Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

Well, another option would be "surveillance frigates" on a similar tune to the French Floreal. France also uses them in the South Pacific after all.

More range than you'll ever need.

Any idea what a Floreal Corvette typically costs?

Whilst I agree with comments that Frigates are good all-round ships for NZ's multitude of needs (and dealing with a multitude of air, ship, sub, missile threats), I also agree with Lucasnz's viewpoint that long range Corvettes (perhaps without as much fire-power as a Frigate) would be useful for short-range escort around the South Pacific, Darwin to Timor to Singapore etc.

The Floreal has the range to get from here to a trouble spot - 10000 nautical miles at 15 knots - and no doubt there are other types, but as pointed out if the cost is just under a Frigate's then perhaps what's the point.

I think Lucasnz, myself and maybe some others realise the political issues here of buying more Frigates, if Corevettes could be purchased at half the price well then it becomes more politically viable and gives NZ more hulls (assuming 2 Corvettes are bought in lieu of one Frigate). Please note I do not advocate disbanding the current Frigates, ideally I'd like to see another two if possible (or else personally, 2 Frigates and 2 subs).

Bearing in mind minimising Corvette costs, what's the optimal survellience sensors and firepower? Presumably ASW sensors and torps, air search radar and anti-air/anti-missile system (short range eg ESSM not SM1/SM2), 76mm gun & CIWS. Would we need anti-ship missile eg Harpoon or Exocet? I'm not sure we do for escort (after all they aren't there to seek and destroy "enemy" forces or engage on long range patrols, that's what the Frigates are for), as presumably these systems will add significant cost and weight thus range reduction.

 

[Sea Toby]

As I recall the Anzac's did cost nearly $500 million New Zealand dollars, but their OPVs, the Otago's ran less than $90 million in New Zealand dollars. or 53 million Euros, or around a fifth of a frigate's costs. When one adds the SAMs, SSMs, a larger gun mount, ASW sonars, and the all expensive combat weapon data systems, the price of a corvette or small frigate isn't much less than a good sized frigate. The simple truth, is as noted before, for good sea keeping and good range with a frigate's weapon systems, you need a frigate. One might as well as build one.

None of the corvettes I mentioned above had the range of Auckland to Singapore's 5,202 miles as the bird flies, much less nautical miles. Australia's east coast is over 1,000 nautical miles away, and Australia is 2,000 miles across to Perth.

 

[kato]

Any idea what a Floreal Corvette typically costs?

Probably around 250 million NZD, nowadays. Would depend a lot on the systems, the hull itself is pretty cheap.
Add a sonar and light air defense (preferably something autonomous like Crotale Mk.3, not something "heavy" like ESSM), and you're probably at around 350 million. ASW weaponry itself could be handled flexible via the helo.

Morocco got their Floreals "at cost" (and with reduced systems) for a similar ~50 million Euro to the Sea Toby mentions for the Otagos, but i really doubt NZ could swing such a deal with France.

As for SSMs, France runs their Floreals with a pair of Exocets on each ship, to give the overseas fleets a limited ASuW capability. Never been used though of course, unlike the 100mm gun and the infantry capability for helo assaults.

 

[KH-12]

Probably around 250 million NZD, nowadays. Would depend a lot on the systems, the hull itself is pretty cheap.
Add a sonar and light air defense (preferably something autonomous like Crotale Mk.3, not something "heavy" like ESSM), and you're probably at around 350 million. ASW weaponry itself could be handled flexible via the helo.

Morocco got their Floreals "at cost" (and with reduced systems) for a similar ~50 million Euro to the Sea Toby mentions for the Otagos, but i really doubt NZ could swing such a deal with France.

As for SSMs, France runs their Floreals with a pair of Exocets on each ship, to give the overseas fleets a limited ASuW capability. Never been used though of course, unlike the 100mm gun and the infantry capability for helo assaults.

I suspect France may still feel some guilt regarding historical events, otherwise we could remind them The Floreals look like a slightly upscaled OPV, would be good to trade on that experience and develop a derivative vessel with the additional capability and maintain the shipbuilding capability in Whangarei.

 

[kato]

The Floreals look like a slightly upscaled OPV, would be good to trade on that experience and develop a derivative vessel with the additional capability and maintain the shipbuilding capability in Whangarei.

