Future options for the RNZN

[Aussie Digger]

New Zealand is also a small nation of only 4 million people, even though it has a very large EEZ. Critics of New Zealand defence acquistions have to understand that most of these dollars being spent are going overseas without much or any positive effects on its economy. Defence spending for new equipment is like a giant sucking sound of money leaving the country.

However, New Zealand has made great strides. There used to be a time in the not to distant past when all of their warships came from the United Kingdom. In the recent new naval construction, New Zealand has been offered offsets, constructing many of the Anzac class frigates modules in New Zealand, not for just its two but for all of the ten Tenix build ships. Likewise, with Project Protector New Zealand is building modules for the OPVs, and are building entirely the IPVs, although many of the weapon and sensor systems are built abroad. New Zealand is seeing over a billion dollars of offsets with the Anzacs, more than the cost of their two frigates, and is seeing over a hundred million dollars of offsets with Project Protector, significantly reducing the sucking sound.

With the upgrades of New Zealand C-130s and P-3s, while foreign corporations are bidding on the contracts, much of the work is being done in New Zealand although most of the parts were build abroad.

There is a big difference using defence acquistions to boost your nation's economy and having a giant sucking sound as these dollars go abroad....

Unfortunately defence in any country is not a money making business for the Government. Nearly all Countries (except possibly Russia and the USA) purchase the bulk of their military equipment overseas.

Through life support, systems integration, occasional module/component builds, are about the best most defence industry companies in Australia/NZ can achieve.

It is not a justification for refusing to spend on your own defence however. Nor is it a reason to ignore international obligations by deliberately limiting your own capability.

NZ IS a small Country and it's defence contributions are always relatively minor. It is a wealthy Country proportionately however and could easily increase it's defence spending and effort, should the politicians be so inclined.

By Western standards it's defence spending is extremely low. a relatively minor increase in budget would allow a massive increase in capabilities (NZ$20 million a year plus, $4-5M a year support costs per aircraft, would give it a fleet of 28 F-16's for example).

An extra $900m a year (roughly) would would be available for NZ defence, if she were to spend what Australia does, as a percentage of GDP, (1.9%, even though Australia is a relatively low spender, herself).

This would provide a massive lift in available funding for the NZDF, and would allow the acquisition of just about everything, even the most ardent NZ defence supporter could want....

 

[Sea Toby]

With the large surpluses lately, yes, New Zealand can afford to spend more.If I were the government I think a good goal would be to increase this to 1.5% GNP, half again as much more than they are spending now. However, the current government has reorganized its forces and its wants to sustain what they are spending now, around 1% GNP.

Notice recently the difficulties in the Solomon Islands. Fortunately the forces needed were small, capable of being airlifted in quickly.

But as I noted on other threads, while New Zealand could afford more and better equipment, the size of its forces cannot grow much because currently unemployment is considered low. Yes, unemployment can go lower, and there is some room for increasing the size of its forces. Unfortunately this government hasn't shown any signs of willing to increase their size.

 

[EnigmaNZ]

National and NZF both have indicated that the defence budget is too low, so wait for the next election. (fingers crossed)

It's not so much that the government has decreased defence spending durring it's time in office, it was about 1.8% of GDP back then, but that economic growth has been surging ahead of inflation year after year, while defence has been inflation proofed only, so has fallen in % terms.

Last year about $960M was spent on O & M from a GDP of about $130+B. Last budget defence was altered in that they can now claim depreciation on assetts, to go towards future aquisitions, about $250M on assetts of about $3,500M, as the new purchases come through, both those fiqures will rise, it will put about 20% aside each year for capital spending, the gov has stated that this will need topping up for large projects. Overall then about 1% of GDP now, this needs to be locked at so when the economy increases in real terms, so does defence, while remaining at 1% to please the greenies, who want a transport and coastguard force only.

The military has always been a place to mop up unemployment, most new recruits I believe come from the lower social economic groups, with unemployment around 3.5%, down from almost double that a few short years ago, it is harder to attract suitable recruits, other departments have similar trouble, same problem as is occurring in a lot of other western countries with similar levels of unemployed. Who wants the deprivations of the army at $12 an hour, when you can get $15 driving a bus.

 

[old faithful]

I recently read an article on the possible repalacement of HMNZS Endeavour.
The article suggested that the new ship could be based on the Cantabury, with a replenishment fit out.
Does anyone know anything about this?
If so, will it have a troop carrying/ transport capability as well?
Sounds like a versitile type of ship for a small Navy.

 

[chis73]

I recently read an article on the possible repalacement of HMNZS Endeavour.
The article suggested that the new ship could be based on the Cantabury, with a replenishment fit out.
Does anyone know anything about this?
If so, will it have a troop carrying/ transport capability as well?
Sounds like a versitile type of ship for a small Navy.

