Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

While the FFG-07s may have some life left in them, and still have the Standard/harpoon Mk13 missile launcher, that SAM is approaching obsolescence. There is a reason why the Aussies have upgraded four of their six ships, and there is a reason why the Americans have discarded those SM-1MR missiles. Since the gas turbine is basically the same gas turbine on the Anzacs as well as the Perrys/Adelaides, surely the Aussies have stripped their retired ships for spares. Without a diesel those frigates aren't as economical to operate as the Anzacs either.

A better investment for the navy would be to upgrade the Anzacs SAMs to ESSM, an investment yet to be done. I would rather buy a used Aussie Anzac frigate whether its been upgraded or not than buy a used FFG-07. Doing so may eventually lead to the Aussies buying a new fourth Hobart AWD which in my eyes would be much more important to allied defense posture overall.

If NZ really wanted to step up and be a better ally, NZ should buy the fourth Hobart AWD... But that price is beyond NZ's ability to afford, when a decade ago NZ couldn't afford a third Anzac...

The 2x retired Australian FFG-07's are currently being employed as dive wrecks so I think their potential RNZN use, has probbly passed...

The Mk 13 GMLS system on the remaining FFG's has been upgraded to handle the SM-2 Block IIIA's.

The SM-1 has been withdrawn from RAN service, as far as I know...

 

[StevoJH]

The 2x retired Australian FFG-07's are currently being employed as dive wrecks so I think their potential RNZN use, has probbly passed...

The Mk 13 GMLS system on the remaining FFG's has been upgraded to handle the SM-2 Block IIIA's.

The SM-1 has been withdrawn from RAN service, as far as I know...

From memory the photos from RIMPAC included shots of an FFG testing its SM-2.

 

[Sea Toby]

From memory the photos from RIMPAC included shots of an FFG testing its SM-2.

All so true, but RegR asked about the two FFGs which were discarded... Neither were upgraded to SM-2 SAMs.. Still if I had a choice, I would choose to buy/lease an Anzac over an upgraded FFG if I were NZ to reach a goal of three frigates...

 

[RegR]

All so true, but RegR asked about the two FFGs which were discarded... Neither were upgraded to SM-2 SAMs.. Still if I had a choice, I would choose to buy/lease an Anzac over an upgraded FFG if I were NZ to reach a goal of three frigates...

AD has quoted them as being at the bottom of the ocean providing a huge fish castle, I guess you were right then and they would have been stripped for spares, oh well definately no chance of an ex RAN FFG in RNZN grey, hmm now lets just see about an FFH then.........surely Aus don't need all those ANZACs v extra AWD.

 

[1805]

Its an interesting point about buying 2nd hand ships over new build. I think some of the previous purchases have put some navies off. Some 70s designs rapidly looked dated, however although the rate of change has increased, things like VLS and a generally more modular approach to design has improved the ability of ships to be upgraded.

With European & US budgets under pressure some very interesting deals might be available for enterprising navies out for bargins. I am not sure a T22 would be attractive to RNZN but a T23 or the Dutch have been know to sell very new ships...De Zeven Provincien Class...wow what a beauty....only one careful lady driver.....I have £100m notes in my back pocket if I can take her away today governor ?

 

[Lucasnz]

Its an interesting point about buying 2nd hand ships over new build. I think some of the previous purchases have put some navies off. Some 70s designs rapidly looked dated, however although the rate of change has increased, things like VLS and a generally more modular approach to design has improved the ability of ships to be upgraded.

With European & US budgets under pressure some very interesting deals might be available for enterprising navies out for bargins. I am not sure a T22 would be attractive to RNZN but a T23 or the Dutch have been know to sell very new ships...De Zeven Provincien Class...wow what a beauty....only one careful lady driver.....I have £100m notes in my back pocket if I can take her away today governor ?

