NZDF General discussion thread

[Aussie Digger]

Caught up with ex RNIR Officer,his view Low intensity, get everyone trained,Facilities set up, lead times etc set up for a Division looking at 1-2 years. High intensity 2-3.It could be all over rover by then. So it looks like a light Brigade (2 Lav111, 1 trucked BN plus supporting Signals,Engineers ,light Artillery etc) would be all we could do in the early stages ,first year at least.

It seems unlikely to me that a NZ Infantry battalion would deploy with 12x Javelin launchers, given an overall force of 24x, with 2x Battalions, a LAV Regiment (QAR), SAS and training units all to be equipped with Javelin.

At best a Battalion would deploy with 6-8 launchers. Other major assets (ie: 81mm Mortars and 105mm Artillery guns) would be issued on a similar basis.

ANY Battalion is therefore going to do the "workups" and qualifiy on the capabilities it needs for a particular deployment.

The equipment and capabilities may therefore be kept "in country" and the Battalions or sub-units conducting "relief in place" operations.

I think the "1 battalion" scenario is the best NZ could possibly deploy without a significant lead up time and unfortunately wars ALWAYS seem to be a "come as you are" type scenario, despite politicans and academics believing otherwise...

 

[Sea Toby]

Only one of the 28 ex-Pakistan F-16s had flown 20 hours. All of them were sitting in the bone yard at Tucson at least 5 years back when the last National government held power.

That is a long time ago and the aircraft were not the newest. All of the aircraft had flown and were accepted by Pakistan. Unfortunately due to Pakistan''s nuclear capability, the US cancelled their sale.

New Zealand, looking to upgrade its fighter force, found and sought these aircraft. The lease and price for these cream puffs was very favorable, a sweetheart deal. New Zealand would have acquired these aircraft for less than the price of the AB.339s.

While Lockheed is still building F-16s for the international market, the USAF have not acquired any for several years. None of the foreign sales have been cancelled since. Any new F-16 purchase today would either be considerably used F-16s from the USAF. The aircraft probably won't be any better or newer than the Pakistanian aircraft. Of course New Zealand could acquire newly built aircraft, but at a much higher expense.

Keep in mind when the F-35 goes into full production the same factory that builds the F-16 will have to close the line down once and for all.

If the New Zealand combat air group is renewed, in the future I believe any of its aircraft will be used. Since New Zealand cannot afford a modern fighter, the best New Zealand could hope for in my humble opinion is a trainer/light fighter. And I believe the best new light fighter/trainer available today is South Korea's T/F-50 Golden Eagle. But until new aircraft are built, New Zealand faces using its old AB.339s for a while. The old modernized A-4s are becoming relics, more money would probably have to be funded to keep them alive now than the cancelled F-16 lease and purchase.

Labour knew what it was doing during 2001. I doubt whether the air combat force can be reinstituded as it once was. Its gone. Frankly, I think it will be better to acquire more helicopters and arm them better now. Think in terms of a fighter less US Marine Corps.

 

[Lucasnz]

Labour knew what it was doing during 2001. I doubt whether the air combat force can be reinstituded as it once was. Its gone. Frankly, I think it will be better to acquire more helicopters and arm them better now. Think in terms of a fighter less US Marine Corps.

I think reinstating the Air Combat Force, while problematic is not impossible. The purchase of attack helicopters has been raised by Helen Clark on occasion. I personally don't think it'll work because any savings in buying attack helicopters will be offset by the increase in terms of sealift / airlift that NZ would require to deploy them. Just look at ET one our Air lift was maxed out, so deploying attack helicopters on top of that would require at less 2-3 more C-130's. F/A aircraft can at least fly themselves to an airfield, and only need the Herc's to fly in Logisitcs.

 

[Gibbo]

I think reinstating the Air Combat Force, while problematic is not impossible. The purchase of attack helicopters has been raised by Helen Clark on occasion. I personally don't think it'll work because any savings in buying attack helicopters will be offset by the increase in terms of sealift / airlift that NZ would require to deploy them. Just look at ET one our Air lift was maxed out, so deploying attack helicopters on top of that would require at less 2-3 more C-130's. F/A aircraft can at least fly themselves to an airfield, and only need the Herc's to fly in Logisitcs.

