Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[recce.k1]

Has anyone read the 2010 white paper??? I dont know where all these suggestions about strike aircraft, subs etc etc are comming from. Because the strategic outlook for the next 25 odd years is written in black and white.

Yes, you're right, the DWP doesn't mention strike aircraft (although PM and defmin have publically ruled them out), but then there's a companion report to be released in the next month or so, on advanced pilot training, hence the speculation on the RNZAF thread on turbo-prop trainers (who knows maybe a slight chance of ex-RAF Hawks etc seeing the MB339's are proving more costly to re-introduce back into service)? But Mapp talks about a two tiered approach which I presume to mean a local and some sort of ADF tie in. Not necessarily fast jets though? We'll have to wait and see ...

 

[RegR]

There would be better and more useful Aus projects for NZ to assist in and a future submarine program is definately not it, not only does it serve no useful purpose or provide any range of options and roles for us but we have no experience therefore expertise to provide for them, so other than financial backing(which would be minimal anyway) and maybe some limited spare 'basic crew' to round out numbers no real gains are to be had for either nation.
Better options for ANZAC naval/ defence co-op projects would be the P8 poseidons and maritime UAVs, our tanker replacement, littoral ships, ANZAC frigate replacements, extra naval NH90s for their future LHPs or even kiwi STOL jets to jointly operate from them as they are not yet considering and therefore scatches an itch for both coutries (our ACF and their onboard fastjets). Also if we had not have left it so long we could have re-instated the macchis got our fast jet expertise back to a credible standard with the idea of taking over the shornets in years to come so Aus could get into their extra new generation fighters quicker. Just some ideas of co-operation that will(and currently is in some cases) serve both countries more efficiently. Leave the super hi-tech capabilities that we have no 'time up' in to them and concentrate on options we can actually add to adequately and use purposefully.
Nevermind the fact we have many other holes in the bucket to plug first adding a compeletly new and different capability(for us) would more than likely cause the hole to stay the same if not get bigger elswhere.

 

[RubiconNZ]

There would be better and more useful Aus projects for NZ to assist in and a future submarine program is definitely not it, not only does it serve no useful purpose or provide any range of options and roles for us but we have no experience therefore expertise to provide for them, so other than financial backing(which would be minimal) and maybe some limited spare 'basic crew' to round out numbers no real gains are to be had for either nation.

While I agree that the RNZN has other priorities I could see the value in some cross crewing.

Despite suffering from manning issues of their own, I could see great value for the RNZN establishing a extended exchange program which allows personnel to serve on the Collins for a period of say 2-3 years, then return to the RNZN and bring with them a massive amount of experience and knowledge with them about Submarine operations, be it sonar operators, ASW operations, even underwater medicine expertise if base deployed, imagine the value for the NZDF when they return for deployments on frigates, or as operators on the Orions (RNZAF I know).

The benefit for the ADF obviously would be an additional pool of personnel even say if it was limited to 20-30, not to mention ensuring new level of cooperation amongst for each country.

Obviously there could be some clearance issues which maybe to insurmountable to get past, does any one know if the NZ navy has had people on the Collins before?

 

[RegR]

Agree with you Rob experience gained by our navy posting to Aus subs can only bring benefits(to both countries) in terms of knowledge, understanding and manning, and is as involved as we should/could get sub wise, was just reffering to the idea of us taking on a collins ourselves or even "helping" with collins II technically is alittle beyond our current capabilities.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Agree with you Rob experience gained by our navy posting to Aus subs can only bring benefits(to both countries) in terms of knowledge, understanding and manning, and is as involved as we should/could get sub wise, was just reffering to the idea of us taking on a collins ourselves or even "helping" with collins II technically is alittle beyond our current capabilities.

For sure, your list of areas of focus are bang on, and are hopefully what the MOD has in mind.

 

[aussienscale]

For sure, your list of areas of focus are bang on, and are hopefully what the MOD has in mind.

I don't understand what you think NZ would gain from this ? I would think to be honest that the NZ Government would baulk at the first hurdle when they find out the cost of training these guys in WA for what return of investment ?

As an off-side question (for anyone in the know) just curious as to the current perception of the Kiwi's and there sub hunting skills ? They were considered at one stage as the best sub hunters on the planet ?

