Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

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.

I think your right, I am very surprised how fast their fleet has contracted. Also a AWD would be a lot more than NZ needs or wants or probably could operate. But since you mention them 6 Holland class and 2 Absalons would be ideal for the RNZN.

I don't know what sums you get for 2nd hand ships, but I bet they would only get c£20m for a M Class whereas a DZP prehaps £200m? As soon as the Holland class are finished there will be pressure to build more ships?

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

I apologise if it came across condescending, that was not my intention I am merely stating a view and am interested in other points and arguments. While Protector does give NZ some capability that it did not have before, and honestly I think is something they need. Protector shouldn't direct otherpurchases that fall outside its specific criteria. Protector is not a frigate, and will not perform the duties of a frigate and was not designed nor intended to. It gives capability that NZ did not have before in strategic sealift that it needed. Comparing it to an ANZAC is a bit silly, but then again rereading my post I alluded to something simular accidently.

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.

Well maybe not. Australia's requirements are fairly simular to NZ requirements, in the past the UK, AU and NZ have operate the same class of vessels and suited the purpose fairly well.
Taking Timor as an example, the NZ government was completely in agreement with Aus govenment thinking. NZ was able to play a very important role in the operations because of common training with US, UK, Singapore, Aus and French units. With out a "frigate" NZ policy would have only been in words because they would have been unable to commit any tangable combat naval assets.

Simply being about to provide 2 frigates as additional ASW escorts for an RAN expeditionary taskforce does not serve NZ well.

It wasn't just a RAN expeditionary taskforce. It was a UN sanctioned action carried out my a multinational taskforce with political and material support from the US and the UK and lead by Australia. It wasn't about Australia flexing its muscles, it was a real attempt to stop attrocities and genocide in our collective region. These are the sort of actions nations have defence forces for, to be able to make decisions on. I think it stands as an execellent example of why you spend money on military forces for noble and peaceful gains. It was also an example of which nations are able to meaningfully contribute to an operation and who gets in the way, it cemented tighter ties between commonwealth assets (UK, AU, NZ, CA) in a suprising way.

NZ naval commitment would also assist NZ army commitment, allowing NZ troops to work through NZ assets atleast a signficant portion of the time and not dependant on other nations resources, commitments and assets to deploy NZ ground forces.

While NZ can't offer a top tier asset, they can offer purposeful ships that pull their weight. While this may mean not choosing ANZAC II, or Type 26 it does mean something able to look after herself in simular situations.

A type 23 if avalible might be more suitable. But T26/ANZACII do not have to have its VLS loaded with TLAM and PAC3. At which point it may not cost much if anymore for NZ over competiting offers. NZ is also limited by the ANZAC hull with upgrades, Absalon is the same size as the preposed T26/ANZACII and not much larger than the T23 (~15m longer an ~2m wider but shallower draft).

 

[Sea Toby]

Trade issues and defence issues are directly linked, Without proper EEZ patrols your fisheries will be raped by others. Without proper warships to partake in allied operations, one risks having no allies...

The US tried the isolationists path, but found neutral merchant shipping being sunk off its coasts, A merchant ship doesn't fly any colors proclaiming its next destination, only its flag host....

 

[MrConservative]

One thing that I don’t think we have given much thought to is that the C1/C2/Type 26 won’t happen until post 2020 and the Anzac II possibly in the middle of next decade. Thus we are talking about at least a 10 year or even 15 year timeframe before we see the first vessel.

Lets say if the NZ government makes a commitment to be a partner in the Type 26/ Anzac II (to whatever degree and to whatever level of kit) to replace the current Anzacs, it still leaves a heck of a long time in which things could change adversely in a geo-political sense.

We might find that just 2 frigates puts us operationally even at more risk and we might quickly have to require two more. If this is the case then we would have to have a Plan B. In my view this could more likely than not likely as I think this decade will be as difficult and suprising as the last.