I suggest you try the RNZN Discussions & Updates thread, where this has been discussed extensively, numerous times (around February this year -page 149 - would be a good place to start).

Basing the Endeavour replacement on the Canterbury would be a terrible idea. Canterbury is a ferry - not a tanker. Completely different design principles.

Canterbury is also a jetty queen - good for one or two exercises a year, but what does she do the rest of the year? She provides a new sealift capability - but very inefficiently. She was sold to the public as being able to conduct Southern Ocean EEZ patrols and junior rate training - which she will probably never do. Like the Charles Upham before her, she handles like a drunken jellyfish when unloaded. Quite frankly, the best thing they could do with her would be to operate her as a ferry - say during the busy summer months on the inter-island run, or perhaps Wellington / Lyttelton to the Chathams. At least then she would be busy, and still close to home if needed.

Chis73

 

[Volkodav]

I recently read an article on the possible repalacement of HMNZS Endeavour.
The article suggested that the new ship could be based on the Cantabury, with a replenishment fit out.
Does anyone know anything about this?
If so, will it have a troop carrying/ transport capability as well?
Sounds like a versitile type of ship for a small Navy.

Japans new helicopter destroyer design the 22DDH is fitted out to replenish other ships in the squadron as well as carrying 4000 troop and their vehicles.

Maybe NZ could look at ordering one of them.:

 

[old faithful]

No worried Chris73, suggestion noted.
Drunken jelly fish you say?!

 

[recce.k1]

I recently read an article on the possible repalacement of HMNZS Endeavour.
The article suggested that the new ship could be based on the Cantabury, with a replenishment fit out.
Does anyone know anything about this?
If so, will it have a troop carrying/ transport capability as well?
Sounds like a versitile type of ship for a small Navy.

G'day, is this the article that you read? If not, there's some wee tidbits of info below. At least we now know the project name: Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability Project

From AMI International:

Endeavour Replacement RfI Out, Responses Due by 25 March 2011
In early February 2011, the New Zealand Ministry of Defence (MoD) officially started the Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability Project for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN). The full Request for Information (RfI) for the project is now available on the New Zealand Government Electronic Tender Service (GETS) website. Free registration is required to view the full RfI. Responses to the RfI are due back to the MoD by 25 March 2011 4pm New Zealand local time.

The RfI seeks submissions from companies that have the skills, capabilities and systems to provide a complete solution and companies that can provide design solutions that meet user requirements. The RfI will allow the New Zealand Government to make and Indicative Business Case (IBC) and assumes that respondents to the RfI will also be interested in participating in the Request for Proposal (RfP) or Request for Tender (RfT) should the project progress.

The project is for the procurement of one multi-role vessel (MRV) to replace the capabilities of the HMNZS Replenishment Oiler (AOR) Endeavour as well as adding additional capabilities similar to those found on the Project Protector MRV HMNZS Canterbury. The requirement was identified in New Zealand‘s latest defense document, Defence White Paper 2010.

The new vessel will replace the capabilities found in the HMNZS Endeavour and will comply with the new International Maritime Organization (IMO) tanker double-hull requirements. The replacement will also address the current shortfall in sealift required to deploy and support a land force, essentially supplementing the capabilities found in the MRV Canterbury. The MRV will be capable of the traditional support missions such as Replenishment at Sea (RAS) and Vertical Replenishment (VERTREP) in addition to the helicopter facilities and tactical sealift capabilities found on the Canterbury.

Although still early in the program, the RNZN could choose one of a handful of new Joint Support Ship (JSS) designs that are entering the market. Construction, however, will probably occur in a foreign location as New Zealand does not possess the capability to build a vessel of this size. It could, however, build some of the modules at Whangarei with final assembly at BAE Australia. The new MRV will probably enter service by 2015.

The Point of Contact for this project is:
Cdr Tony Hayes, CEng RNZN
Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability Project Team Leader
HQ NZDF
Defence House
5-12 Aitken Street
Wellington, New Zealand
Tel: + 64 4 496 0999
E-mail: [email protected]
The full Request for Information (RfI) can be found on New Zealand‘s Government Electronic Tender Service (GETS) (Free registration required) Website at: GETS - Government Electronic Tenders Service. Further information on this project can be obtained by contacting Pat Bright at AMI International (Tel: + 1 360 373 2686 or E-mail: [email protected]) or visiting AMI International‘s Future Fleet Replenishment Ship (AOR) project report at:
http://www.amiinter.com/wnpr/new_zealand/NZ6001.html.

That last link above would be interesting to read (if one had password access)
Source: http://www.imdexasia.com/pdf/Hot News February 2011.pdf

 

[StingrayOZ]

Japans new helicopter destroyer design the 22DDH is fitted out to replenish other ships in the squadron as well as carrying 4000 troop and their vehicles.