Exactly, that was what i was thinking. Buy the design (should be pretty cheap, couple million), modernize it somewhat and modify it for local standards, and then build it locally while reusing stocked up items if available (guns etc).

 

[Lucasnz]

Exactly, that was what i was thinking. Buy the design (should be pretty cheap, couple million), modernize it somewhat and modify it for local standards, and then build it locally while reusing stocked up items if available (guns etc).

Sea Toby is right that the range of many corvettes don't meet NZ requirements. For that reason I'd tend to agree that the upgraded Floreals would be of some benefit, especially around the South Pacific. The key issue with the I have with the Floreals & Thetis class is speed. 20kts is ok for a OPV, but not for something thats suppose to have a combat role. The new OPV designs like that proposed for the RN C3 (PM me if you need an article on one type of vessel proposed), could do the same job with modular capabilities, has a top speed of 25kts and range of 5000nm as part of a task group.

It all depends on what NZ needs as a supplement to the ANZAC's. Clearly escort of the MRV / Endeavour replacement is high on the list, NGS in the South Pacific and maybe maritime interception.

 

[Sea Toby]

To properly escort a ship I would think you would want a sonar and ASW torpedo tubes, sorry the Floreals don't have either. During a refit during the 1990s their ASW rocket launcher were removed for a Syracuse satellite dish. Not much room for growth. While the Floreal may carry a larger gun mount, and possibly 2 Exocet SSMs, that is just about it over an Otago. OPVs aren't what I consider a warship. I know frigates are considered a four letter word in New Zealand, but I wouldn't send any lesser ship into harms way.

 

[recce.k1]

I know frigates are considered a four letter word in New Zealand, but I wouldn't send any lesser ship into harms way.

Y'know, maybe the Navy ain't smart enough, perhaps for the last 40 years and up until now they should have been advocating 6000-8000 tonne Guided Missile Cruisers whenever it was time to replace a capital ship. That way, compromising by buying a Frigate instead is much cheaper and easier for the politicians and public to accept

Back to being serious but off topic - and this is just a curious historical question - does anyone know whether the RNZN advocated replacing the Cruiser Royalist in the mid 60s with another? I'm thinking something like the RN County Class or Charles F. Adams type like the RAN did. Putting aside the cost, although NZ was still relatively rich at the time, had the concept of cementing an ASW Frigate Navy ensured that anti-air Crusiers were no longer a priority? Or did pollies think that Frigates with Seacat missiles would suffice? There surely would have been a few Cruiser type advocates left in the RNZN at the time!

 

[Sea Toby]

Even before WWII New Zealand did not wish to buy cruisers, and preferred something cheaper. However, the British insisted that New Zealand would operate cruisers, in the eyes of the admiralty cruisers represented power and protected trade routes and the commonwealth's interests.

When the New Zealand navy became independent, the admiralty still had much control of their navy. WWII was being waged at that time, and conditions continued with cruisers in New Zealand's navy.

Post WWII the British still had an influence within the navy sold AA cruisers to New Zealand, to provide Australia's aircraft carriers with a proper escort. This continue until the mid-1960s when the Royalist suffered an engine casualty. By that time Australia was buying US built Adams class destroyers to replace the cruisers.

New Zealand was able to finally buy frigates. They found the Loch class frigates very useful, and replaced them with Rothesays and Leanders. By this time New Zealand dropped supporting a Far East squadron, and the Royal Navy was pulling out of East of Suez. Since the Rothesays and Leanders provided excellent ASW capability along with a helicopter, only four were built. At this time New Zealand also bought their first patrol ships, having extended their sea territory out to 12 miles.

With their Rothesays reaching their end of lives, during the early 1980s New Zealand bought two used broad beam Leanders. All along during its history the RNZN, whether controlled by the admiralty and later by the Kiwi government, has been considered a part of the Far Eastern fleet, or in combination with the Australian navy.

After the British joined the European Union, New Zealand suffer economically, and its navy looked closer to home. The first patrol boats were eventually paid off, leaving their navy with a ASW fleet of four frigates. By this time many in New Zealand questioned even a frigate fleet, never mind their usefulness protesting French nuclear testing in the South Pacific. While two Anzacs were bought and built, a third to complete the fleet wasn't. Kiwis had become cynical, not trusting Americans and the British.

After another Maritime Review, with lessons learned from East Timor, a new Labour government chose to build a new generation of fisherery patrol ships and a multi-role ship. Despite conventional wisdom, they continue to search for a smaller cheaper warship, even though in order to have good sea keeping and a suitable armament aboard a warship, a frigate fits the billing.