Plan B may involve us having to buy into a class of two new frigates this decade and two more the next. Problem with that is it enters us into a significant commitment which has the possibility of ending any UK/OZ frigate replacement programme in the following decade. Or Plan B may involve us having to do what we did in 1983 and buy two used frigates. Then we bought the Southland and Wellington. Both had had a fairly hard life as we know and those of us with greying hair will remember the grumbling. However a couple of things they were cheap when in the early 1980’s the economy was tight (In fact we were worse off then than now if the truth be told) and secondly the NZDF was well aware that within a decade a new class of frigates was on its way. The White Paper of 1983 iirc mentions this. So the Southland and Wellington were essentially purchased as stop gaps. We really did not have much choice at the time and in the end they did get the job done. A two frigate navy from the mid 1980's would have been a disaster for us.

If we need a Plan B (which we do of course) do we enter into a new long term commitment that sees us with 4 new vessel which are not Type 26 / Anzac II based or do we for example grab a couple of cheap Type 23’s or Karel Doormans to hold us over for a decade or so?

 

[recce.k1]

I'd imagine no change to the present 2 Frigate structure 2010-2015.

Although it is expected the remaining various ANZAC Frigate upgrades are to be completed in this timeframe. (Defence Whitepaper to confirm this aspect soon etc).

Will most of this work be done concurrently (to minimise ship/personnel downtime)? If not, would it then make sense for the Govt to acquire a second-hand, third Frigate (eg to ensure Govt Outputs are met, 2+ crews, and 2 Frigates instead of 1 will always be available etc)?

Possibilities could include ex-USN FFG7's (if available - I thought I read 2 more were sold recently). Or possible an upgraded HMAS Sydney might become available post 2015? With the RAN ANZAC's being upgraded now I'd doubt any of these might be sold off in the next few years etc.

But post 2015 and as the RAN AWD's join their fleet perhaps it may be possible to acquire ex-RAN vessels (if the Pollies think it prudent to lock NZ early into a 3x ANZAC II replacement programme post-2025 etc)?

In the meantime (2010-2015) best NZ concentrate on upgrading their existing ANZAC's to be relevant to Australian (etc) taskings.

There's some interesting reading/planning/thinking in the RNZN Strategic Plan 2008 (obviously pre-change of Govt and Defence Whitepaper) but interesting nonetheless.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/strategicplan.pdf

Eg see Maritime Military Capability (MMC) pages 23-27, then see Annex A – RNZN Strategic Journey Maps (pages 38 onwards).

Eg timelines and costs to upgrade the ANZAC's (although some projects are clearly 1-2 years behind schedule). Conduct Future Naval Combat Force Capability study was slated as 2012-2015, Acquire Future Naval Combat Force was slated as 2016-2024 etc (probably meaning commission date 2024 at the earliest etc).

Mention of small/medium UAV's, Seasprite upgrade/replacements 2014-2016, upgrades to sensors, tactical data links and ISR eg GCCS-M, FIAC counter measure upgrades, even the fitting of CIWS and torpedo defence to HMNZS Canterbury, OPV FIAC protection and 25mm gun arcs upgrades (as in more 25mm guns perhaps)? It does state that some of this is "aspirational" and the new White Paper will probably reset some priorities, but at least especially for our cuzzies over the ditch there's clear thinking on the roles of Frigates versus Patrol ships, and it appears the patrol ships will be upgraded in terms of ELINT, ESM, radars for helo tracking and some self-defence countermeasures against FIAC etc. I wouldn't expect OPV's to be sent to the Gulf, but from this perhaps they could join anti-piracy/counter-terrorism activities in SE Asia or northern Australia/SW Pacific etc?

 

[StevoJH]

NZ is also limited by the ANZAC hull with upgrades, Absalon is the same size as the preposed T26/ANZACII and not much larger than the T23 (~15m longer an ~2m wider but shallower draft).