Maybe NZ could look at ordering one of them.:

I think that someone has edited wikipedia. the 22DH would carry about 400 troops and equipment. I find it unbelievable that a 19,000t ship would carry 4 times as much as the 29,000t Canberra class, and even more than the 40,000t USMC amphibs.

Aren't the french looking at unloading Foudre (LPD)? Chile was looking at it. Actually a ship that would fit would be the RN Largs bay... too bad some sneaky country already bought it.. I think they paid $100 million aud, which would place it the same approximate price as the Canterbury. I would take that price and get the french to beat it..

 

[old faithful]

G'day, is this the article that you read? If not, there's some wee tidbits of info below. At least we now know the project name: Maritime Projection and Sustainment Capability Project

From AMI International:


That last link above would be interesting to read (if one had password access)
Source: http://www.imdexasia.com/pdf/Hot News February 2011.pdf

Yep recce1,thats the one, and thanks for posting the link
Its been about 6 months now, I was just wondering what designs were being seriously considered. A versitile ship is needed, however the NZDF really dosnt NEED Bn lift capability, but such a capability would be benificial to joint operations with defence partners. Combined with Canturburys lift, another 150 pax would be very handy indeed, along with rotory assets, and vehicle lanes as well as replenishment capability.

 

[t68]

In regards to possible replacements for the ANZAC class frigate, if NZ did not want to go the way of the RAN, other options could be the USCG Legend class (National Security Cutters) or the offshore patrol cutter program, they are roughly the same dimension as the current ANZAC class Frigate but with a larger displacement of 4500t I would imagine that would be short ton compared to an ANZAC at 3600t.

Feature of the Legend class cutters are,
• Automated weapon systems
• Medium-caliber deck gun (57 mm) capable of stopping rogue merchant vessels far from shore
• Helicopter launch and recovery pad with rail-based aircraft retrieval system and two aircraft hangars
• Stern boat well for small boat launch and recovery
• Bow thruster
• State-of-the-art C4ISR improving interoperability between Coast Guard and DoD
• Detection and defense capabilities against chemical, biological, or radiological attack
• Advanced sensors for intelligence collection and sharing
• Real-time tracking and seamless Common Operational Picture/Maritime Domain Awareness via integration with Rescue 21
• Advanced state-of-the-art Ships Integrated Control System (Machinery Control, Steering, Navigation) for reduced manpower requirements and improved automation
• Cassidian (EADS) TRS-3D/16-ES Air Search Radar for area surveillance

Northrop Grumman has offered the USN the same ship as a compliment to the LCS at reports of under $400 million US which at current exchange rates is approx $484NZD. They have also have a patrol frigate on offer with Aegis and harpoon integration but a search has not come up with information about that ship.

With a smaller crewing requirement the same amount of crew can man three Legend class (113) compared to two Anzac class (170), no increase in manning levels for the NZN for three, this could be a step forward for the NZN which to boost there operating capacity without enlarging the navy personnel and still be capable of operating with coalition events far from home waters.

 

[t68]

With the Philippine Navy buying 3 ex USCG cutters, I wonder if any other small navy would be interested in the 2 RNZN Anzac ships, wonder what they would be worth in their current state.

If NZ can off load the ANZAC ships, sell them now whilst they are still relatively young and save the upgrade costs, buy MOTS Legend class with 8 ships of the class being built for the USCG cost of these are a known quantity for a modern multi-role vessel.
With an estimated price of around the $480m NZD per ship that’s roughly 1.6 billion for 3 ships less cost for selling the ANZAC and upgrade saving, would it be worth looking into.

 

[StevoJH]

With an estimated price of around the $480m NZD per ship that’s roughly 1.6 billion for 3 ships less cost for selling the ANZAC and upgrade saving, would it be worth looking into.

If they meet the RNZN's requirements for a frigate and the ANZAC's could be offloaded it might be worth looking into.

However that also requires an NZ government willing to pump 1.6 Billion into the Military budget. Also, half a chance any money recouped from selling the ANZAC's wouldn't go into the Defense Budget but rather back into the general treasury pot.

 

[swerve]

If NZ can off load the ANZAC ships, sell them now whilst they are still relatively young and save the upgrade costs, buy MOTS Legend class with 8 ships of the class being built for the USCG cost of these are a known quantity for a modern multi-role vessel.
With an estimated price of around the $480m NZD per ship that’s roughly 1.6 billion for 3 ships less cost for selling the ANZAC and upgrade saving, would it be worth looking into.