 

[RubiconNZ]

I don't understand what you think NZ would gain from this ? I would think to be honest that the NZ Government would baulk at the first hurdle when they find out the cost of training these guys in WA for what return of investment ?

As an off-side question (for anyone in the know) just curious as to the current perception of the Kiwi's and there sub hunting skills ? They were considered at one stage as the best sub hunters on the planet ?

My main train of thought is comparing this exchange to the way Pilots are posted to aggressor squadrons.

Navy personnel would learn skills in ASW from the other side, by gaining real experience in Submarine operations, this would build a understanding of underwater operations from a perspective unavailable from anything on offer in the RNZN, this would be transferred back to the RNZN for use in their ASW operations, as sonar operators, weapons operators etc.

That was what I was thinking, whether this has practical application well, I'm happy to be told other wise.

 

[Kirkzzy]

There would be better and more useful Aus projects for NZ to assist in and a future submarine program is definately not it, not only does it serve no useful purpose or provide any range of options and roles for us but we have no experience therefore expertise to provide for them, so other than financial backing(which would be minimal anyway) and maybe some limited spare 'basic crew' to round out numbers no real gains are to be had for either nation.
Better options for ANZAC naval/ defence co-op projects would be the P8 poseidons and maritime UAVs, our tanker replacement, littoral ships, ANZAC frigate replacements, extra naval NH90s for their future LHPs or even kiwi STOL jets to jointly operate from them as they are not yet considering and therefore scatches an itch for both coutries (our ACF and their onboard fastjets). Also if we had not have left it so long we could have re-instated the macchis got our fast jet expertise back to a credible standard with the idea of taking over the shornets in years to come so Aus could get into their extra new generation fighters quicker. Just some ideas of co-operation that will(and currently is in some cases) serve both countries more efficiently. Leave the super hi-tech capabilities that we have no 'time up' in to them and concentrate on options we can actually add to adequately and use purposefully.
Nevermind the fact we have many other holes in the bucket to plug first adding a compeletly new and different capability(for us) would more than likely cause the hole to stay the same if not get bigger elswhere.

I like the Super Hornet idea and had considered it myself, but I am pretty sure the RAAF is going to replace the legacy hornets with three F-35 squadrons first and then the fourth squadron when ready will replace the super hornet which will be given back to the US.

So all NZ would be able to get, is the legacy hornets and well they are just getting way too old. NZ is better off going through with its original 28 F-16s order, or even buying a single possibly very small squadron of 12 F-35s.

Although I am pretty sure John Key is not open to combat aircraft given by the White Paper. As for collins, I still am unsure because of the whole ANZAC frigate issue, but reading the comments of "times changing" maybe NZ would help with the future submarines.

Although what is the most realistic options is that NZ will either help with the future frigates or offshore combat vessel. The AWD is also another possibility but unlikely.

 

[MrConservative]

The DWP is very fuzzy and non-commital that even now there is far too much for further speculation. There are the various supporting documents though that can at least confirm directions. The supporting documents reveal wider funding bands than the DWP 2/11/10 media release, giving options for both scaling done, steady or enhanced and optimal capability - all available on the MOD site to download. Unless I missed it there is nothing in it about submarine warfare or even the requirement for cross training. Though I can see the benefits such as gaining knowlege and experience in Sub warfare, in a manpower and budget limited Defence Force it may detract from other areas.

Going forward, in the Maritime side of the equation we know that the Anzac replacement has been pencilled in. As has the LWSV and the Endeavour replacement. The LWSV vessel has a funding approximation of NZ$120m, the Endeavour replacement has been given a wider approximation of NZ$230m - 430m and the ANZAC II has a funding band of NZ$2000 - 3000m. Which would seem that 2-3 surface combatants are in order. The supporting documents also outline the fact that the Protector fleet is due for replacement in a 15-20 year timeframe around the time that the Frigate project is to be underway.

In some respects it is the area of sealift and replenishment I want us to get right as a core platform and capability before I worry about Frigates. I dont think we will get it right though - we will probably get a Canterbury Clone as a replacement for the E, but this is what I would look to do.