I accept that some second hand purchases for the navy have worked, I am personally opposed to the purchase of 2nd hand combatants. The purchase of second hand ships eaves the navy having to replace all its combat ships at once and basically kills any progressive upgrade capability. A spread purchase of new ships allows this. The purchase a second hand warship has potentially greater risks (higher operating costs, increasing antiquated equipment - You only need to look at the purchase of Southland) when compared to purchases like the Resolution. The last thing NZ needs is to purchase old UK or Eurpoean designs that would result in NZ having to maintain two main guns, missiles systems etc - The logisitc burden and cost :shudder.

The way I see things NZ has two core requirements for surface combatants. The first is that NZ needs ships that can conduct operations in an high intensity environment (i.e T26) and secondly ships that can conduct independent low level combat operations in the South Pacific with the potential for increased weapons capability, should NZ ever need it (that I would suggest meets the requirements and thinking behind the OCV/C3). I think most of us agree we need three T26 like ships, but in terms of C3 - I think 4-6 would be nice especially if they replace OPV, Resolution, etc).

 

[RegR]

agreed new build is the prefferred option however we are not even doing that(frigate wise) therefore maybe 2nd hand is the way forward to a sustainable and supportable 3 if cost is the factor. Yes used ships have their added operating costs due to age but if we can't afford the initial outlay of new build then maybe the cheaper option will fullfill the navys operational needs in the interim.

 

[Sea Toby]

agreed new build is the prefferred option however we are not even doing that(frigate wise) therefore maybe 2nd hand is the way forward to a sustainable and supportable 3 if cost is the factor. Yes used ships have their added operating costs due to age but if we can't afford the initial outlay of new build then maybe the cheaper option will fullfill the navys operational needs in the interim.

While New Zealand is already concerned with upgrading their two Anzacs, the other available used ships are even older, from FFGs to Type 23s, to Karel Doormans. While I may support buying or leasing an Anzac from Australia, most likely already upgraded, by no means would I support buying or leasing an older ship. Frankly, I prefer buying another new Anzac to commission 10-15 years after the others to avoid block obsolescence down the road...

I am not convinced buying a new ship design is required. I would wait for Australia and other nations to develop their next designs before committing New Zealand to a new ship design. New Zealand in my opinion isn't ready for an independent ship design. I prefer New Zealand bought off the shelf designs whereby support will be provided by numbers of ships even from another country...

 

[1805]

Does RNZN really need full sized frigates? Yes NZ wants to do its bit, but a heavier OPV could contribute quite a bit to her Allies. Anti pirate and general patrol work in say the Gulf could releash full sized US warships and would I am sure be well regarded.

The cost of 2 frigate say £400-500m would probably funded at least 4 well armed OPVs. It would have to be able to deal with a randon anti ship missile fired from a shore position so 57mm gun/ESSM/phalanx? All the rest of the capability comes from the ship based helicopter.

 

[Todjaeger]

Does RNZN really need full sized frigates? Yes NZ wants to do its bit, but a heavier OPV could contribute quite a bit to her Allies. Anti pirate and general patrol work in say the Gulf could releash full sized US warships and would I am sure be well regarded.

The cost of 2 frigate say £400-500m would probably funded at least 4 well armed OPVs. It would have to be able to deal with a randon anti ship missile fired from a shore position so 57mm gun/ESSM/phalanx? All the rest of the capability comes from the ship based helicopter.

Something which must be kept in mind for a deployment, is the potential threats faced and the capabilities needs to deal with them appropriately.

In the case of a RNZN deployment to the (Persian?) Gulf, while an OPV-type fitout might be currently appropriate, there remains the very real possibility that the tension would escalate. With that in mind, a general purpose patrol vessel capable of offensive and defensive operations could become needed. In that situation, an OPV would thne be completely inappropriate, since it would need a close escort able to provide air defence and possibility defence against sub-surface threats as well.

In that sort of situation, then something like an OPV becomes more of a burden then a benefit, since two ships would need to be deployed together to provide a reasonable amount of operational satety to one vessel. The alternative would be for the escorting vessel to just conduct the patrolling themselves.

Something which people really need to remember is that OPVs are Offshore Patrol Vessels, they are not intended as combatants. As such, the construction, fitout and manning is different from that of a vessel intended as a warship.