Helen Clark has raised attack helicopters?...crikey...when?

I have made written submissions to both Phill Goff & Wayne Mapp in the last 6 months re: NZ defence issues. In reply the former has ruled out attack helicopters & the latter has clearly poured cold water on reinstatement of a combat air capability.

I am due to meet & discuss the issue with Wayne Mapp further - will provide an update after that has occurred.

 

[dave dastardly]

Not on topic, but related (from Stuff):

Elite SAS soldiers awarded rare honour
By IAN STUART - NZPA | Wednesday, 23 May 2007

It was almost as if the elite New Zealand Special Air Services soldier did not want an accolade from United States President George W Bush.
His Presidential Unit Citation disappeared rapidly into the pocket of his army camouflage trousers as soon as Defence Minister Phil Goff presented it to him today.
The SAS soldier – who can not be identified – seemed uncomfortable with his public honour at what was a rare event in SAS history today at the Papakura Military Camp, South Auckland.
Usually the SAS operates well out of the public eye, its activities shrouded in secrecy.
The soldier was one of nearly 200 fighting men and women from the 1 NZSAS group who received the ribbon of the award bestowed on them by Mr Bush in 2004.
The presidential citation read that it was for "extraordinary heroism and outstanding performance of duty in action against the enemy in Afghanistan".
The SAS were deployed into the heart of the war against terrorism a month after the September 11 attack on New York, in 2001.
The ribbon took three years to reach the soldiers at their Papakura base because uniform regulations required a different mounting bar for the New Zealand army uniform.
The citation was rarely awarded to American military units, let alone units outside the US, said American defence attache to New Zealand, navy captain Rick Martinez.
"This is a very special award. All New Zealanders should be very proud of this SAS group," he said.
The last time a presidential unit citation was awarded to any country other than an American military unit, was in 1966.
That also went to a New Zealand army unit – 161 Battery, Royal New Zealand Artillery – for its work in Vietnam in 1965 and 1966.
Today was different for another reason – it was the first time journalists were allowed inside the SAS compound at the camp, but under severe restrictions.
Photographs could be taken, but not so they showed SAS soldiers' faces. The soldiers could not be named and had earlier been ordered to say nothing to journalists.
The media was told if they did not sign an order agreeing not to identify SAS soldiers (to allow the soldiers to do their job safely and properly) they would be escorted off the base.
The SAS commanding officer, who was also on the unidentifiable list, told the troops their mission as members of Task Force K-Bar in support of the US war on terrorism was a success.
It was to destroy, degrade and neutralise the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan.
They did so with one dead (an Australian soldier) and two wounded (both New Zealanders) in a display of tenacity, outstanding courage, tactical brilliance and operational excellence, he said.
The soldiers, men and women, were presented with their ribbons by Mr Goff, Capt Martinez, army chief Major General Lou Gardiner, and Navy deputy chief Rear Admiral Jack Steer.
After the presentation Mr Goff told them the SAS "prides itself on its discreet and unassuming nature.
"I know it does not seek or even welcome accolades. However, I believe New Zealanders would want to be aware of, and acknowledge your contribution and achievement," Mr Goff said.
After the ceremony Mr Goff said it was not only a day for the SAS unit to be proud, it was a day for the entire country to be proud to have "such a body of defence force people that serve so efficiently and so courageously on their behalf".

 

[recce.k1]

Helen Clark has raised attack helicopters?...crikey...when?

I have made written submissions to both Phill Goff & Wayne Mapp in the last 6 months re: NZ defence issues. In reply the former has ruled out attack helicopters & the latter has clearly poured cold water on reinstatement of a combat air capability.

I am due to meet & discuss the issue with Wayne Mapp further - will provide an update after that has occurred.