Order two Meko MESHD's (or similar concept - MRD15000 derivative), one to be intoduced in 3-4 years and then another delivered in the later part of the decade thus replacing the Canterbury early prior to a midlife refit ( It would still be a sellable item to cash strapped Navy's such as the Philipines or Ireland who seek a sealift capability). This means we would have greater flexibility in providing Sealift and Replenishment. Kaedings article provides the detail below.

http://www.europeansecurityanddefen...Ball%E9/Bohlayer_Ball%E9_Kaeding_ESD_0308.pdf

The article in this link on the Meko CSL is also worth a good read. Would make a nice concept to base any LWSV on.

With the IPV's and OPV's due for replacement around the time of the Frigate's (2025-2030) I would hold off in a future maritime helicopter until those projects are settled. It would mean that over the rebuilding period of the NZDF I would continue with the Seasprite - probably (NZ's) upgraded to (I) standard or the rebuilt (I)'s stored at Kaman which may even work out cheaper. In the short term there is no money for NH-90's or Super Lynx's. IIRC the supporting documents in the DWP only allocate around NZ150-200m for the Seasprite upgrade project - which points to more Seasprites.

 

[Lucasnz]

The DWP is very fuzzy and non-commital that even now there is far too much for further speculation. There are the various supporting documents though that can at least confirm directions. The supporting documents reveal wider funding bands than the DWP 2/11/10 media release, giving options for both scaling done, steady or enhanced and optimal capability - all available on the MOD site to download. Unless I missed it there is nothing in it about submarine warfare or even the requirement for cross training. Though I can see the benefits such as gaining knowlege and experience in Sub warfare, in a manpower and budget limited Defence Force it may detract from other areas.

Going forward, in the Maritime side of the equation we know that the Anzac replacement has been pencilled in. As has the LWSV and the Endeavour replacement. The LWSV vessel has a funding approximation of NZ$120m, the Endeavour replacement has been given a wider approximation of NZ$230m - 430m and the ANZAC II has a funding band of NZ$2000 - 3000m. Which would seem that 2-3 surface combatants are in order. The supporting documents also outline the fact that the Protector fleet is due for replacement in a 15-20 year timeframe around the time that the Frigate project is to be underway.

In some respects it is the area of sealift and replenishment I want us to get right as a core platform and capability before I worry about Frigates. I dont think we will get it right though - we will probably get a Canterbury Clone as a replacement for the E, but this is what I would look to do.

Order two Meko MESHD's (or similar concept - MRD15000 derivative), one to be intoduced in 3-4 years and then another delivered in the later part of the decade thus replacing the Canterbury early prior to a midlife refit ( It would still be a sellable item to cash strapped Navy's such as the Philipines or Ireland who seek a sealift capability). This means we would have greater flexibility in providing Sealift and Replenishment. Kaedings article provides the detail below.

http://www.europeansecurityanddefen...Ball%E9/Bohlayer_Ball%E9_Kaeding_ESD_0308.pdf

The article in this link on the Meko CSL is also worth a good read. Would make a nice concept to base any LWSV on.

With the IPV's and OPV's due for replacement around the time of the Frigate's (2025-2030) I would hold off in a future maritime helicopter until those projects are settled. It would mean that over the rebuilding period of the NZDF I would continue with the Seasprite - probably (NZ's) upgraded to (I) standard or the rebuilt (I)'s stored at Kaman which may even work out cheaper. In the short term there is no money for NH-90's or Super Lynx's. IIRC the supporting documents in the DWP only allocate around NZ150-200m for the Seasprite upgrade project - which points to more Seasprites.

I agree forget subs they're a side issue in ensuring a more capable surface force. People are forgetting the sovereignty issue with having the mixed crew concepts that have emerged later in the forum.

The OPV had a unit cost of $91.4million, so while there will be additional capabilities in the LSS I don't think they amount to much (maybe a bigger gun, more capable radar). The MEKO CSL seems like a workable option, with scalable options for the future, though I'm not sure it would fit within the budget requirements. I couldn't find anything on price on the net (even estimates).

I'm of two minds regarding Canterbury as I'm of the view that NZ should let its Amphib capability develop naturally and from operational experience and should therefore retain Canterbury. The most likley option is Canterbury will have a bigger sister that will reduce the logistics chain. The budget suggests other options will be considered, but the key problem with the Meko MESHD is its larger that what NZ requires (but I love the design).

Personally I'd ditch the Sprite, its already becoming a logistics nightmare with its composite blades. We can't afford to be running orphans.

 

[recce.k1]

That Meko MESD looks the part doesn't it?

