It will take something like Timor was for Australia, for NZ to get its $#%! together! Either that or something traumatic, international pressure from allies about NZ not pulling its weight could help.. but that would be a poor move on the allies part.
Future options for the RNZN
- Thread starter Lucasnz
- Start date
I disagree with your assessment. The influence of the far left and the MSM in New Zealand is not what it was even 5 years ago. They are thankfully a reducing force as public influencers. Attitudinal surveys reflect this.
There has been a noticeable quiet backlash against them both (to the point of mistrust and loathing in some of the cases you have mentioned – you forgot Minto by the way in your list), which has revealed a maturing amongst the general public regarding matters of defence and the necessity of New Zealand retaining capabilities in both combat and obviously SASO type missions. Generational factors, the vox populi’s access to alternative sources of information via the internet, the sizable majority of the public’s change in positive esteem towards the work of the defence force and the same publics realisation that NZ is no longer able to get away with the isolationist peacenik stance and must engage with the rest of the world as it is good for business.
I would hasten a pessimistic view like this may have had credibility in 2001, but it is weakening in 2011 and will be weaker still in 2021 when the decisions on what replaces the Anzacs really do have reality about them. Of course far left zealots will whinge and march, and some of the shallower members of the MSM will call "Battleships", but it does not worry me anywhere as much as it did years ago.
The USA deployed USS Belleu Wood, USS Blue Ridge, USS Peleliu and USS Mobile Bay for Op Warden, plus the USMC 31st MEU and a range of comms, EW specialists, plus USAF C-17's to assist with transport.
That is hardly what I would call "limited". That's almost as much combat power as the rest of Interfet put together. Just because there was only a handful of US soldiers actually on the ground, doesn't mean their contribution was limited.
Quite the opposite. The US was the strategic "reserve" that enabled the operation to go off without facing serious opposition. If it had just been Australia and NZ involved, things may have been very different.
Getting back on topic, do we necessarily see a dedicated frigate as the replacement for the RNZN ANZAC's? I see something more flexible, along the lines of the Danish Absalon Class multi-purpose ships as being a definite possibility, as noted earlier in the thread? Perhaps not that exact design, but something similar. Canterbury may not doing anything briliiantly, although adequate in most of it's intended roles I'm sure, but then it's a modified ferry, a purpose designed multi-role naval vessel may indeed provide better service?
With a future requirement to replace HMNZS Canterbury as well (later than ANZAC's obviously) this may allow for a return to a 3 vessel major surface combatant force, as well as provide a degree of amphibious / expeditionary capability. It may even be a politically acceptable way of gaining that needed, larger platform?
I should clarify what I ment by limited. I ment as in not an operation completely run, lead and equiped by the Americans. While the US deployment was powerful, and essential it wasn't unlimited or unrestrained. The cruiser required screening etc and they didn't provide those assets, in terms of where they would go and what they would do, while support was huge in terms of coms and airdefence, there was little in sea lift, troops, smaller supporting assets etc. Im not upset about that, but it drives the point home there will be missions where the US will not be the lead nation every single time, and it shouldn't be, and won't fill in all the gaps. Particularly in our region where it could be seen as US imperialism and invoke nations that would otherwise stay out of it or logistically if they are involved else where. Or where the US doesn't want to jump into a civil war in south east asia, who also happens to be an important nation they want to keep on side against the backdrop of global strategic politics.
This is where the unique enviroment countries like Australia and NZ sit in. This is why I don't think NZ should get out of the capable blue water frigate business. NZ contribution during Interfet was essential, and highlighted how important/valuable that NZ had ANZAC frigates. Future enviroments will require a tighter level of intergration.
In particular against Absalon you aren't really gaining much in weapon capability over an ANZAC. ESSM and harpoon. In that sense it is dependant on other ships to provide basic air defence. While this may have been okay 20 years ago, I don't believe this is the case for our region going into the next 30-40 years.
While the AWD will provide RAN's air defence, the frigates will offer SM-2/SM-6 and most likely PAC-3 capability. Can this be added to Absalon at a later date or in the origional build?
Absalon isn't the worst choice, 2 would make the RNZN slightly more capable than it is now across a whole range of capabilities. Im just not convinced its the best choice.
Some of my views are shared with this document
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2 Feb 2000/East Timor.pdf. Not that I find it definative nor perfect it articulates some basic truths about New Zealand defence.
They too describe the US force commitment as limited, and as I recall it was quiet difficult to get commitment in a timely manner. So initally Australian and NZ were the ones to position themselves first.
I think East Timor was the event that should shake up both Australia's and New Zealands defence capability and policy. As it was these two countries that were burdened most of the responsibility and made the largest contributions.
http://www.victoria.ac.nz/css/docs/Strategic_Briefing_Papers/Vol.2 Feb 2000/East Timor.pdf. Not that I find it definative nor perfect it articulates some basic truths about New Zealand defence.
They too describe the US force commitment as limited, and as I recall it was quiet difficult to get commitment in a timely manner. So initally Australian and NZ were the ones to position themselves first.
I think East Timor was the event that should shake up both Australia's and New Zealands defence capability and policy. As it was these two countries that were burdened most of the responsibility and made the largest contributions.
The author of that article was iirc Dr David Dickens who not long after was "removed" from the publicly funded CSS at the behest of the Clark Govt. Dickens was at the time the one outspoken critic of the direction Ms Clark was taking us who was getting some media exposure. In the context of its time it was a very good article.