G'day Gibbo,
When you meet Wayne Mapp, can you ask him why the opposition asks such lame questions of the govt on defence issues in parliamentary debates. For example, especially in the case of opposition foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully, they try to "catch" the govt out on cost over runs and delays (eg NH90's, Protector patrol vessels etc). Now compared the costs/delays to some of the well known Aussie purchases (Seasprite, 737 Wedgetails, M113's etc) NZ's are really quite trivial. You can see what I mean if you search the parliamentary records (sorry I can't post links till I reach 15 posts). Eg Multi-Role Vessel. Instead of harping on about a 4 month delay what about questions along the lines of "why isn't an important vessel that will carry around 300 troops and crew, dozens of LAV's and LOV's, helicopters, all worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not equipped with basic self-defence weapons systems (eg Phallanx) to guard against anti-ship missiles or aircraft threats?" Which is a distinct possibilty if faced with another East Timor intervention type operation. Ditto basic self protection for the OPV's, which no doubt will be employed in UN type support operations.

 

[Lucasnz]

G'day Gibbo,
When you meet Wayne Mapp, can you ask him why the opposition asks such lame questions of the govt on defence issues in parliamentary debates. For example, especially in the case of opposition foreign affairs spokesman Murray McCully, they try to "catch" the govt out on cost over runs and delays (eg NH90's, Protector patrol vessels etc). Now compared the costs/delays to some of the well known Aussie purchases (Seasprite, 737 Wedgetails, M113's etc) NZ's are really quite trivial. You can see what I mean if you search the parliamentary records (sorry I can't post links till I reach 15 posts). Eg Multi-Role Vessel. Instead of harping on about a 4 month delay what about questions along the lines of "why isn't an important vessel that will carry around 300 troops and crew, dozens of LAV's and LOV's, helicopters, all worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not equipped with basic self-defence weapons systems (eg Phallanx) to guard against anti-ship missiles or aircraft threats?" Which is a distinct possibilty if faced with another East Timor intervention type operation. Ditto basic self protection for the OPV's, which no doubt will be employed in UN type support operations.

Couldn't have said it better myself

 

[Sea Toby]

National is inquiring about costs overruns, suggesting Labour is spending too much. On the other hand you are suggesting Labour is spending enough because they chose to build lesser capable ships cheap. Isn't this a Catch 22?

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Not necessarily, cost overuns point to poor procedures in the initial tender perhaps, or the failure to enact a fixed price contract to prevent below cost tenders being recieved.

"Why isn't an important vessel that will carry around 300 troops and crew, dozens of LAV's and LOV's, helicopters, all worth hundreds of millions of dollars, not equipped with basic self-defence weapons systems (eg Phallanx) to guard against anti-ship missiles or aircraft threats?" Which is a distinct possibilty if faced with another East Timor intervention type operation. Ditto basic self protection for the OPV's, which no doubt will be employed in UN type support operations.

Agree totally. Phalanx/searam/ram though would have to go where the 25mm is as the funnell design procludes placing on the superstructure, probably too heavy for such a location anyway. Or the 57mm Bofors in the bow, with the 3P ammunition it seems a capable allround weapon. Even a couple of Sinbad mistral launchers would be better than nothing. My pick would be the 57mm or Searam in A position, plus 2 bushmasters with intergrated mistral P and S.

Just reading some financial stats for 2007 and it states that defence expenditure for the current year is 3% of gdp. I'm gobsmacked! See the pie charts and be amazed.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2007/taxpayers/

Two more site covering defence expenditure for 2007+

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2007/vote-defence-force-main-estimates-2007.pdf

http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/2007/nzdf-soi-07-08.pdf

 

[swerve]

...
Just reading some financial stats for 2007 and it states that defence expenditure for the current year is 3% of gdp. I'm gobsmacked! See the pie charts and be amazed.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2007/taxpayers/
...

No, 3% of government expenditure - "Core Crown Expenses". A little lower down, in the chart headed "Government 2007/8 Key Fiscal Aggregates", "Core Crown Expenses" is stated to be 32.4% of GDP. That means defence expenditure is about 1% of GDP.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

Yes your right, guess I got a bit excited hehe. Seems vote defence is about $1,900,000,000 (looks better expanded) for the next 12 mouths, including the capital charge, with depreciation of about $345M, and $590M earmarked for capital items.

