (such as the 109 or the 635) would be my prefered OPV chopper, to free up the Seasprites for overseas deployments, and conserve airframe hours.
 
An armed varient would be good, but I don't see that happening unless they decide to use them an naval helis. I would like to see armed varients in the army too, to support the LAV's. Our capibilities will increase dramatically then. Agree?
 
The NH90 is also thin in numbers as currently not meeting the overall spread of their operational requirements over the humanitarian and military spectrums. However, i do think its quite possible that the NZ Government at some stage down track will add further numbers to bolster the attrition rate and add extras to increase our defence posture.

I am hoping the government will augment the OPVs with a SH-2G each as this will enhance their maritime capabilities, compatible communications with the OPVs and AGM missions if required over water. Iam uncertain wether the LUH would be as effective in a maritime environment that would take on the same operational requirements and demands that a SH-2G would.



Whiskyjack said:
I wonder if we are not seeing some learnings in the NH90 purchase where an attrition replacement has also been bought.

IMO the LUH (such as the 109 or the 635) would be my prefered OPV chopper, to free up the Seasprites for overseas deployments, and conserve airframe hours.
Click to expand...
 
The LUH ceratinly would'nt have the search radar capability of the Seaprite so this would limit its detection range, however for other utility roles operating in close proximity to the OPV's it would probably do quite a good job, the lift capacity would be somewhat reduced however.
 
KH-12 said:
The LUH ceratinly would'nt have the search radar capability of the Seaprite so this would limit its detection range, however for other utility roles operating in close proximity to the OPV's it would probably do quite a good job, the lift capacity would be somewhat reduced however.
Click to expand...

Agree, although, I harbour fond hopes that small ship launched UAVs will enter the inventory over the next decade, that can vector in a chopper etc.....we shall see I guess:p:
 
KH-12 said:
Some nice shots of Canterbury here taken in the North Sea , unfortunately they are quite low resolution :

http://www.defence.govt.nz/acquisitions-tenders/current-acquisition-projects/project-protector-progress.html

Also note that the LUH decision is slated to go for government approval in the 3rd quarter of 2006 , which I guess is before the end of September.
Click to expand...

I would think mid to late October for a decision then, although remember that the NH90 went to cabinet for approval in May 2005! Final decision late July 2006.

We shall see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top