Seatoby, Mr C and Lucas - I whotheartedly agree with your sentiments expressed, especially in that NZ needs to get its House in order first, i.e. it needs to be able to fully fund the Frigates (and their associated operating and upgrade costs), as well as afford 3 or 4 of them, plus those others things like air combat aircraft and so on I.e. defence in general, not just the toys), let alonoe thinking of plunging into subs - of course NZ won't be plunging into subs anytime soon but perhaps my point wasn't expressed well, which was, as/if the economy expands because of future mineral wealth (and here we could be talking 10-30 years really) then these options ought to be on the table, soon if not now etc. No doubt they are when defence reviews occur periodically (but as we know within defence there are vested groups with vested interests hence some "good" ideas to some groups are not seen as such by others and are taken down etc).
I also don't have an issue with Lancaster Bomber suggesting that ex-Collins' be gifted (or on sold) to NZ except because we are talking about sub technology, I don't think the idea is feasible (whereas if it were a second hand Frigate then that's more likely to be acceptable to all parties concerned). One area we know about is the "Skyhawk" sale in that sensitive US made equipment in the A4's (and Collins) will need US clearance, and because Australia has a greater level of access to eg sub technologies, there could be obstacles in passing that tech to NZ which doesn't have those high level clearances, not unless there was a dramatic sea change in NZ politics and both major parties wholeheartedly welcome rejoining ANZUS etc, I doubt we will see major change on that issue. And as Seatoby says, the running costs of subs are much greater. With NZ Treasury controlling the purse strings, they won't welcome any additional (and uncertain) levels of expenditure if they think something else can do a reasonable job cheaper (and I believe their alarm about the running costs of the Leanders played a role in the Wellington being decomissioned early etc).
However in this new spirit of ANZAC cooperation, sending NZ naval personnel to assist with Collins (or AWD or LHD's on even anything else in the RAN surface fleet) has merits, I realise to a limited extent this actually already happens, but like I say there would be a few keen sailors there wanting to push their personal/career development hence if the NZ and OZ Govts could work on the cost arrangements, like having an Army ready reaction force for the regulars to aspire to, same with the Navy (and air force)!
Mr C - It was Robert Miles (of Timaru), I obtained via a second hand bookstore a 21 page "booklet" of his called "Surviving the Tide, the case for a Corevette Navy". There's no ISSBN number and it is hard to tell but it appears to have been printed in the mid-90's. He writes he is from a "brilliant academic and military family" stretching back 100's of years (in the UK) and has written for the NZBR and Institute of Internal Affairs etc. Interesting in his authors note that he states that he has his detractors (around the world) but seeing at $4 for the booklet I thought I would give it a read when I saw it.
Sometimes I find it hard to figure out where he is actually going with his arguements but the crux of the issue is he reckons Frigates have had their day and NZ should be looking at other options such as Corvettes, or armed P3's (instead of fighters), converted merchant ships large enought to operate helos and towed arrays etc. The reason for dissing Frigates according to him is that they are expensive white elephants that are sitting ducks in a real shooting war thus NZ should prepare by using anything cheap and plentiful, so that NZ has more hulls (or helos etc) so that any losses are mitigated etc.
I suppose in some respects there are is
some truth in what he is saying. For example over at Wings of NZ in the past I've noticed some of the ex-RNZAF'ers there saying the (intial) ANZAC's were a sitting duck targets and thus a waste of money (and potentially lives). For a bit of fun that reminded me to dig out my copy of Ross Ewing's "Topped Gun" and on pp 104-105 it quotes Jason Easthop who went on to lead 2 Sqn RNZAF at Norwa:
A signal arrives from Marine Headquarters giving us the sailing time of the fleet out of Sydney Harbour. Our instructions ''Attack, SISAL approved.' It is an instruction we prayed for, it means attacking navy ships without gaining a clearance and therefore giving away our intentions or position. We could employ stealth tactics to the limit and show the Navy the difference betwen 'canned serials' and 'gloves off operations'. The first light of day is threatening as I lead our four-ship of A-4's to the end of the runway at Norwa. No radio calls are made between us or air traffic control, green light flashes from the tower signalling a clearance to take off. We get airborne for the coast in trail formation, remainin at low level. Not a word has been spoken, not a telltale transmission broadcasted. We adopt the pre-briefed attack formation of battle-spread (all four aircraft line abreast, approx 5km apart), push the speed up to 500 knots and fly low, real low. A speck on the horizon brings a smile to my face, the fleet are just entering the exercise area or 'bad lands', right on schedule. Throttles go wide open and the formation starts to break up as we target our planned ships. Three Frigates surrounding a supply ship steam onwards, oblivious of our presence. At 7 nautical miles range we simulate our missile launch (Mavericks) and carry on towards overhead the ships. Just as we can see the whites of their eyes the frigates turn hard into defensive positions and an excited voice comes up on the radio: 'Unidentified aircraft bearing (roooaarr!! ... the sound of an A-4 screeches through his microphone as the entire ship is engulfed in jet noise) ... Errrr .... State your intentions!' I just reply, 'Morning lads, nice day for it.' There's a pregnant pause, then the voice on the radio changes, to one of the senior staff: 'One nil to the Kiwis.'
(The rest of that item goes on to compare the limitaions of the Maverick v the ADF's Harpoon, eg the Maverick is inside the lethal range of the RAN's Standard SAM etc). Like I say, the above is just a bit of fun remembering the good ol' days, and of course the RAN ANZAC's have received upgraded sensors and weaponry in recent times etc)!
Like I say some of what Robert Miles has some truth (I can post what he actually says later, if interested, when I have some time), but he doesn't seem to take into account that Frigates are not soley for the defence of NZ (for if we were to really defend NZ as such we'd be buying land based SAM's and shore based anti-shipping missiles etc, not Frigates) but they are there to play our small part in collective defence in association with other countries and that the ANZAC's only form one part of the bigger/integrated/layered picture etc. He's also looking at things in terms of all out war. That's fine but as we know, all out war has been overted (for the timebeing), and we now have asymetrical/ terrorism/ WMD threats, plus regional instability and Frigates are still very useful for patrolling against these threats near unstable areas.
and future parliaments would be must more supportive of defence expenditure.