-Cheers

 

[1805]

Something which must be kept in mind for a deployment, is the potential threats faced and the capabilities needs to deal with them appropriately.

In the case of a RNZN deployment to the (Persian?) Gulf, while an OPV-type fitout might be currently appropriate, there remains the very real possibility that the tension would escalate. With that in mind, a general purpose patrol vessel capable of offensive and defensive operations could become needed. In that situation, an OPV would thne be completely inappropriate, since it would need a close escort able to provide air defence and possibility defence against sub-surface threats as well.

In that sort of situation, then something like an OPV becomes more of a burden then a benefit, since two ships would need to be deployed together to provide a reasonable amount of operational satety to one vessel. The alternative would be for the escorting vessel to just conduct the patrolling themselves.

Something which people really need to remember is that OPVs are Offshore Patrol Vessels, they are not intended as combatants. As such, the construction, fitout and manning is different from that of a vessel intended as a warship.

-Cheers

Agree if NZ planned to involve itself in the hot part of a Gulf conflict, that said even in that scenario (narrow/shallow coastal waters} a Khareef/KD Lekiu class type vessel would probably be as much use as a T26/ANZAC II. We are not comparing like for like on the numbers/money side, ie 2 frigates will be much less use than 4-6 OPV at patrol work (and remember maybe 4 v 6 helicopters?). Most of the work is likely to be partol work so you compromise the core mission for a very unlikely scenario

The point about working with allies is important, but the US looks for involvement for moral support, not to really add capability in reality it can undertake nearly everything on its own.

There is a lot of crossover between frigates/OPVs.

 

[Lucasnz]

Agree if NZ planned to involve itself in the hot part of a Gulf conflict, that said even in that scenario (narrow/shallow coastal waters} a Khareef/KD Lekiu class type vessel would probably be as much use as a T26/ANZAC II. We are not comparing like for like on the numbers/money side, ie 2 frigates will be much less use than 4-6 OPV at patrol work (and remember maybe 4 v 6 helicopters?). Most of the work is likely to be partol work so you compromise the core mission for a very unlikely scenario

The point about working with allies is important, but the US looks for involvement for moral support, not to really add capability in reality it can undertake nearly everything on its own.

There is a lot of crossover between frigates/OPVs.

An ANZAC would survive in high intensity combat, if fully equipmed but I agree the Lekiu would be mincemeat.

From a patrol perspective 4 OPV might be better than a frigate, but frigates by their nature are more flexible in the roles they can preform. You are getting into the quality vs quantity debate. From an NZ perspective that means balancing the more common low end stuff with less common high end combat. I would suggest low end corvette capability is required with flexibiliy to upgrade is required for patrol operations.

In terms of the US wanting more moral support than equipment there has been, somewhere on the navy & maritime forum, discussion on the Argentine Navy MEKO 140 corvette deployement to the First Gulf War. There was some talk that the design was seen as a liability in the forward area and that they were assigned escort tasks in the rear. I would suggest that the US doesn't want units it has to baby sit, especially with the declining size of fleets.

The only area of cross over between frigates and OPV I can think of is endurance and seakeeping. Most OPV and even patrol frigates like the Thetis and Floreal class are built to commerical standard. They simply can not survive sustained damage in a high intensity combat, not to mention their top speed is not suitable for task group.

 

[1805]

An ANZAC would survive in high intensity combat, if fully equipmed but I agree the Lekiu would be mincemeat.

From a patrol perspective 4 OPV might be better than a frigate, but frigates by their nature are more flexible in the roles they can preform. You are getting into the quality vs quantity debate. From an NZ perspective that means balancing the more common low end stuff with less common high end combat. I would suggest low end corvette capability is required with flexibiliy to upgrade is required for patrol operations.

In terms of the US wanting more moral support than equipment there has been, somewhere on the navy & maritime forum, discussion on the Argentine Navy MEKO 140 corvette deployement to the First Gulf War. There was some talk that the design was seen as a liability in the forward area and that they were assigned escort tasks in the rear. I would suggest that the US doesn't want units it has to baby sit, especially with the declining size of fleets.