From the PDF in the AOR role:

• 3 helicopters
• 6,440 tons of fuel (Endeavour carries 7,500 tons according to RNZN)
• 320 tons of supplies
• 250 tons of ammunition.

Or the sealift/LHD variant etc. Nice! As you say Mr C, a couple of these would be ideal for a C21 RNZN with new and demanding challenges in an unstable region be that "tensions" or natural disaster/climate change relief etc (as said, Canterbury could be sold at mid-life upgrade, or retained as a superb training vessel i.e. training of ratings plus Army logistics at sea etc (in fact with the RAN moving to much larger vessels eg LHD's and the Bay Class acquisition, and with Canterbury training RAN junior officers a few months ago, could the Canterbury become some sort of cheaper joint-NZDF/ADF training vessel)?

Wonder what the MESD costs?

My reading of the Seasprite situation (just IMO) could be an additional purchase, but if Govt takes on board the Value For Money review, it is clearly saying ditch the Seasprites because of its higher operating costs (compared to RAN helo operating costs, presumably they mean Seahawk)?
I see there was other scuttlebut on Kiwiblog a few days ago saying the UK whilst they are here are trying to sell the NZGov the AW159 Lynx Wildcat. Cost appears to be approx $60M NZ per airframe (unverified) although I cannot say whether that's dependent on the final fitout and support/training costs etc. Perhaps that $60M is a lower-end cost because the original G(NZ) Seasprites cost more (and also the AW159 has some nice kit on board, bet it isn't that cheap with state of art AESA radar and dipping sonar etc, etc, mind you the RNZN needs the best).

I do like Robsta's idea of NZ personnel getting more vaulable ASW experience - if in that scenario we're only talking a handful of personnel per year, then surely this would be affordable?

 

[Sea Toby]

That Meko MESD looks the part doesn't it?

From the PDF in the AOR role:

• 3 helicopters
• 6,440 tons of fuel (Endeavour carries 7,500 tons according to RNZN)
• 320 tons of supplies
• 250 tons of ammunition.

Or the sealift/LHD variant etc. Nice! As you say Mr C, a couple of these would be ideal for a C21 RNZN with new and demanding challenges in an unstable region be that "tensions" or natural disaster/climate change relief etc (as said, Canterbury could be sold at mid-life upgrade, or retained as a superb training vessel i.e. training of ratings plus Army logistics at sea etc (in fact with the RAN moving to much larger vessels eg LHD's and the Bay Class acquisition, and with Canterbury training RAN junior officers a few months ago, could the Canterbury become some sort of cheaper joint-NZDF/ADF training vessel)?

Wonder what the MESD costs?

My reading of the Seasprite situation (just IMO) could be an additional purchase, but if Govt takes on board the Value For Money review, it is clearly saying ditch the Seasprites because of its higher operating costs (compared to RAN helo operating costs, presumably they mean Seahawk)?
I see there was other scuttlebut on Kiwiblog a few days ago saying the UK whilst they are here are trying to sell the NZGov the AW159 Lynx Wildcat. Cost appears to be approx $60M NZ per airframe (unverified) although I cannot say whether that's dependent on the final fitout and support/training costs etc. Perhaps that $60M is a lower-end cost because the original G(NZ) Seasprites cost more (and also the AW159 has some nice kit on board, bet it isn't that cheap with state of art AESA radar and dipping sonar etc, etc, mind you the RNZN needs the best).

I do like Robsta's idea of NZ personnel getting more vaulable ASW experience - if in that scenario we're only talking a handful of personnel per year, then surely this would be affordable?

The German designed amphibious assault ship from other sources I have read claim they would be about 50 million Euros cheaper than a French Mistral or Spanish BPE. Which means they are way out of New Zealand's league as much as an Aussie Canberra LHD...

Believe it or not, the Canterbury MRV meets New Zealand Defence Forces requirements for sealift... Why would you want something twice as large and more than three times as expensive?

While the Meko corvette is very nice, again New Zealand has no requirements for corvettes... Corvettes aren't that much cheaper than frigates with very similar weapons systems, but without the fuel range of a frigate... I would rather have a frigate...

While both of these ships meet German requirements wonderfully, they don't meet New Zealand's requirements...

 

[recce.k1]

Ok, if they're that costly, sure then NZ won't be going there....