 

[recce.k1]

National is inquiring about costs overruns, suggesting Labour is spending too much. On the other hand you are suggesting Labour is spending enough because they chose to build lesser capable ships cheap. Isn't this a Catch 22?

I simply meant that the opposition spends its time trying to "catch out" the govt on costs/delays, and whilst there is a place for this, it doesn't put alot of effort into "catching out" the govt on lack of capabilities. I can give some examples when I reach 15 posts (to post links) and if this is still of interest by then.

On the other hand I do applaud the govt's efforts to sort out a plan for the NZDF, eg $3.5B - 10 LTDP funding plans, $4.5B increasing pay, modernising infrastructure and bases, replacing ammo reserves, inessence upgrading or replacing almost all air/sea/land assets. By doing this, the govt is providing certainty especially for the troops, who have had to make do with many many years of outdated equipment or equipment that breaks down (eg the vietnam era radios that were replaced recently)!

But like many other kiwis in this forum, I think the govt could do just that little bit more. Eg in my opinion, the govt does have the financial ability to increase the 10 year LTDP from $3.5b to say $5-6b, (compared to Australia's $50b LTDP) and this would pay for, perhaps 2x C17's at $1b? (and let's replace the C130's with the A400 once the C130's reach the end of their upgraded lives) - we need these aircraft to move LAV's quiclky, the army's containerised field hospitals, which have never been deployed because there is no real system in place to do so quickly) etc. Perhaps a couple of properly equipped MCM/diving boats (as outlined in the Maritime patrol review) - cost $300m???, tracked armed reconnaissance vehicles (the LAV's have their place but we now have no tracked capability). Perhaps more NH90's. Perhaps more Navy choppers (5 Seasprites for 5 vessells ain't going to work)! Perhaps the MB339's to allow pilots gain fast jet experience and to train the Navy and army against fast jet attacks etc etc etc. We all have our wish lists and the above is simply basic capability that is lacking now or would enhance what we already have. The other thing is govt policy is directed towards assets that have a peace time role as well (not a purely war fighting role, but believe me I'd love to see air combat squadrons and even submarines for deterence and special forces operations, but I don't think so) hence the above will meet this. So these are some examples of the things that I expect our opposition should be raising in debates etc. Perhaps the opposition (and govt) need to recruit former military types (there are plenty of retired generals, admirals and air vice marshalls around the place)!

 

[Markus40]

Actually you are right on one point here that National could start pressing its point over what Defence needs to cover than what Labour is doing wrong due to cost over runs ets, which by the way is a fact of life with a lot of Military purchases. Labour has covered a good part of our defence needs for now but i do think there is room for improvement.

I strongly agree that we will need more seasprites down the road, but the biggie is another frigate. 2 of the ANZACs are not cutting it. You send one away on deployment in the gulf and another on exercises or in dry dock then you have nothing. So we need another frigate. I think the C17 is beyond our reach for different reasons. I personally think for multi supply and deployment we will need our 6 C130s. C17s are nice but 2 wouldnt cut it for our own needs. We simply dont have the strategic element requirements like Australia and canada does. I think we are doing well here for the moment on this issue but i agree the A400M is a very good replacement option for range and capacity for the RNZAF.

Cheers.

I simply meant that the opposition spends its time trying to "catch out" the govt on costs/delays, and whilst there is a place for this, it doesn't put alot of effort into "catching out" the govt on lack of capabilities. I can give some examples when I reach 15 posts (to post links) and if this is still of interest by then.

On the other hand I do applaud the govt's efforts to sort out a plan for the NZDF, eg $3.5B - 10 LTDP funding plans, $4.5B increasing pay, modernising infrastructure and bases, replacing ammo reserves, inessence upgrading or replacing almost all air/sea/land assets. By doing this, the govt is providing certainty especially for the troops, who have had to make do with many many years of outdated equipment or equipment that breaks down (eg the vietnam era radios that were replaced recently)!