The only area of cross over between frigates and OPV I can think of is endurance and seakeeping. Most OPV and even patrol frigates like the Thetis and Floreal class are built to commerical standard. They simply can not survive sustained damage in a high intensity combat, not to mention their top speed is not suitable for task group.

OPV designs are getting bigger, more heavily armed and faster (25 knots would be ok), is not going to keep up with a US Carrier Group but I don't they would be asked to escort one. I reality not many ships even to a naval standard are going to be able to operate after a full anti ship missile strike. Most of the RN post 45 war light fleets were built to mercantile standard as was the current HMS Ocean? The US probably didn't need the ARA Meko because with 6 CVBG attacking a land based armed forces they didn't have a need for anything more; hey somebody has got to do escort tasks in the rear and a RNZN OPV could take on anti pirate duties releaving a Burke?

The US was very keen to have allies involved in GW2, regardless of the size, you should not underestimate the importance of the need to be the "Allies". In the 60s the UK was under enormous pressure to send troop to Vietnam. Apparently LBJ once said to the UK PM "I don't care if you just send a band"

Won of the finest things I remember during the Falklands was NZ offering a frigate to releave an RN warship, when many of our so called allies were lukewarm.

However you are right its a balance of numbers v quality. I am not sure a Lekiu is so inferior to a ANZAC, agreed ESSM is probably better than Sea Wolf.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes the Canterbury relieved the Amazon of its Indian Ocean Patrol back in 1982. However then Kiwi PM Sir Robert Muldoon did it more out of political opportunity than benevolence because the pay off was getting UK support for trade access for NZ agricultural goods into the common market. Muldoon was an awful manager of our domestic economy but he was the last NZ Prime Minister who knew how trade, politics and defence were interdependent amongst western allies. Under Muldoon we were still rock solid in our alliances in respect of the US and the UK and the relationship between the ADF and NZDF was far more balanced in capability.

Four General Purpose Frigates large enough to cope with a bit a of a flex-deck arrangement using OTS systems should sort the whole thing out for New Zealand. First one in the water in 2017 then the following ones due every 3 years - 2020, 2023, 2026. The last two replacing Te Kaha and Te Mana. Anzac II based or Type 26 based I dont care. I just want the Govt to just stop shagging around and do something.

 

[RegR]

While New Zealand is already concerned with upgrading their two Anzacs, the other available used ships are even older, from FFGs to Type 23s, to Karel Doormans. While I may support buying or leasing an Anzac from Australia, most likely already upgraded, by no means would I support buying or leasing an older ship. Frankly, I prefer buying another new Anzac to commission 10-15 years after the others to avoid block obsolescence down the road...

I am not convinced buying a new ship design is required. I would wait for Australia and other nations to develop their next designs before committing New Zealand to a new ship design. New Zealand in my opinion isn't ready for an independent ship design. I prefer New Zealand bought off the shelf designs whereby support will be provided by numbers of ships even from another country...

Chances are any 2nd hand frigate would more than likely be older then our current ANZACs as it would be hard to find someone willing to sell one of their newer frigates unless they were surplus to requirements, not likely in these days. Even if we could get our hands on an ex RAN FFH(which would be the best bet for commonality, useability and interoperability with our closest neighbour and our current fleet) then it would likely be their first build, HMAS Anzac I think which is only slightly older then our first. Agreed this does put us in the position of having to replace all three around the same period therefore a hard financial pill to swallow when the time comes.
The only other options would be to source another frigate which leaves us with a 2 type frigate navy that would more than likely bring different sensors, weapons, characteristics and all its other little headaches associated with different maintainence and operability and probably no one in our immediate region to share expertise with. Yes the most ideal scenario would be to tag onto the UK/AUS schemes and buy new but that is awhile off yet and in the mean time we are still a frigate down and whats to say when replacement time comes we don't just one for one and remain in our current position (if that). I do like the idea of new ANZAC type now to avoid replacing all at once later and spread the burden however I was being optimistic with 2nd hand as usually cheaper and therefore easier to sell to the bean counters. I suppose all this alternative frigate talk is moot unless we upgrade our current fleet to a credible standard that can safely take them into the future.