I agree (and I'll think you might find Mr C, too agrees) with you that Canterbury meets NZDF requirements for sealift. There are limitations though, which the NZDF has to work around, such as offloading onto LCM's at not perfectly benign seastates, and I agree with Lucas that NZ should be letting its "Amphib capability develop naturally", to work out where to go to the next level when the Canterbury is replaced (or as Mr C suggests, at Midlife point). That last aspect could be important, as the Canterbury also being NZ's version of a command and control ship, would presumably also need an extensive comm upgrade at that stage (mind you, it's probably easy and cheap to refit than to buy new a whole new ship). Time will tell though if any other issues (or high operting/maintenance costs crop up), seeing Canterbury is an orphan and all costs/issues may not yet be defined. I suspect the full cost/operational issues/limitations aren't entirely known or if known, have yet to be catered for, in other words, it may be possible some future issues could see Canterbury re-assessed at mid-life point (this is my speculation).

As you can see, the Endeavour replacement with something more multi-role, is driving us (here at DT) to look at the wider world options out there, but realistically best we consider the Endeavour over the Canterbury (for the sanity of other readers)

 

[MrConservative]

I dont want to relitigate the Canterbury but what was studied as part of the Sealift requirement stemming from the Land Forces Review 2000 and the actual Canterbury - there is a gap. We have got the Canterbury coming up 4 years old and by the later part of this decade we would be looking at money spent on a refit / upgrade. I would on sell it at that stage. It was a $200m ship would have been in service say 12 years. Thats an under $20m a year capital writedown cost for that capability in the NZDF inventory. Plus it would be worth something when sold to a cash strapped minor Navy. At that stage you could argue that the numbers represent good lifetime- cost benefit value equalizing with a reasonable resell value for the C.

I do understand the size / cost aspects of the Meko MESHD, but it is the design concept that I like. I dont think that this MESHD design concept will only be offered by TKMS. I believe this is where things are heading and would be the best pathway for the NZDF in the decades ahead. When you think about what the Koreans have in terms of experience is shipbuilding at both Amphibious vessels such as the Dokto and their experience on the tanker - replenishment market, and have that coupled with their ability to build quickly and cost effectively, I am sure that a MESHD design within the 10000 - 15000t range is within reach. The optimal funding band for the Endeavour replacement ranges through to NZ$426m according to the DWP supporting documents. IIRC TKMS through their HWD subsidary at one stage were offering the MRD-10000 to Portugal, essentially a scaled version of the MESHD for around the Eur220m mark.

So as I mentioned a scaled MESHD design derivative to replace the E in the first part of the decade and then its sister ship to replace the C at the end of this decade prior to a mid-life upgrade / refit.

Comments as per the Meko CSL - it is again the concept I like - essentially being a multi-role OPV platform and in our case an indicator design philosphy for a future C3/OCV. I did not specifically say that the actual MEKO CSL was what we needed. Such a concept as this Meko can be ramped up to be a full monty Corvette package (at cost) or ramped down to an OPV with modules. A multi-role OPV configured with a 40-57mm gun with modulised military survey, dive, MCM ect..

 

[Sea Toby]

I dont want to relitigate the Canterbury but what was studied as part of the Sealift requirement stemming from the Land Forces Review 2000 and the actual Canterbury - there is a gap. We have got the Canterbury coming up 4 years old and by the later part of this decade we would be looking at money spent on a refit / upgrade. I would on sell it at that stage. It was a $200m ship would have been in service say 12 years. Thats an under $20m a year capital writedown cost for that capability in the NZDF inventory. Plus it would be worth something when sold to a cash strapped minor Navy. At that stage you could argue that the numbers represent good lifetime- cost benefit value equalizing with a reasonable resell value for the C.

I do understand the size / cost aspects of the Meko MESHD, but it is the design concept that I like. I dont think that this MESHD design concept will only be offered by TKMS. I believe this is where things are heading and would be the best pathway for the NZDF in the decades ahead. When you think about what the Koreans have in terms of experience is shipbuilding at both Amphibious vessels such as the Dokto and their experience on the tanker - replenishment market, and have that coupled with their ability to build quickly and cost effectively, I am sure that a MESHD design within the 10000 - 15000t range is within reach. The optimal funding band for the Endeavour replacement ranges through to NZ$426m according to the DWP supporting documents. IIRC TKMS through their HWD subsidary at one stage were offering the MRD-10000 to Portugal, essentially a scaled version of the MESHD for around the Eur220m mark.

