But Poland and Egypt also operate the Seasprite with their OH Perry class frigates. New Zealand is not alone, all of these navies will be interested in acquiring new torpedoes. Poland is now a member of NATO. While I am not certain, both nations acquired Mk 46 torpedoes that will need to be replaced. If they want to sell MU90s, they will have to support them. Otherwise, these navies will acquire new American Mk 54 torpedoes. New Zealand has that option too.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Stuart Mackey
New Member
I have some time away with work, apologies for the delay.
Have you seen a world map at any time and compared that to New Zealand's sources of trade?
I must say that I was not aware that NZ's economy was dependent on trade with Fiji and Samoa, oh wait, its not! One could equally say that US efforts around the world are discretionary and need not be done.
Rubbish, what is discretionary or not is not determined by lines on a map, and our economic interests certainly are not. Those interests, standards of living etc, are not determined within NZ's geographic region and never have been. NZ must be able to act, as we have always done in the past, to secure its interests, the same as every other nation. 'Defence' is not a simple minded one dimensional act of beating the evil guy like a bad Hollywood movie.
I'm going to disagree here. Defence is about long term planning, just looking at events based around the current strategic environment cost NZ the air combat force. Like wise assuming that other powers external to the region to not want an active role or physical presence in the South Pacific, especially in light of declining resources and the substantial needs of many Pacific Island nations in terms of finance, is dangerous and contrary to NZ long term interests. (i.e. a 99 year lease, like Hong Kong, would bring cash flow to a PI nation and a physical presence for a out of region nation).Rocco said:
I agree that NZ interests are wider than the South Pacific, which means we need the ability to operate beyond our immediate region. I do think having the ability to operate outside of the South Pacific does not necessarily mean we have the ability to operate or influence events in the South Pacific - I highlight that small size of the Naval Combat Force, the limited sealift / airlift capability we have. All seemed aimed at supporting out of region operations rather than in region. I've increasingly of the view that we need something like the new Danish navy Absalom class (Combined combat / lift capability).
Considering the size of the RNZN, its doing well in my opinion with outside the region and within the region as is. The two frigates provide one frigate for outside missions which would be welcomed in any joint task force with other nations. The two OPVs will provide for one in any regional constable missions which would be welcomed within the region. The replenishment oiler can support the frigates for longer durations along with the OPVs within the region, and the MRV can support and lift the army for both outside and within the region missions. The four IPVs should be able to do the constable missions within New Zealand's own waters.
Of course, if New Zealand had twice the population and twice the GDP I would support a larger fleet. Unfortunately New Zealand is a small nation considering population and GDP. Much alike Uruguay, New Zealand can not crew a much larger navy, and will always be second fiddle to Australia as Uruguay is to Brazil. Some think New Zealand won't be able to fully crew the ships they have bought with Project Protector.
While Ireland may have eight OPVs in service, they do not have a frigate, nor do they have a replenishment oiler, nor do they have a MRV. For a nation with similar GDP and population, in my opinion New Zealand is doing much more with a more balanced navy.
Of course, if New Zealand had twice the population and twice the GDP I would support a larger fleet. Unfortunately New Zealand is a small nation considering population and GDP. Much alike Uruguay, New Zealand can not crew a much larger navy, and will always be second fiddle to Australia as Uruguay is to Brazil. Some think New Zealand won't be able to fully crew the ships they have bought with Project Protector.
While Ireland may have eight OPVs in service, they do not have a frigate, nor do they have a replenishment oiler, nor do they have a MRV. For a nation with similar GDP and population, in my opinion New Zealand is doing much more with a more balanced navy.
Project Protector
We are going to stuggle maning all of these ships when they arrive, as currently we have sevre shortages most notable in the engineering department (Excluding protector, we are unable to send all ships to sea due to lack of marine technicians). It may almost be a blessing in disguise having the ships delayed as they currently are, in order to build up numbers of sailors and get them trained to take the billets for the new ships.
Numbers in the RNZN are good, but the speciality positions and billets in the ships is where the number shortfall occurs.
I think we will always need frigates for the navy, the question that will come into mind though is when the anzacs are due for replacement around 2025. The opvs are predicted to do 80% of the role of an anzac. The thing that worries me is when the anzacs are due for decommisioning, will the MoD say "hey these opvs do most of the job of an anzac, lets get more of the same" which will limited the extended operations that we currently do abroad and limit our ability on the world stage as a small nation navy,
We are going to stuggle maning all of these ships when they arrive, as currently we have sevre shortages most notable in the engineering department (Excluding protector, we are unable to send all ships to sea due to lack of marine technicians). It may almost be a blessing in disguise having the ships delayed as they currently are, in order to build up numbers of sailors and get them trained to take the billets for the new ships.