At the same time the Asian nations are building up their fleets with frigates and submarines, the Kiwis insist on disarmament and isolationism. Despite the reality of long peacekeeping missions becoming more and more like peacemaking missions.

Currently New Zealand has more or less laid up one of their frigates to provide technical persons to man their new patrol ships. They are recruiting abroad and authorizing huge resigning bonuses for the technical trades. Both their Anzac class frigates suffered engine casualties in the last year. You can read more at the Yankee sailor blog site.

Hopefully, New Zealand gets its technical personnel straightened out, or New Zealand is facing operating only one frigate out of two.

 

[KiwiRob]

I know frigates are considered a four letter word in New Zealand, but I wouldn't send any lesser ship into harms way.

What a load of crap, somwehow I doubt that you have ever spent much time in NZ and probably found most of you info in the bottom of a wheatbix box. The vast majority of people i know were in favor of three frigtes, most people in NZ (current labor govt exempted) are intelligent enough to realise that 3 make more sense than 2.

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

Even before WWII New Zealand did not wish to buy cruisers, and preferred something cheaper.

You mean putting aside the unsoliciated offer to buy a battlecruiser???

 

[Tasman]

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

A bit rough on the USN!

Tas

 

[Sea Toby]

What a load of crap, somwehow I doubt that you have ever spent much time in NZ and probably found most of you info in the bottom of a wheatbix box. The vast majority of people i know were in favor of three frigtes, most people in NZ (current labor govt exempted) are intelligent enough to realise that 3 make more sense than 2.

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

I read this from a book Maritime Power in the Twentieth Century, by the way a very good book, and very interesting. Here is a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=cU...LHC_1lj&sig=tKrdXHagCh3KvyEmF7jWTeqMERw&hl=en

 

[Sea Toby]

What a load of crap, somwehow I doubt that you have ever spent much time in NZ and probably found most of you info in the bottom of a wheatbix box. The vast majority of people i know were in favor of three frigtes, most people in NZ (current labor govt exempted) are intelligent enough to realise that 3 make more sense than 2.

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

I read this from a book Maritime Power in the Twentieth Century, by the way a very good book, and very interesting. Here is a link, read pages 87 and 88, or better yet google New Zealand replacement cruisers and read page 88 of the link to this book: http://books.google.com/books?id=cU...LHC_1lj&sig=tKrdXHagCh3KvyEmF7jWTeqMERw&hl=en

As for New Zealand being down to one operational frigate, read this link from the Yankee Sailor. The US sailors are still friends, although our governments don't agree on the nuclear issue, nor does it appear they ever will. You sail to Japan and receive American assistance. Thank you NOT for your graditude.

http://www.yankeesailor.us/?cat=75

Previous posts on this thread above my last post are searching for a better warship than the OPVs, but not necessarily a frigate. I suggest a frigate fits the bill to a t.

 

[Gibbo]

What a load of crap, somwehow I doubt that you have ever spent much time in NZ and probably found most of you info in the bottom of a wheatbix box. The vast majority of people i know were in favor of three frigtes, most people in NZ (current labor govt exempted) are intelligent enough to realise that 3 make more sense than 2.

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

I agree that in this day & age many (if not most) NZer's would support a 3rd frigate - if they were offered a balanced argument! Trouble is petty party politics will always put a damper on that prospect...

And as for "NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that" - well that's the trouble with NZ politicians, they follow this mantra - it's called "defence bludging"!

 

[battlensign]

What a load of crap, somwehow I doubt that you have ever spent much time in NZ and probably found most of you info in the bottom of a wheatbix box. The vast majority of people i know were in favor of three frigtes, most people in NZ (current labor govt exempted) are intelligent enough to realise that 3 make more sense than 2.

NZ doesn't need to send any ships into harms way, the US has more than enough ships for that.

Well there's that gem that represents the epitomy of Kiwi-logic that we all know and love: "Why us if some other sucker will pay for it?!?". Obviously part of the How to win friends and influence people book.