So as I mentioned a scaled MESHD design derivative to replace the E in the first part of the decade and then its sister ship to replace the C at the end of this decade prior to a mid-life upgrade / refit.

Comments as per the Meko CSL - it is again the concept I like - essentially being a multi-role OPV platform and in our case an indicator design philosphy for a future C3/OCV. I did not specifically say that the actual MEKO CSL was what we needed. Such a concept as this Meko can be ramped up to be a full monty Corvette package (at cost) or ramped down to an OPV with modules. A multi-role OPV configured with a 40-57mm gun with modulised military survey, dive, MCM ect..

That price for Portugal was a few years ago when the Euro was worth half again more than what it is worth today.... So 330 million Euros today would probably be its likely cost, with the Euro worth twice what the NZ dollar is worth... Furthermore, the Canterbury can carry up to five helicopters, more than enough for New Zealand armed forces...

Many on this forum price equipment being bought today with prices of several years ago... Even worst, they use old prices for equipment to be bought ten years from now... The Canterbury ran around 100 million Euros to build... While the Canterbury may be an orphan, there are four very similar ferries which are near sisters, with similar propulsion systems...

The Canterbury is spending most of her time at the pier. She should last thirty years or more... Her communications gear which is most likely to age the quickest is not nearly as expensive as a new ship... That gear need not be replaced until the Army replaces their communications gear, preferably with the same Army buy...

While some nations are investing in multi role tankers/sea lift ships, I am not convinced its a good idea to mix a tanker with a troop ship...

 

[Adzze]

That price for Portugal was a few years ago when the Euro was worth half again more than what it is worth today.... So 330 million Euros today would probably be its likely cost, with the Euro worth twice what the NZ dollar is worth... Furthermore, the Canterbury can carry up to five helicopters, more than enough for New Zealand armed forces...

Many on this forum price equipment being bought today with prices of several years ago... Even worst, they use old prices for equipment to be bought ten years from now... The Canterbury ran around 100 million Euros to build... While the Canterbury may be an orphan, there are four very similar ferries which are near sisters, with similar propulsion systems...

The Canterbury is spending most of her time at the pier. She should last thirty years or more... Her communications gear which is most likely to age the quickest is not nearly as expensive as a new ship... That gear need not be replaced until the Army replaces their communications gear, preferably with the same Army buy...

While some nations are investing in multi role tankers/sea lift ships, I am not convinced its a good idea to mix a tanker with a troop ship...

I note that the DWP calls for a "more versatile" replacement for the fleet oiler Endeavour. If not a combined troop/amphib/resupply ship, presumably that could mean something like the Fort Victoria class resupply ship; which though a lot larger than Endeavour (32kt vs. 12kt respectively) can embark up to 5 helicopters (3 hangared) in addition to fuel and stores. The RN is actually disposing of one ship in this class (RFA Fort George) although having been laid down around the same time as Endeavour, no doubt it will be too old.

While the MESHD looks like an impressive ship, can a capital ship like this have too many roles, making it "too valuable to risk" in a conflict scenario? Could a small navy like the RNZN be configured to provide adequate protection or, like the Canterbury, is it not really intended to go in harm's way?

 

[MrConservative]

That price for Portugal was a few years ago when the Euro was worth half again more than what it is worth today.... So 330 million Euros today would probably be its likely cost, with the Euro worth twice what the NZ dollar is worth... Furthermore, the Canterbury can carry up to five helicopters, more than enough for New Zealand armed forces...

Many on this forum price equipment being bought today with prices of several years ago... Even worst, they use old prices for equipment to be bought ten years from now... The Canterbury ran around 100 million Euros to build... While the Canterbury may be an orphan, there are four very similar ferries which are near sisters, with similar propulsion systems...

The Canterbury is spending most of her time at the pier. She should last thirty years or more... Her communications gear which is most likely to age the quickest is not nearly as expensive as a new ship... That gear need not be replaced until the Army replaces their communications gear, preferably with the same Army buy...

While some nations are investing in multi role tankers/sea lift ships, I am not convinced its a good idea to mix a tanker with a troop ship...