Numbers in the RNZN are good, but the speciality positions and billets in the ships is where the number shortfall occurs.
I think we will always need frigates for the navy, the question that will come into mind though is when the anzacs are due for replacement around 2025. The opvs are predicted to do 80% of the role of an anzac. The thing that worries me is when the anzacs are due for decommisioning, will the MoD say "hey these opvs do most of the job of an anzac, lets get more of the same" which will limited the extended operations that we currently do abroad and limit our ability on the world stage as a small nation navy,
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Honestly, in my opinion if Australia is building its ANZAC replacement when NZ decides it needs its replacements, then it wouldn't surprise me if NZ buys a pair of ships of the same class as whatever our new ones are.
Considering that the Anzacs require over 40 technical personnel, and with the problems of recruiting technical personnel at the present time, any future frigate replacements will have to have much less technical personnel to operate the ships. I am thinking as low as 25-30.
Of course, New Zealand could go for less capable warships, and eliminate their frigate fleet. Doing so runs the risk of losing an Australian alliance. Yes, I think the New Zealand government would like to do so anyway, if foreign and regional threats are benign. On the other hand, if the pressure is on internationally with numerous threats of today, the government would find it difficult to dismiss Australian concerns.
In my opinon New Zealand's defence policy is walking on egg shells. It could go either way depending upon the situation around the world.
Of course, New Zealand could go for less capable warships, and eliminate their frigate fleet. Doing so runs the risk of losing an Australian alliance. Yes, I think the New Zealand government would like to do so anyway, if foreign and regional threats are benign. On the other hand, if the pressure is on internationally with numerous threats of today, the government would find it difficult to dismiss Australian concerns.
In my opinon New Zealand's defence policy is walking on egg shells. It could go either way depending upon the situation around the world.
manning issues
Hopefully by the time replacement of the frigates is due, technology will allow a much greater reduction of techies onbaord. Currently on the frigates The engineers are still watchkeeping in four hour shifts, this alone requires an added number of engineers just to fill the watches. Running this system also leaves you with numbers of engineers who arnt being used to their full potential. Our anzac half life upgrade is introducing more automated and intergrated systems to the frigate. The current C&M system is going and being replaced by a more user friendly intergrated platform managment system. This system will allow unmanned machinery spaces whilst in sailing mode, allow a better overview of the plant as a whole and more control from the IPMS itself. This system combined with cctv which is being installed will alow a reduction in engineers required to run the plant and cut numbers by at least a 3rd.
Using technology to reduce numbers for day to day running of the ship will also allow us to bring more on job trainnies onboard to help pump people through to ready themselfs for the new ship.
The IPMS is also more generic with the protector fleet allowing a faster intergration into the ships systems for personnel
Hopefully by the time replacement of the frigates is due, technology will allow a much greater reduction of techies onbaord. Currently on the frigates The engineers are still watchkeeping in four hour shifts, this alone requires an added number of engineers just to fill the watches. Running this system also leaves you with numbers of engineers who arnt being used to their full potential. Our anzac half life upgrade is introducing more automated and intergrated systems to the frigate. The current C&M system is going and being replaced by a more user friendly intergrated platform managment system. This system will allow unmanned machinery spaces whilst in sailing mode, allow a better overview of the plant as a whole and more control from the IPMS itself. This system combined with cctv which is being installed will alow a reduction in engineers required to run the plant and cut numbers by at least a 3rd.
Using technology to reduce numbers for day to day running of the ship will also allow us to bring more on job trainnies onboard to help pump people through to ready themselfs for the new ship.
The IPMS is also more generic with the protector fleet allowing a faster intergration into the ships systems for personnel
If it weren't for the offset package with the Anzacs, I doubt whether New Zealand would have bought their two frigates. New Zealand could go alone, ordering smaller, less capable frigates more suitable and designed to their needs, similar to the Malaysian Leikus.
With the difficulties of the Project Protector fleet, I think New Zealand may have learned that going alone also present development difficulties, that joining another program does have its advantages, especially for more technical ships.
While the Project Protector fleet is based on proven designs, there were enough changes which represent a new class. I think the problems reflect a lack of experience implementing new designs. Other nations with much more experience have had similar teething problems as well.
Lessons are being learned which should be of help in the future. Unfortunately, both political parties are more interested in scoring brownie points than actually learning from any mistakes made.
With the difficulties of the Project Protector fleet, I think New Zealand may have learned that going alone also present development difficulties, that joining another program does have its advantages, especially for more technical ships.
While the Project Protector fleet is based on proven designs, there were enough changes which represent a new class. I think the problems reflect a lack of experience implementing new designs. Other nations with much more experience have had similar teething problems as well.
