I can't help but feel, still, that there will be the odd loud voice on the political/activist scene that would propose the RNZN's future ought to be with "smaller" OPV's rather than Frigates etc. (As an aside nowadays that idea can be easily discredited thanks to recent events requiring the Frigates eg East Timor or the deployments to the Gulf etc. Plus the internet means both sides of the arguement can be publically debated unlike, say, unlike the near one-sided debates in the 80's/90's). So in order to counter these probable future claims, can we look no further than the current (but functional) OPV's and say:
I tend to agree with Todjaeger, there are a small group of politicans who will continue to oppose any combat capability. While ET and the Gulf deployments have strengthened the argument for them I think the navy will still need to argue its case strongly and publicly (unlike last time).
* The Navy needs something greater in length (and displacement) than the 85m OPV's? (Even for a future OPV replacement design, let alone a Frigate)!
* The Navy needs something that can carry (the weight) of at least much more superior self-defence systems and sensors (let alone offensive systems eg 5" gun and/or missiles & torps. magazines, space for the additional specialist crews, their accomodation and larger galley etc)?
* Is there anything else?
* Have we pretty much come full circle back to the need for a Frigate type vessel?
Not at all meaning to sound negative about the current ANZAC's and OPV's - they're great for the RNZN and superior in all respects to previous types operated - but hopefully the message to be learnt (maybe for the sake of the pollies especially) is that the future RNZN needs larger Frigates and OPV's - the current issues with weight/growth margins of the current ANZAC's and OPV's should be ample evidence of that. Yes/No?
* I would agree with your first point. Had the second stage of Maritime Forces Review being carried out we may have got a more capable ship.
* You second point is correct but only for a combat capable ship, for an OPV the growth margin for weight doesn't have to be as great.
* I've been think about the need for a frigate type vessel. My thoughts on this below.
It seems to me that New Zealand has two conflicting needs. One is for more OPV's to perform a wide range of non-military tasks, like protecting limited resources and if the PM is to be believed people sumgglers and some military roles like MCM etc. At the same time NZ needs to develop it combat capability.
Within the context of the second stage of the Maritime Forces review ("MFR") I would think they would have identified the need for the following as a min the:
- Ability to conduct limited Naval Gunfire Support in support of operations in the South Pacific.
- Ability to operate a helicopter, in a gunship role, in support of Ground forces in the Pacific.
These capabilities lend themselves to the French Floreal, Danish Thetis class and new Dutch OPV. The failure to complete the second stage of the MFR leds me to one conclusion given the current economic climate in order to resolve the competing interests.
1. NZ needs a ship with the sea keeping, speed and endurance and damage control capability of a frigate.
2. That in its core role it would be fitted for patrol / low level combat operations (maybe like the new USGC Cutter) and sonar .
3. Would take part in medium / high intensity combat operations through the fitting of modules (As an example a purchase of 4 ships might see 1 ASW Towed array module, 2 Anti ship warfare modules, 3 AA modules with missiles that are fire & forget (removes need for dedicated FC) acquired).
Anyway my two cents worth.