The fact you dont like it Toby convinces me that its a grand idea. :

The Portugal HDW figure was from 5 years ago. It is just an illustration that a 10000 tonne MESHD type concept can be affordable. An illustration no different to what you were attempting by extrapolating a build cost by 33% through to today. Thus the criticism must flow the other way back to your own argument.

There is a reason why Canterbury is spending some time alongside. It sort of undermiines persistent cheerleading of this vessel. Being able to switch roles quickly is a big plus.

The Canterbury being " more than enough for NZ" is nonsense if recent comments from the NZDF, DWP and DefMin are factored in. So well ignore the contrarian inputs.

Using figures from today is the only guideline to use future costs modelling. Even the DWP support documents have done this. It is called cost relativity.

A scaled MESHD design derivative built in Korea using common OTS systems - doable in my view if the optimal figure in the approximation band is used. Such a vessel would be far better for fleet flexibility and joint taskforce work with our ADF friends.

It would be nice if people read the Kaeding article. It explains that the vessel does a role switch and NOT tries to do everything all at once which is what I fear people think it does. When the ship acts in a LHD mode or pur sealift role is is not also acting in the full AOR role. It switches roles thats the point and its cost benefit advantage over building three separate platforms, which is not sustainable in a small naval force.

 

[Sea Toby]

The fact you dont like it Toby convinces me that its a grand idea. :

The Portugal HDW figure was from 5 years ago. It is just an illustration that a 10000 tonne MESHD type concept can be affordable. An illustration no different to what you were attempting by extrapolating a build cost by 33% through to today. Thus the criticism must flow the other way back to your own argument.

There is a reason why Canterbury is spending some time alongside. It sort of undermiines persistent cheerleading of this vessel. Being able to switch roles quickly is a big plus.

The Canterbury being " more than enough for NZ" is nonsense if recent comments from the NZDF, DWP and DefMin are factored in. So well ignore the contrarian inputs.

Using figures from today is the only guideline to use future costs modelling. Even the DWP support documents have done this. It is called cost relativity.

A scaled MESHD design derivative built in Korea using common OTS systems - doable in my view if the optimal figure in the approximation band is used. Such a vessel would be far better for fleet flexibility and joint taskforce work with our ADF friends.

It would be nice if people read the Kaeding article. It explains that the vessel does a role switch and NOT tries to do everything all at once which is what I fear people think it does. When the ship acts in a LHD mode or pur sealift role is is not also acting in the full AOR role. It switches roles thats the point and its cost benefit advantage over building three separate platforms, which is not sustainable in a small naval force.

So you advocate the idea NZ's sealift ship could possibly be operating as a replenishment ship visiting Korea or Japan with an Anzac class frigate when we need to deploy that sea lift ship in the South Pacific after a typhoon or earthquake... One needs a replenishment ship to support frigate deployments, one doesn't necessarily need a sea lift ship to support frigate deployments...

There may be times when a deployment requires both a sea lift ship and a replenishment ship, but then there may be times when there will be a need to have sea lift for one deployment and a replenishment ship for another deployment at the same time... Something a hybrid ship can't do, being in two places at once...

New Zealand can only afford one expensive hybrid ship, whereas Germany can afford several ships... Ferries and tankers are cheap, hybrid ships aren't...

 

[MrConservative]

Yes I do. We would be building 2 of them. The new Endeavour and a Canterbury replacement sister ship. One ship can be typically configured in AOR role the other in sealift. Simple really. In fact both under an emergency situation could be configured as Sealift to respiond to a HumCris in the Pacific.

Total rubbish about the affording it line Toby. You trundle out that excuse but it does not wash with me at all as it is obvious someone with only a partial understanding of NZ macro-economics would do. As usual you overstate reality to make a point. Usually by endlessly regurgitating some factoid that you manage to remember.

 

[Lucasnz]

I agree with Mr C. Experience (1970's Mururoa Protests and Fiji 1987) has shown that NZ needs two support ships. However the requirement in each was different. Fiji showed the need for a troop ship while Mururoa showed the need for a tanker. The roles are fundamentally different but if NZ can deliver both roles with one class of vessel bring it on. Initial cost maybe an issue but I think Sea Toby you're looking at up front cost.s NZ can not afford ignore the through life benefits in terms of reduced training and logistics.


On the subject of the LSS Brunei's new OPV offers some promise. Stern ramp along with a good well deck for modules. Reasonable sensor outfit with a flight deck and ASM.