Lessons are being learned which should be of help in the future. Unfortunately, both political parties are more interested in scoring brownie points than actually learning from any mistakes made.
I totally agree in the above statement, NZ really needs to keep in close relatiosn with australia and keep an eye on what the australians plan to do around the time of the ANZAC replacement.
It is the only way in which NZ could afford to get ships of that capability and technology
It is the only way in which NZ could afford to get ships of that capability and technology
It is quite possible that the ANZAC replacement will be a low end frigate designed to increase fleet numbers in the Australian Navy. With the introduction of the Air Warfare Destroyers we no longer need frigates with all the bells and whistles.
So we may end up with a basic frigate with high levels of automation with only light anti-ship and anti-air capabilities. Such a vessel will be within budget of New Zealand.
Though to be honest they should just reduce the manning on the ANZACs and keep using them but in a low end role. As technology progresses around us, if we stop upgrading them they'll move from a modern high end frigate to become a low end frigate. Put in some off the shelf computer to improve automation during a refurb and keep sailing them.
So then New Zealand has an old ANZAC frigate that can perform handle itself well. The Australian Navy has a low end frigate that is cheap because they didn't have to buy new ships. The High end is then made up of Air warfare destroyer.
Over the next few years the new zealand frigates are undertaking their half life refit/upgrade.
This refit is enabling a high level of automation mainly in the mecanical and machinery area, reducing watches, rounds and the need for a fully manned MCR.
It is though that on completion of this upgrade the numbers of technical ratings required onboard the frigates will be halfed!
Frigates and the AWDs are different ships designed for different roles so I dont think Aussie will skimp out on a frigate replacement just because they have AWD's.
By the stage a replacment is due I think frigates of the day will be just as capable and the level of automation on them that will co-inside with development of technology through the years will make them an efficient and econmic ship to run and compliment the existing AWD's
This refit is enabling a high level of automation mainly in the mecanical and machinery area, reducing watches, rounds and the need for a fully manned MCR.
It is though that on completion of this upgrade the numbers of technical ratings required onboard the frigates will be halfed!
Frigates and the AWDs are different ships designed for different roles so I dont think Aussie will skimp out on a frigate replacement just because they have AWD's.
By the stage a replacment is due I think frigates of the day will be just as capable and the level of automation on them that will co-inside with development of technology through the years will make them an efficient and econmic ship to run and compliment the existing AWD's
While I support building OPVs and frigates, I am not a great supporter of corvettes. While there are many corvettes that have similar weapons systems as frigates, the bottom line has always been range. Simply put, to have an effective frigate, one needs the radar antennas and weight space for the weapons. Usually corvettes find the room at the expense of fuel storage and sea keeping. To make a long story short, in my opinion the smallest warship suitable for world wide operations today is a frigate.
After WWII many frigate designs weren't much larger than a corvette. Due to SAMs systems, and then ASW helicopter operations, frigates grew. As long as both are required, and the fuel needs for world wide operations, frigates will maintain their sizes. While smaller frigates/corvettes are available today, most are destined for area operations, not world wide.
While New Zealand's OPVs are useful in the South Pacific and around Australia, I wouldn't send one on a mission to the Arabian Sea. Being so distanced from just about every where else, a good sized frigate is needed for operations world wide.
The Irish consider their OPVs as being too small for suitable helicopter operations, their largest OPV is 79 meters in length. On the other hand New Zealand considers their OPVs as suitable for light helicopter operations, at 85 meters in length. If anything, 85 meters is about the minimum length for proper helicopter operations.
After WWII many frigate designs weren't much larger than a corvette. Due to SAMs systems, and then ASW helicopter operations, frigates grew. As long as both are required, and the fuel needs for world wide operations, frigates will maintain their sizes. While smaller frigates/corvettes are available today, most are destined for area operations, not world wide.
While New Zealand's OPVs are useful in the South Pacific and around Australia, I wouldn't send one on a mission to the Arabian Sea. Being so distanced from just about every where else, a good sized frigate is needed for operations world wide.
The Irish consider their OPVs as being too small for suitable helicopter operations, their largest OPV is 79 meters in length. On the other hand New Zealand considers their OPVs as suitable for light helicopter operations, at 85 meters in length. If anything, 85 meters is about the minimum length for proper helicopter operations.
Last edited:
very valid points on corvettes, range is the big issue which largly limits their operation capability. adding ammunition that frigates are a need. Being as versitile as they I dont see any point in making a low end frigate, though it maybe be capavile of upgrade it seems a pointless action in my mind
Thanks
Thanks
Totally agree on need for Frigates rather than Corvettes for NZ - in order to get effective capability & range!