NZ can't afford to upgrade the ANZAC's it has, let alone a different ship class.

The Australian ships are new 3D phased arrary radars, new phased array illuminators etc at the moment. The NZ ships havent even been upgraded with ESSM let alone new radar's, illuminators and an upgraded combat system.

T26/ANZAC Replacement co-operation could go in a very interesting direction. ESSM will be 15 years old and still probably reliant upon illuminators in 15 years time. AUSPAR could be cancelled or development could not yet be finished, with CEAPAR being insufficient to the task. On the other hand, ARTISAN could be considered insufficient come 10 years from now when T26 class ships are being launched.

So many possibilities for co-operation.

 

[MrConservative]

NZ can't afford to upgrade the ANZAC's it has, let alone a different ship class.

The Australian ships are new 3D phased arrary radars, new phased array illuminators etc at the moment. The NZ ships havent even been upgraded with ESSM let alone new radar's, illuminators and an upgraded combat system.

T26/ANZAC Replacement co-operation could go in a very interesting direction. ESSM will be 15 years old and still probably reliant upon illuminators in 15 years time. AUSPAR could be cancelled or development could not yet be finished, with CEAPAR being insufficient to the task. On the other hand, ARTISAN could be considered insufficient come 10 years from now when T26 class ships are being launched.

So many possibilities for co-operation.

Sorry Steve that is not quite right regarding that NZ cannot afford it. This is one of the fictions that gets repeated on DF that I am somewhat tired of. There is a difference between choosing not to afford it and actual fiscal reality. The rationality of what a nation can afford and not afford would mean uder current fiscal circumstances the UK cannot afford its future shipbuilding programme per CV, Trident, Type 26 etc... Comparitively speaking NZ's financial prospects are in good shape in particular with comparison to most EU nations.

 

[stryker NZ]

Sorry Steve that is not quite right regarding that NZ cannot afford it. This is one of the fictions that gets repeated on DF that I am somewhat tired of. There is a difference between choosing not to afford it and actual fiscal reality. The rationality of what a nation can afford and not afford would mean uder current fiscal circumstances the UK cannot afford its future shipbuilding programme per CV, Trident, Type 26 etc... Comparitively speaking NZ's financial prospects are in good shape in particular with comparison to most EU nations.

exactly i mean the government is about to pay out 1.2 billion to bail out south canterbury finance investors so its not exactly like we are scrapping the barrel in terms of money

 

[MrConservative]

exactly i mean the government is about to pay out 1.2 billion to bail out south canterbury finance investors so its not exactly like we are scrapping the barrel in terms of money

Yes Stryker. The whole affordablity thing is a red herring. I have mentioned this issue time and time again. Still there are some people who do not listen.

NZ CAN AFFORD TO SPEND CONSIDERABLY MORE ON DEFENCE. IT IS JUST A POLITICAL CHOICE NOT TOO!!!!

We used to spend over 2% GDP and sometime up to 3% GDP in the past. Since the Clark Govt came into power we have flatlined at 1% GDP per Capita. Even less it we apply other countries calculations. It is essentially a politically enforced budget target, former Finance MInster Michael Cullen has said as much and has nothing to do with the nations finances or defence requirements.

 

[Aussie Digger]

T26/ANZAC Replacement co-operation could go in a very interesting direction. ESSM will be 15 years old and still probably reliant upon illuminators in 15 years time. AUSPAR could be cancelled or development could not yet be finished, with CEAPAR being insufficient to the task. On the other hand, ARTISAN could be considered insufficient come 10 years from now when T26 class ships are being launched.

So many possibilities for co-operation.

ESSM will always be reliant on Illuminators. One of the benefits of being a big floating mass unable to go anywhere in a great hurry (unlike a tactical fighter for example), is the fact that you have big powerful radars with you all the time.