But like many other kiwis in this forum, I think the govt could do just that little bit more. Eg in my opinion, the govt does have the financial ability to increase the 10 year LTDP from $3.5b to say $5-6b, (compared to Australia's $50b LTDP) and this would pay for, perhaps 2x C17's at $1b? (and let's replace the C130's with the A400 once the C130's reach the end of their upgraded lives) - we need these aircraft to move LAV's quiclky, the army's containerised field hospitals, which have never been deployed because there is no real system in place to do so quickly) etc. Perhaps a couple of properly equipped MCM/diving boats (as outlined in the Maritime patrol review) - cost $300m???, tracked armed reconnaissance vehicles (the LAV's have their place but we now have no tracked capability). Perhaps more NH90's. Perhaps more Navy choppers (5 Seasprites for 5 vessells ain't going to work)! Perhaps the MB339's to allow pilots gain fast jet experience and to train the Navy and army against fast jet attacks etc etc etc. We all have our wish lists and the above is simply basic capability that is lacking now or would enhance what we already have. The other thing is govt policy is directed towards assets that have a peace time role as well (not a purely war fighting role, but believe me I'd love to see air combat squadrons and even submarines for deterence and special forces operations, but I don't think so) hence the above will meet this. So these are some examples of the things that I expect our opposition should be raising in debates etc. Perhaps the opposition (and govt) need to recruit former military types (there are plenty of retired generals, admirals and air vice marshalls around the place)!

 

[Lucasnz]

Actually you are right on one point here that National could start pressing its point over what Defence needs to cover than what Labour is doing wrong due to cost over runs ets, which by the way is a fact of life with a lot of Military purchases. Labour has covered a good part of our defence needs for now but i do think there is room for improvement.

I strongly agree that we will need more seasprites down the road, but the biggie is another frigate. 2 of the ANZACs are not cutting it. You send one away on deployment in the gulf and another on exercises or in dry dock then you have nothing. So we need another frigate. I think the C17 is beyond our reach for different reasons. I personally think for multi supply and deployment we will need our 6 C130s. C17s are nice but 2 wouldnt cut it for our own needs. We simply dont have the strategic element requirements like Australia and canada does. I think we are doing well here for the moment on this issue but i agree the A400M is a very good replacement option for range and capacity for the RNZAF.

Cheers.

I agree about the need for a 3rd frigate, but I would question whether the purchase of a single hull would be economical. We would have to buy something alreadly been built, with a similar weapons and electronics outfit to what the upgraded ANZAC's will get. However it might to be viable if we build a 3rd hull as part of the ANZAC upgrade - So that we get economy of scale in purchasing new equipment been fitted.

The statement of intent shows that the OPV's are to take over the ANZAC's role of meeting short term security challenges to NZ and in the South Pacific. This I think really highlights the need to upgrade the capability of the OPV's, regardless of whether 3rd frigate was acquired.

Additional SH-2G would be nice, but the LUH should be able to supplement the Sea Sprite and hopefully carry dumb weapons like the Wasp use to, including Mk 46 or MU90. Tend to agree about the C17 and the A400

 

[Tasman]

I agree about the need for a 3rd frigate, but I would question whether the purchase of a single hull would be economical. We would have to buy something alreadly been built, with a similar weapons and electronics outfit to what the upgraded ANZAC's will get. However it might to be viable if we build a 3rd hull as part of the ANZAC upgrade - So that we get economy of scale in purchasing new equipment been fitted.

Its been mentioned before but I think a win/win for both countries would be the transfer of an upgraded Anzac from Australia with the RAN replacing it with a fourth air warfare destroyer.


I agree with the need for more helos and I also agree that the A400M looks to be a good long term option for the Kiwi transport fleet.

Cheers

 

[recce.k1]

Yes, I fully agree with the sentiments that a third Frigate is a necessity (I simply didn't add it in before as I was quickly typing)! It seems things revolve multiples of 3 eg one Frigate on deployment, one in dry dock, leaving one to "guard" NZ (or two on deployment/exercises and one in dry dock etc). The cheapest path to achieving would be Tasman's idea, although LucasNZ's idea would work too (but the present administration doesn't believe in a third frigate, short of changing their leader or the opposition winning the next election perhaps). So I think it is good that we are all talking about these issues, whatever form a third Frigate might take, as maybe these viewpoints here could gain traction with the wider NZ population in time.