Here's the problem with that logic though.......Australia found that sort of strategy (reliance on the strategic impact of a foreign fleet in contestable waters) to be somewhat wanting in the early 1940's. Don't get me wrong, NZ doesn't have the clout to provide for its own defence against anyone who is capable of launching an attack, but as I said before - surely in any contingency an extra squadron of F-16s (given Aus only has 3 operational F/A-18 squadrons), a couple of battalions and some Frigates (3/4) would be of significant utility. Probably even on the deterrent side alone.

NZ does not appear to take defence seriously. Evidently they're on "Da fence" on that one.

Brett.

 

[recce.k1]

From an obvious greater-regional perspective, the US does put it's ships (and aircraft and soldiers) in harms way with bases in South Korea, Japan and Guam etc, on the front line to contain certain non-democratic countries around the Pacific Rim. For us lucky enough to be in NZ, or Australia & etc, we are so far removed from this front line, and away from any potential enemy it is easy to be complacent. The US doesn't ask NZ (and Australia) much, maybe a few exercises, port visits (once upon a time), contribute a Frigate or two (Australia a few more) etc. It's a cheap price for us to pay to safeguard our way of life don't you think? Whereas Australia learnt their lesson to be more self-sufficient before, during and after WW2, NZ learnt this lesson during WW2 too, but post-war this fell apart, from what I can see, some of it to do with internal political power plays within the governing Labour Party (factions wanting to get rid of NZ's wartime Labour Govt heros eg Fraser and Nash etc, who because of the WW2 experience abandoned their previous views on pacifism and isolation to embrace the US, the UN, and playing our part in Collective security). Same faction types a generation later forced the ANZUS breakdown IMO again when Labour came back into power. What we tend to get now/recently is a strange mix of embracing certain aspects of supporting collective security and certain aspects of idealism/disarmament, with it see-sawing between the two depending on who's in charge. Very frustrating for the NZDF, the public (both pro-and-anti), yet alone our neighbours, friends and allies! We're not one nor the other, the pollies can pander to left and right at the same time, eg "we support peace and disarmament (by cutting back on combat aircraft, ships and tanks) ... oh we support our collective security and are not bludgers, see we are upgrading the Navy fleet, the air force fleet and rebuilding the army". If only Orwell was alive today, he would have all the ingredients here for another thought-provoking best seller!

 

[KiwiRob]

A bit rough on the USN!

Tas

Well the US started most of the current hotspots so it's only fair that the USN supply the ships. It's not like we can sent a frigate to Afghanistan.

 

[Sea Toby]

Well the US started most of the current hotspots so it's only fair that the USN supply the ships. It's not like we can sent a frigate to Afghanistan.

The US was quite happy with the Taliban ruling Afghanistan until they failed to produce Osama Bin Laden after the terrorist attack upon the World Trade Center in which 3,000 American and world lives were killed, and thousands of more wounded. Keep in mind this terrorist organization isn't a Palestinian organization. No freedom fighters here....

How would New Zealand act if four civilian airliners were targeted at the Beehive, your gpvernor's generals house, your defence headquarters, and your tallest building for no reason whatsoever? And what about the Geneva convention accords and a formal declaration of war? Again, I repeat, no freedom fighters here, so recent new Geneva Convention accords don't apply, and many of the enemy did not wear distinctive uniforms. Thus, their detainees do not meet the definition of prisoners of war.

And as far as Iraq is concerned, Saddam Hussein thumbed the UN Security Council not allowing UN inspectors in. While you may not approve of the UN or the US actions since, many nations joined the coalition with US and British leadership. Iraqi prisoners did wear distinctive uniforms, and were released under the Geneva convention accords. No detainees were held. Isn't it interesting how people confuse one with the other?

What is the sense of having a United Nations, if despots are allowed to thumb the organization and not comply with Security Council's resolutions? Unfortunately, some think its okay to ignore and not support the UN just because they are pacifists.....

The US did release one of the detainees from Gitmo recently, there is video of him walking to the airplane in what appears to be perfect health, but when he arrived in the Middle East, he was on a stretcher. Another General Pinochet? There is also video of him walking around in perfect health afterwards.

What is the sense to send a frigate to Afghanistan? Its landlocked.

You're sending a frigate to the Arabian Sea to patrol and catch terrorists and their weapons, much like fighting piracy. As noted before, Al Quada are not freedom fighters.

 

[battlensign]

Well the US started most of the current hotspots so it's only fair that the USN supply the ships. It's not like we can sent a frigate to Afghanistan.

Good to see we are taking an intellectually mature stance and analysing the real issues only......

Brett.