So whilst ESSM is actually in the early stages of an Active radar guidance upgrade (ESSM Block II if you wish) at the present time, it will (just like the SM-6) retain the capability to utilise "command link guidance" homing modes (Home all the way and various mid-course guidance modes - X band, S band etc). The theory being, if you've got those big powerful radars handy anyway...

I referred to this earlier, when I mentioned the potential for NZ ANZAC's to gain an area air defence capability "Lite" through an enhanced ESSM capability, should such be pursued....

 

[StevoJH]

The thing I don't like about the current reliance upon Illuminators, is that its another point of failure in the system, its another thing that if hit by enemy fire, or suffers a malfunction, can cause a total loss of combat ability for that weapons system.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The thing I don't like about the current reliance upon Illuminators, is that its another point of failure in the system, its another thing that if hit by enemy fire, or suffers a malfunction, can cause a total loss of combat ability for that weapons system.

There's no other choice unless you want to reduce your engagement range to within visual range...

I know active radar guided SAM's are under development, but they are going to be reliant on off-board radar sources for extreme range shots and if you don't have these available the range these weapons can achieve won't be much greater than can be achieved with command guided weapons utilising the ships own radar system.

Data-linking is required to provide initial guidance data even for active radar missiles like the AMRAAm, the difference being of course that they are launched at altitude significantly enhancing their radar horizon... Ship-board data-linking is going to encounter the same issues as CW with respect to radar horizon...

The best option therefore to me would be redundancy in your illuminator capability, which also provides the benefit of additional channels of fire...

 

[StingrayOZ]

The best option therefore to me would be redundancy in your illuminator capability, which also provides the benefit of additional channels of fire...

Isn't that what AUSPAR is going to provide? An additional 10+ channels? From a seperate mounting. Seems like a great idea for the ANZAC's and AWD, additional radar/illuminator capability.

I would have thought once you are hit by enemy fire (well enemy fire you would need illuminated guided missiles for) your pretty much a mission kill these days. Its not like a frigate is going to sit there and take repeated hits from exocet or Harpoon and be expected to continue operations.

 

[Gibbo]

http://www.navy.mil.nz/downloads/pdf/public-docs/strategicplan.pdf

Eg see Maritime Military Capability (MMC) pages 23-27, then see Annex A – RNZN Strategic Journey Maps (pages 38 onwards).

Eg timelines and costs to upgrade the ANZAC's (although some projects are clearly 1-2 years behind schedule). Conduct Future Naval Combat Force Capability study was slated as 2012-2015, Acquire Future Naval Combat Force was slated as 2016-2024 etc (probably meaning commission date 2024 at the earliest etc).

Mention of small/medium UAV's, Seasprite upgrade/replacements 2014-2016, upgrades to sensors, tactical data links and ISR eg GCCS-M, FIAC counter measure upgrades, even the fitting of CIWS and torpedo defence to HMNZS Canterbury, OPV FIAC protection and 25mm gun arcs upgrades (as in more 25mm guns perhaps)? It does state that some of this is "aspirational" and the new White Paper will probably reset some priorities, but at least especially for our cuzzies over the ditch there's clear thinking on the roles of Frigates versus Patrol ships, and it appears the patrol ships will be upgraded in terms of ELINT, ESM, radars for helo tracking and some self-defence countermeasures against FIAC etc. I wouldn't expect OPV's to be sent to the Gulf, but from this perhaps they could join anti-piracy/counter-terrorism activities in SE Asia or northern Australia/SW Pacific etc?

Yes lot's of very interesting stuff in 'Annex A'. As far as Canterbury & OPV's go it's interesting to see how RNZN had already identified weapons upgrades before they (in the case of the OPV's at least) were even delivered. Obviously Govt wanted to remain within budget & told RNZN to look at upgrades as operational needs. Why not do it all upfront & save a little cash - guess that reflects the way in which the project was managed (not to mention no doubt some political motivation).