But then we need to think about the issue that other people will raise in public (that was first raised when the ANZAC Frigate project was announced in the 1980's), are we better of with a third Frigate or say two (or three) missile armed Corvette's (along side the two ANZAC Frigates of course)! What would be the pros and cons etc?

Regarding the C17 v A400 issue. I really don't care as long as one of them is purchased in time as they will have significantly more carrying capacity than the C130 (which leads to another question, why are the US aircraft manufacturers not making a bigger version of the C130 or Blackhawk etc, as they are only going to lose worldwide market share to the A400 and NH90 etc). My only issue here is that the C17 is available now, and we have no real means to deploy LAV's (or a replacment Seasprite to the Gulf as happened a few years ago). Granted we can make do with hiring Antonov's or possibly calling upon RAAF C17's (& USAF C17's a la last SAS deployment), but similarly a couple of our own would also assist the other way eg assist with Australian deployments. The RNZAF was asking for 8 C130J's at $800M alongside the RAAF order a few years back (but cancelled by the govt in 2002), so I don't think that $1B for a couple of C17's would be unacceptable nowadays. What might also be important for NZ is how the A400 would handle Antarctic operations as the C17 seems to handle the ice ok. Anyway you guys are also right, the A400 will nicely fit NZ's needs in a few years and will be much more affordable than a C17! Like I say let's hope we get one or the other (and not more upgraded C130's)!

 

[Markus40]

I made mention in a previous comment that it may be better for NZ to purchase the HMAS ANZAC and the Australians go for a 4th AAW Destroyer. I think that would be a better idea. I have also been a strong advocate of the OPVs being upgraded to Frigate status despite the opposition on this forum in response to the gap in the maritime naval forces that i have laid out.

It would seem to me sensible for the OPV to be fitted with a survellience radar and even possibly harpoons at the rear. And to be fitted with Mini typhoons. If the upgraded OPVs could be advanced then this would in many ways solve this problem.

I agree about the need for a 3rd frigate, but I would question whether the purchase of a single hull would be economical. We would have to buy something alreadly been built, with a similar weapons and electronics outfit to what the upgraded ANZAC's will get. However it might to be viable if we build a 3rd hull as part of the ANZAC upgrade - So that we get economy of scale in purchasing new equipment been fitted.

The statement of intent shows that the OPV's are to take over the ANZAC's role of meeting short term security challenges to NZ and in the South Pacific. This I think really highlights the need to upgrade the capability of the OPV's, regardless of whether 3rd frigate was acquired.

Additional SH-2G would be nice, but the LUH should be able to supplement the Sea Sprite and hopefully carry dumb weapons like the Wasp use to, including Mk 46 or MU90. Tend to agree about the C17 and the A400

 

[Tasman]

I made mention in a previous comment that it may be better for NZ to purchase the HMAS ANZAC and the Australians go for a 4th AAW Destroyer.

Yes, I commented that the idea had been mentioned before but I should have acknowledged your post! I think it has also been suggested in the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer thread and/or in Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates.

Re the OPVs my thoughts are that it is always good to have the capacity to upgrade patrol vessels. This used to be a long standing custom with the ocean going cutters and the icebreakers of the US Coast Guard which in times of war could mount up to 4x 5" guns. Even if not mounted in peacetime I think patrol vessels are one category where I support the concept of 'fitted for but not with', with a pool of weapons held in store ready to be deployed if and when required. I don't support this concept for major combat ships as they might find themselves already in a hot spot when a conflict arises.

Cheers

 

[Markus40]

Absolutely, the OPVs can be a major asset to NZs overall maritime naval forces if they do have the capacity to be fitted for certain defensive and offensive weapon systems. I really do think the OPV should be fitted with proper radar to start with, so they can see in the dark and on the horizon at least. Otherwise even in their fisheries role they are not going to get to see anything and basically float on by. A very hit and miss exercise and to me is non sensible and doesnt have any meaning to Patrol and EEZ survellience whether in the Navy role or Fisheries role.