 

[StingrayOZ]

We are talking about intergrating with US forces. When will this training for this to happen take place? Not just any ship and crew can turn up and fleet it with the big end of town. Why should the US waste resources (resupply of fuel, food, sealift, coms, etc) with a vessel that is a liability (slow, undefended, not suitable). While the US may extend an olive branch to some rather important nation on a continent that it needs strong connections with that does not mean NZ will get the same treatment. Turning up to a warzone in a slightly modified ferry or simular is not what allies need, it would actually be better if they just got their own under their direct command (Jarvis Bay style).

While it is extremely possible and likely the NZ will work along side US forces, I would say it far more critical when working alongside a taskforce lead by Australia. Now Australia is certainly not going to be able to waste resources carrying NZ around. This is where intergration, compatability, training is going to be more important. This has already happened in Timor, and its definately going to happen again. Even in these types of situations a OPV isn't going to cut it. Interfet was completely flat out screening of USS Mobile Bay, a very worthwhile asset to screen for, we(as in this region) need assets that can escort and screen for other ships, not require protection themselves.

Australia has taken the lessons to heart. E.T was from all accounts a big lesson for AUS and what we are going to be required to do in our region and that the US isn't some big wish machine that will make everything ok. The US response was not exactly what Australia wanted and the US was slow to move on the issue. Hopefully at high levels AU and NZ are in agreement, the fact that NZ is in the loop about ANZACII and T26 reads to me that they are. Either of those two would be great options for NZ and seem more appropriate than anything else.

The ANZAC is pretty much the minium spec you want for high intensity stuff, you would want it loaded before going in but this can be done given notice. The fact Australia runs the same vessel and can train, service and pay for the upgrade should not be forgotten. NZ should not go down the OPV is a combat ship or the corvette route, they are not suitable for her region and needs.

Its entirely possible that RNZN vessels will have to handle being fired apon, shadowed by submarines, threatend by air and be placed into potentially high intensity zones in our region with out overwhelming US support as part of a mishmash force.

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Working_Paper_20.pdf provides an interesting view of what sort of situations NZ has been in the past and will encounter in the future.

 

[1805]

We are talking about intergrating with US forces. When will this training for this to happen take place? Not just any ship and crew can turn up and fleet it with the big end of town. Why should the US waste resources (resupply of fuel, food, sealift, coms, etc) with a vessel that is a liability (slow, undefended, not suitable). While the US may extend an olive branch to some rather important nation on a continent that it needs strong connections with that does not mean NZ will get the same treatment. Turning up to a warzone in a slightly modified ferry or simular is not what allies need, it would actually be better if they just got their own under their direct command (Jarvis Bay style).

While it is extremely possible and likely the NZ will work along side US forces, I would say it far more critical when working alongside a taskforce lead by Australia. Now Australia is certainly not going to be able to waste resources carrying NZ around. This is where intergration, compatability, training is going to be more important. This has already happened in Timor, and its definately going to happen again. Even in these types of situations a OPV isn't going to cut it. Interfet was completely flat out screening of USS Mobile Bay, a very worthwhile asset to screen for, we(as in this region) need assets that can escort and screen for other ships, not require protection themselves.

Australia has taken the lessons to heart. E.T was from all accounts a big lesson for AUS and what we are going to be required to do in our region and that the US isn't some big wish machine that will make everything ok. The US response was not exactly what Australia wanted and the US was slow to move on the issue. Hopefully at high levels AU and NZ are in agreement, the fact that NZ is in the loop about ANZACII and T26 reads to me that they are. Either of those two would be great options for NZ and seem more appropriate than anything else.

The ANZAC is pretty much the minium spec you want for high intensity stuff, you would want it loaded before going in but this can be done given notice. The fact Australia runs the same vessel and can train, service and pay for the upgrade should not be forgotten. NZ should not go down the OPV is a combat ship or the corvette route, they are not suitable for her region and needs.