Canterbury FIAC protection, torpedo Defence & CIWS block (base) fit = $6.75M in total, hardly a major upgrade, but at least it would lift it from the 'bare bones' it currently carries. Canterbury has hardly been designed with CIWS in mind so there'd be significant limitations on the unit's arc of fire.

OPV FIAC protection = $6.1M - suspect this would be around mini-typhoon systems.

However, I guess a lot's changed since 2008 - although the Navy's perception of these needs is unlikely to change.

 

[recce.k1]

Canterbury FIAC protection, torpedo Defence & CIWS block (base) fit = $6.75M in total, hardly a major upgrade, but at least it would lift it from the 'bare bones' it currently carries. Canterbury has hardly been designed with CIWS in mind so there'd be significant limitations on the unit's arc of fire.

OPV FIAC protection = $6.1M - suspect this would be around mini-typhoon systems.

Yeah, the Canterbury and OPV's don't look as though they were well designed to mount additional defensive gun systems (eg especially towards the stern etc), but perhaps like the RAN's LPA's Manoora and Kanimbla, the Canty could get a CIWS fitted above the bridge?

As per StingrayOz's post a few days ago on East Timor and the role of the various Navies, I could easily imagine the Canterbury being sent into a similar trouble spot in the future etc. Need that torp & anti-ship missile defence etc.

Or are we (or the Navy) setting our sights too low, thus should the Canterbury receive a (possible) similar upgrade to the ANZAC's - networked illuminators and ESSM etc - allowing the ANZAC's and Canterbury to integrate their self defence systems with others? What price does one put on a fully laden Canterbury in a medium/high threat environment (carrying NZ or Australian etc, troops and equipment)?

Canty would not need any other offensive systems eg bigger gun (apart from a 57mm with/for anti-air perhaps etc) nor Harpoon, but teamed up with its Seasprite it would be a potent little beast able to defend itself (and others).

However, I guess a lot's changed since 2008 - although the Navy's perception of these needs is unlikely to change.

Gibbo: you can do what I have done, which is (as per the RNZN Strategic Plan webpage) write to the Navy asking them for an update to their Strategic Journey Maps. Typically, they aren't very good at responding but perhaps if more people ask, they might "get round to it"! That way we can all see the updated timelines for their "journey". (It's also interesting that their target date is end of 2014 to have every position filled etc, meaning the Navy is 100% operational and deployable with reserves etc).

 

[1805]

Yeah, the Canterbury and OPV's don't look as though they were well designed to mount additional defensive gun systems (eg especially towards the stern etc), but perhaps like the RAN's LPA's Manoora and Kanimbla, the Canty could get a CIWS fitted above the bridge?

As per StingrayOz's post a few days ago on East Timor and the role of the various Navies, I could easily imagine the Canterbury being sent into a similar trouble spot in the future etc. Need that torp & anti-ship missile defence etc.

Or are we (or the Navy) setting our sights too low, thus should the Canterbury receive a (possible) similar upgrade to the ANZAC's - networked illuminators and ESSM etc - allowing the ANZAC's and Canterbury to integrate their self defence systems with others? What price does one put on a fully laden Canterbury in a medium/high threat environment (carrying NZ or Australian etc, troops and equipment)?

Canty would not need any other offensive systems eg bigger gun (apart from a 57mm with/for anti-air perhaps etc) nor Harpoon, but teamed up with its Seasprite it would be a potent little beast able to defend itself (and others).



Gibbo: you can do what I have done, which is (as per the RNZN Strategic Plan webpage) write to the Navy asking them for an update to their Strategic Journey Maps. Typically, they aren't very good at responding but perhaps if more people ask, they might "get round to it"! That way we can all see the updated timelines for their "journey". (It's also interesting that their target date is end of 2014 to have every position filled etc, meaning the Navy is 100% operational and deployable with reserves etc).