This is something that National should be debating about. Second, the Seasprite needs the Mav. If not then its a dead duck in the water and third a CIWS for self protection. Even the Mini Tythoon would do the job.

In my opinion a 83 meter patrol vessel like the OPV has significant length, and isnt a small Naval vessel. It has the ability to conduct a multitude of tasks if required and like you said it could be ready with a pool of weapons if needed. The OPV in my opinion has significant range at 6000 NM so their are good opportunities for it to be multi tasked but with the multi tasking requires good self protection, especially at greater distances.

The MRV Canterbury is very thin on its self defences. It desperatly needs at least 2 x CIWS fitted immediatly and fitted with a small point missile system for air defence. Most of all HQ vessels like the MRVs would need this on board if transitting a war zone or red zone at least. Thats the basics for any Naval forces.

Cheers.

Yes, I commented that the idea had been mentioned before but I should have acknowledged your post! I think it has also been suggested in the Australian Air Warfare Destroyer thread and/or in Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates.

Re the OPVs my thoughts are that it is always good to have the capacity to upgrade patrol vessels. This used to be a long standing custom with the ocean going cutters and the icebreakers of the US Coast Guard which in times of war could mount up to 4x 5" guns. Even if not mounted in peacetime I think patrol vessels are one category where I support the concept of 'fitted for but not with', with a pool of weapons held in store ready to be deployed if and when required. I don't support this concept for major combat ships as they might find themselves already in a hot spot when a conflict arises.

Cheers

 

[Lucasnz]

But then we need to think about the issue that other people will raise in public (that was first raised when the ANZAC Frigate project was announced in the 1980's), are we better of with a third Frigate or say two (or three) missile armed Corvette's (along side the two ANZAC Frigates of course)! What would be the pros and cons etc?

I've been thinking on an off about this for a few years now, so here's may take.

In 1947, when NZ formulated its frigate navy policy the frigate could be seen as a single role warship with other weapons to round out their capability. For example the Loch were ASW, while the Bay class were AA versions. With the RN Tribal class in the 1950's, frigates began to evolve into general purpose warships and increase in speed from the 20kts of WWII. The Leanders, while General Purpose only ever had a limited all round weapons outfit, but were big on sensors.

In contrast a ANZAC frigate capabilities far exceed that of the of even a WWII cruiser in many respects. For example fully armed (with VLS fwd & aft, Towed array, Harpoon) provides a general purpose warship with all round combat capability, capable of operating independently or as part of a larger fleet, where speeds are higher.

The outfit of weapons and growth in sensors reflects changes in technology and naval warfare in part. I would suggest there has also be an incremental increase in the overall capability of frigates due to the decline of traditional fleet units, such as the Cruiser and Destroyer.

It maybe that the term Frigate / Cruiser / Destroyer become a single type of vessel (e.g: Fleet Combatant). All this raises the question of whether the corvette has replaced the frigate as the ship of small nations. By corvette I'm meaning a blue water capable of ship (like the WWI Flower class etc), capable of operating independently in low-medium level operations, rather than the high level operations which frigates are designed for.

So for NZ I would suggest maybe we look at the advantages of acquiring 2-2500 tonne corvettes, fitted with a weapons outfit similar to the Leanders, but with reduced sensors (say maybe something like the Floreal or Thetis class), and a speed of around 24kts. In terms of numbers 3-4 Max, in lieu of a 3rd ANZAC.
Advantages I see are

• More survellance capability
• Allow NZ to contribute to its own security etc
• Allow for operations requiring NFS in the South Pacific when ANZAC not available
• Keeps the OPV focused on its core role of EEZ / Resource Protection
• More politically acceptable

Disadvantages

• Increased operating costs and through life costs (including logisitcs, maintanance, upgrade costs) for the navy to absord. I would suspect the cost of operating 2 corvette's would easily exceed 1 ANZAC.
• Manning issues for the navy
  

I don't thing corvettes should replace the ANZAC's but I'm thinking they might be a good complement to them.

Sorry for been so long winded.