Its entirely possible that RNZN vessels will have to handle being fired apon, shadowed by submarines, threatend by air and be placed into potentially high intensity zones in our region with out overwhelming US support as part of a mishmash force.

http://www.navy.gov.au/w/images/Working_Paper_20.pdf provides an interesting view of what sort of situations NZ has been in the past and will encounter in the future.

I think your post is a little bit condescending. The US does not need any material support from any nation; there is a difference between being helpful and needed.
The Protector project was about giving NZ some degree of independent operation, I think to a degree it has achieved this, and provides NZ with more capability than another ANZAC I would have.

We don’t know exactly what the T26/ANZAC II will look like, but from what we do know the size is being driven by requirements that are completely unsuited for NZ requirement. Had it been for a flex deck such as the Absalons this would have been of value maybe, potentially enabling the replacement of both the Canterbury and ANZAC Is (I was only suggesting the OPVs as escorts/scouts to such a larger self escorting vessel)? However the ANZAC II size appears to be driven by the need to carry large numbers of VLS for: either ABM capability (RAN) or land attack cruise missiles (RN) RNZN will end up with big hulls for limited benefits. An 8 cell VLS giving 32 ESSM (actually 16 would do) is more than sufficient to deal with the likely threat.
Simply being about to provide 2 frigates as additional ASW escorts for an RAN expeditionary taskforce does not serve NZ well.

You cannot expect NZ to maintain meaningful numbers of top tier assets, this is a country that has already abandoned fixed wing strike jets and now you are asking it focus a huge proportion of its defence spend on 2 frigates (forget the idea of 3).

 

[1805]

Chances are any 2nd hand frigate would more than likely be older then our current ANZACs as it would be hard to find someone willing to sell one of their newer frigates unless they were surplus to requirements, not likely in these days. Even if we could get our hands on an ex RAN FFH(which would be the best bet for commonality, useability and interoperability with our closest neighbour and our current fleet) then it would likely be their first build, HMAS Anzac I think which is only slightly older then our first. Agreed this does put us in the position of having to replace all three around the same period therefore a hard financial pill to swallow when the time comes.
The only other options would be to source another frigate which leaves us with a 2 type frigate navy that would more than likely bring different sensors, weapons, characteristics and all its other little headaches associated with different maintainence and operability and probably no one in our immediate region to share expertise with. Yes the most ideal scenario would be to tag onto the UK/AUS schemes and buy new but that is awhile off yet and in the mean time we are still a frigate down and whats to say when replacement time comes we don't just one for one and remain in our current position (if that). I do like the idea of new ANZAC type now to avoid replacing all at once later and spread the burden however I was being optimistic with 2nd hand as usually cheaper and therefore easier to sell to the bean counters. I suppose all this alternative frigate talk is moot unless we upgrade our current fleet to a credible standard that can safely take them into the future.

Most European countries have big budget deficits, and are looking agressively at defence spending, I wouldn't be surprised if you offered the UK a reasonable sum for the last T23 (only 8 years old) you would get a yes answer, we did sell 3 which I think were even younger at the time? The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them. They are virtually brand new.

 

[MrConservative]

Most European countries have big budget deficits, and are looking agressively at defence spending, I wouldn't be surprised if you offered the UK a reasonable sum for the last T23 (only 8 years old) you would get a yes answer, we did sell 3 which I think were even younger at the time? The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them. They are virtually brand new.

Wouldn't it be more likely that the Dutch would cut back on the two Karel Doormans. The two still in service are not that much older than our Anzacs.

I have to acknowledge that if we are going to replace the Anzacs we would be a Navy that would be operating two types of frigate anyway for quite a period. It is something we have lived with before and will have to live with again.

 

[swerve]

The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them.

A lot? But they and the last two M-class are the entire front-line fleet! Those four ships have taken over the combat role of eight older ships.

I reckon the Dutch would be far more likely to keep their shiny new DZPs & sell off van Amstel & van Speijk, if they want to save operating costs. They give far less bang per euro on operating costs than the DZP, & for anything short of all-out warfighting, the new Holland class will be able to do it cheaper.