I think there is a good case generally for fitting more powerful defensive systems (such as ESSM) to assualt/logistics ships. The obvious one that it improves protection, but they are well suited to it, their size makes it easier to put radars higher up than most escort.

 

[recce.k1]

I guess the obvious question is, was space/weight reserved for a future VLS on Canterbury?

If not, it may not be practical (although surely it would be practical to fit the sensors/illuminators, and an escorting ANZAC Frigate or other compatible networked vessel could actually fire off their ESSM or equivalent etc).

Then again, possibly space might have been reserved(???), but the Navy/Defence/Govt don't like talking about these things so we won't really know.

I suspect the case is the former not the later anyway, judging how the Project Protector was handled (then again the original spec was for a large ocean going patrol ship with amphibious capabilities - so who knows)?

Canterbury is large enough, possibly for a fit out, if it was taken into account in the design stage, presumably?

 

[Sea Toby]

I think there is a good case generally for fitting more powerful defensive systems (such as ESSM) to assualt/logistics ships. The obvious one that it improves protection, but they are well suited to it, their size makes it easier to put radars higher up than most escort.

Unfortunately the Canterbury doesn't have the damage control of a warship, she was built to commercial standards... The same applies to all of the Project Protector vessels... None of the Project Protector vessels were designed as warships... It would be a large mistake to place warship weapons on commercially designed ships. As much so as the British placing battle cruisers into battle groups facing battleships. HMS Hood is a great example, a battle cruiser with battleship weapons which blew up facing a battleship.... At least HMS Hood was a warship, just poorly armored... Now you wish to repeat this same colossal mistake with commercial shipping....

The British were successful using commercial ships without much weaponry in the Falklands with Canberra, Norland, and others. Much of the Pacific is without a serious air threat similar to Argentina. While the British may not have won air superiority, they were operating at the extreme range of Argentine aircraft. And I doubt seriously the Canterbury would be used in a landing operation with a serious air threat without allied air forces winning air superiority first...

Frankly, New Zealand doesn't have the forces to mount a serious opposed landing against a nation with a serious air threat alone... New Zealand doesn't even have an air combat force... And surely, the US wouldn't proceed with a landing without winning air superiority first anyway, much less the Australians...

Having said that, a Phalanx CIWS could be transferred to the Canterbury at short notice, probably mounted on the stern flight deck to provide a good ring of fire. I don't see any other realistic air defense improvements to the Canterbury...

 

[Gibbo]

Unfortunately the Canterbury doesn't have the damage control of a warship, she was built to commercial standards... The same applies to all of the Project Protector vessels... None of the Project Protector vessels were designed as warships...

...Having said that, a Phalanx CIWS could be transferred to the Canterbury at short notice, probably mounted on the stern flight deck to provide a good ring of fire. I don't see any other realistic air defense improvements to the Canterbury...

Yes totally - RNZN is well aware the Protector vessels aren't capable of withstanding any major attack. The CIWS (Block 1B upgraded Phalanx) for Canterbury listed in the strategic plan specifically relates to the FIAC threat = nothing higher (certainly not for anti-shipping missiles).

The anti-torpedo defence system isn't listed as particularly expensive, so it's unlikely to be a sophisticated underway system - possibly more like a physical barrier for use when tied-up in foreign ports!?!

 

[anzac3]

I think if I was on canterbury, or had friends and loved ones onboard , I would hope that there would be some kind of defence in the form of a permanant CIWS.:rolling

Unfortunately the Canterbury doesn't have the damage control of a warship, she was built to commercial standards... The same applies to all of the Project Protector vessels... None of the Project Protector vessels were designed as warships... It would be a large mistake to place warship weapons on commercially designed ships. As much so as the British placing battle cruisers into battle groups facing battleships. HMS Hood is a great example, a battle cruiser with battleship weapons which blew up facing a battleship.... At least HMS Hood was a warship, just poorly armored... Now you wish to repeat this same colossal mistake with commercial shipping....