Multi-role? They're patrol ships. Good for chasing pirates & the like, excellent range, room for two light helicopters (AS565), but that 57mm gun is their heaviest weapon, & the only others they carry are machine guns (0.5" & 7.62mm). If the RNZN is to give up any ambitions of being able to fight in any wars, ever again, then they might do.

9 metres longer & 1.5 metres wider than ANZACs, 900 tons heavier. They could probably be fitted with additional sensors & weapons, but that would cost a lot (& an uncertain lot) & would give NZ unique warships, which doesn't seem sensible.

Holland class would cost a lot less money, BTW, & there are two going spare. If oceanic patrol ships are all that's wanted, they'd probably be a better buy. Much cheaper to operate, too: half the crew, for a start.

 

[Lucasnz]

Multi-role? They're patrol ships. Good for chasing pirates & the like, excellent range, room for two light helicopters (AS565), but that 57mm gun is their heaviest weapon, & the only others they carry are machine guns (0.5" & 7.62mm). If the RNZN is to give up any ambitions of being able to fight in any wars, ever again, then they might do.

9 metres longer & 1.5 metres wider than ANZACs, 900 tons heavier. They could probably be fitted with additional sensors & weapons, but that would cost a lot (& an uncertain lot) & would give NZ unique warships, which doesn't seem sensible.

Holland class would cost a lot less money, BTW, & there are two going spare. If oceanic patrol ships are all that's wanted, they'd probably be a better buy. Much cheaper to operate, too: half the crew, for a start.

Couldn't agree more. Using ships designed for the USCG would remove the ability of the RNZN to conduct operations in our region similar to those performed in East Timor. As it is with the capability now and proposed there is a serious imbalance in the ability of the RNZN to escort and protect these vessels in our region. In addition 57mm is only able to provide light fire support and must come off target to reload. The navy has always considered fire support an important part of its role.

Would not the better option be to use the money for the upgrades and the sale of the frigates to buy new frigates and three of them.

 

[t68]

It would be more beneficial at this time for NZ to upgrade the NZ frigates to RAN standards (HMAS Perth) and carry over the program once the RAN starts replacing the Anzacs with the future frigate program, its all moot point anyway as NZG has begun the upgrade path for the frigates.

Once the replacement program for the Anzac’s comes in I cannot see the NZG going the way of the RAN using possibly the same hull as the AWD for the future frigate and getting a minimum of three ships.

Other options are RN Type 26 GCS the original plan for was also around 7000t mark, but has been revised down to 5500t and down from $500m to $250/300 per ship (pounds not dollars). South Korea plan to build a mini Aegis destroyer based on the KDX II hulls(5600t), Northrop Grumman offered the same hull (NSC) to use Aegis and harpoon ( Aegis is a little bit unrealistic for NZ).What would the NZG deem to be to large?

Whatever NZG choose to do, it has to look at the implications of have a small fleet not being able to leverage of the RAN, using the NSC as a base line least the RNZN have a common user in the pacific under the USCG.

 

[StevoJH]

Depending on cost and how worn out they are, NZ could go the "cheap" option and buy up RAN ANZAC's as they are removed from service. Rotating the ships in service could potentially increase their time before having to replace them.

 

[Volkodav]

What NZ could probably look at is a class of two to three Danish Absalon class flexible support ships to replace the ANZACs and Canterbury. They would pretty much do everything NZ required and more.

 

[Lucasnz]

What NZ could probably look at is a class of two to three Danish Absalon class flexible support ships to replace the ANZACs and Canterbury. They would pretty much do everything NZ required and more.

I like the Absalon design but don't seeing it replacing the ANZAC but rather complementing the roles of the ANZAC's and Canterbury. However one comment out of Wellington a few months ago (I think it was on stuff) indicated that General Purpose ships like the Canterbury can do a lot of jobs but can't do anything well. That I would suggest limit the interest in the Abalson in some respects.

 

[chis73]

With regard to the Absalon class, how many ports in the south pacific are suitable for ro-ro operations? Not many I would think. At least Canterbury has the cranes and landing craft to unload heavy cargo itself.

Given it's fitout, I can't see the Absalon being cheaper than a NZ ANZAC, considering the low-end / obsolescent equipment fit ours have (no SSM, only one fire control director, one CIWS, no towed array sonar, old torpedoes & missiles, a helo with no dipping sonar). We balked at buying a third even when we had all the industrial offsets of the building programme.

I worry that NZG will balk at the cost of replacing even the two ANZACs. I certainly can't see us getting three <4000t low-end frigates, let alone joining the 6000t+ ANZAC II programme (even if we had industrial offsets), in the current cost cutting frenzy.

If frigates are considered unaffordable, would something like the Danish Thetis class have to suffice, replacing the OPVs as well? Would our "international contribution" be best served by a single AOR and Canterbury?

Chis73