However I also too worry that when the ANZACs are to be replaced that the Govt of the day will convince themselves that the OPV's have proved very effective & are therefore 'better value for money' (ie: cheaper!) - and by pointing out they can get so many more OPV hulls than Frigates for the same price, the spin-doctors will quickly convince an apathetic NZ public of this 'wisdom'.
Another question I ponder is what the best option is for NZ - 2 capable frigates or 3 less capable frigates!?! I'd argue minimum of 3 capable frigates but I can see cost being an issue, regardless of what projects we may dovetail.
I think there's more acceptance of the need for Frigates now than in the 80's when the current 2 vessels were ordered, but it still may not be an easy decision - especially if the Green party have any political influence!
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not to be offensive, but the Anzac frigate is a relatively low-end frigate. It is only on the more recent RAN built Anzacs that were built with ESSM in place of RIM-7, and those vessels that have been backfitted with Harpoon capabilities that are becoming formidable. Compared to the older RAN Adelaide (mod OHP/FFG-7) frigates, they are inferior warfighting ships in basically all areas except for main gun AFAIK. Sonar could be a different story though.
All around both the RAN and RNZN Anzacs were constructed with fairly basic armament, being "fitted for, but not with". It is only as some of the RAN vessels are approaching their mid-life update and the Adelaide-class is being gradually decommissioned that additional systems are being fitted to expand the RAN Anzacs' capabilities.
If the RNZN wanted to keep a low-end frigate in service, then likely the best thing for them to do would be to just update the physical plant/machinery of their Anzacs to keep them in service.
As for any future RNZN Anzac replacement, I would tend to think the best path to follow would be joint participation with the RAN Anzac replacement. Failing that, then a MOTS purchase of some NATO/allied power general purpose frigate.
For overall numbers, three capable frigate would seem best, but if the choice were between two capable frigates or three less capable frigates (fitted for, but not with again...) I would likely choose the greater number of less capable ships. Of course, much depends on what is occuring on the world stage, if there is a great deal of tension, with a high likelihood of hostilities breaking out before an upgrade program could be initiated, then having more capable ships would likely be a better choice.
As stated by others, a concern would be a decision by the NZ government to replace the frigates with corvettes, or worse yet, OPVs. A corvette being basically a cutdown frigate (or heavily armed OPV) with insufficient range & seakeeping to patrol away from NZ. An OPV would IMV be even worse, despite a prediction of being able to fufill ~80% of the frigates current role. I have to wonder how much of that is occurring because the frigates have been getting assigned to EEZ patrol duties because NZ does not have anything else to use at present.
Even with some of the upgunning of OPVs mentioned previously, an OPV could not adequately act as a ship escort, ASW asset or interdict hostile shipping. All roles that the frigate is able to do (some more so than others given current fitout). What hopefully will occur is that more people in NZ will become involved, and take a serious and realistic look at what they are asking the NZDF to do, what the NZDF can do, and what it likely needs to do.
-Cheers
I am hoping for a situation to arise in which an OPV won't be enough, that a frigate will have to be sent before any New Zealand government strikes their remaining frigates. Its a tall order, since I can not easily dream up a scenario. Keeping a frigate force may be more difficult than we think.
You cant just keep operating vessels longer than their life terms.
Ships are built to a specific weight, the weight of the ships determine the life span. The maximum operation weight of a ship is a about 40-50% more than what the weight is when construction and fitting is complete.
Its all well and easy saying just keep on upgrading the frigates to lengthen service life but you will reach a point where you will jepordise operation capability in terms of putting too much stress on current systems thus adversly affecting the ships seating in the water, speed etc etc
Just a point to note too, the New Zealand Anzacs gain four tonnes per year.
In saying that the ANZACs are a low end frigate, I wouldnt totally agree. For the New Zealand Ones anyway. The work that has been done to the ships warfare/propulsion systems since commisioning is huge. And the plans for the half life upgrade will increase capability, ease work loads on engineers, and make controlling systems and overviewing the plant very simple and easy.
Though I cant comment on the aussie frigates
Ships are built to a specific weight, the weight of the ships determine the life span. The maximum operation weight of a ship is a about 40-50% more than what the weight is when construction and fitting is complete.
Its all well and easy saying just keep on upgrading the frigates to lengthen service life but you will reach a point where you will jepordise operation capability in terms of putting too much stress on current systems thus adversly affecting the ships seating in the water, speed etc etc
Just a point to note too, the New Zealand Anzacs gain four tonnes per year.
In saying that the ANZACs are a low end frigate, I wouldnt totally agree. For the New Zealand Ones anyway. The work that has been done to the ships warfare/propulsion systems since commisioning is huge. And the plans for the half life upgrade will increase capability, ease work loads on engineers, and make controlling systems and overviewing the plant very simple and easy.
Though I cant comment on the aussie frigates