I don't think ADMK2 is advocating the Absalon exactly, but I think I understand the point he is trying to make. An evolved Absalon type concept - sort of like the Danish Iver Huitfeld Class Frigate with some of the Absalons SASO/Humsupt attributes, of course utilising Stanflex modules. It is one way of getting 3 "vanilla" hulls in the water without having to go for 3 full monty frigates (Which will not happen - DWP costing projections were based on 2 full monty Anzac II frigates). The compromises in a ship like that is less of an issue with the RNZN than say a RAN or RN vessel.
As for the HMNZS Chundabury replacement. If the Singaporeans go for the Endurance 160 next decade we should have a real good look at it, even to the point of selling the grey ferry a few years early or even to avoid a mid-life refit if it indeed does tick the boxes. There are a number of designs for 12-15000 tonne strategic support ships out there. A true strategic support vessel is what we really need.
Hey Mr C,
I like the direction that Navy are taking in regards to the total def force package, Navy will replace like with like they are not looking at a Absalon type vessel they are looking for a Frigate for the Naval Combat Fleet,
At this stage my money is on either the Type 26 or ANZAC II, it depends on ship build IMHO ie if UK can sell the Type 26 to Brasil in large number vs a small run with ANZAC II, Naval Combat Force is a key enabler in the NZDF for the future. These are my thoughts on the matter.
CD
Yep. I would be putting my money on 2 Anzac II's for a win and then putting a place bet on the Type 26. The Type 26 will have a lot wider mission scope than the current Anzac and no doubt the Anzac II will do as well. Both will do what we need I'm sure - but the Anzac II for the win as political and operational synergy with Australia is very important from a wider Govt perspective.
Lets agree to disagree, if the UK can sell the T26 to Brazil say 10 hulls + 13 for the RN say 2 - 3 for the RNZN thats a large number which should reduce costs and this is where our governtment will place most of its emphasis on.
But regardless of what we get I am more than confident that it will be a GP Frigate of some description, not a multi purpose ship like the Absalon and that assessment is based on all the work that NZDF is producing for the future force out to 2035. This will become available soon hopefully to the general public in the near future.
Ah … so your placing your win bet on the Type 26 and putting the ANZAC II for a place then Dave. We should run a sweepstake. 
Frankly I don't care what we end up with at this stage as long as it is fit for purpose and of merchantable quality. The right tool for the job and all that.
The thing about the NZDF total force concept is that it does vie for far greater inter-ops with the ADF than ever before - and platform synergy is going to be a significant aspect of that.
Frankly I don't care what we end up with at this stage as long as it is fit for purpose and of merchantable quality. The right tool for the job and all that.
The thing about the NZDF total force concept is that it does vie for far greater inter-ops with the ADF than ever before - and platform synergy is going to be a significant aspect of that.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Not at all,its only a matter of time before pressure is placed on nz politicians to get with the programme.An ascending china aint ever gonna replace a declining america as a security partner...people on both sides of the tasman will never stand for that.
Are you suggesting that the NZDF is not doing enough? Where is this pressure going to come from and in what form? Not pulling its weight?
Haha,Ah … so your placing your win bet on the Type 26 and putting the ANZAC II for a place then Dave. We should run a sweepstake.
Frankly I don't care what we end up with at this stage as long as it is fit for purpose and of merchantable quality. The right tool for the job and all that.
The thing about the NZDF total force concept is that it does vie for far greater inter-ops with the ADF than ever before - and platform synergy is going to be a significant aspect of that.
Im like you Mr C I dont care what we get as long as it is a Frigate that replaces the current ANZAC.
Remember guys, before Clark NZ had 28 F-16 on order and the option for another pair of ANZACs. You have a new government now and big things can change in big ways in a very short time frame.
OpinionNoted
Banned Member
Across the board... both aus and nz will ahve to increase their respective capabilties.
We wont mention that Volkdav, remember yes, but best we steer clear of it.
Unfortunately the current government has its hands tied rebuilding Christchurch so any new money for flash new kit is not going to happen. Which in a way does show that big things can change in a very short time - because all that took was a couple of minutes.
The only positive I can muster out of the CHC quake was that it did wake the complacency of many Kiwi's who had got so use to the notion that the only thing bad that could happen to us as a nation is losing to the French in the 07 Rugby World Cup.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
I agree with the sentiment that whatever Frigate type is chosen, it can only be good.
It's also very reassuring to know that the NCF features strongly in the future force projection planning etc. Can't wait for the NZDF to release its assessment.
(So we can shout down the agitators - as Mr C says, boy have the tables turned - thanks to technological advances that allow anyone now to say a say and counter the agitator's spin with the facts, as ol' Hager has found lately, what a bugger, not).
For allies that suggests NZ will still complement the ADF's maritime forces (in certain areas) and after all it's nice to know one isn't alone facing the uncertain future world.
Incidentally as Swerve points out, country of origin isn't the issue (for future frigates). It seems to me that the difference between Aust and NZ in procurement options, in simplified terms, is that Aust is at the "bleeding edge" integrating the best of US and global technologies (after all Aust has the defence budgets to allow this) where as in NZ where the funding is very tightly moderated will go for off the shelf technology without all the bells and whistles of their cousins across the ditch.
This is where T26 v ANZAC II becomes interesting. I can see the possibility of potentially longer T26 run/lower costs v the opposite of the ANZAC II. But AuGov pressure will be immense on NZG ...
But to be honest the landscape has changed so much in recent years with take-overs and mergers in the Australian shipbuilding scene, with big players like BAE Syst, Thales and the Spanish-Aust consortiums in there, the future ANZAC II will surely be a much different beast this time around. I couldn't say, at this very early point in time, which way things could go. Happy to be enlightened though!
(As another aside, it's interesting noting these concept designs for, eg Enforcer sealift and other such support vessels, are scalable. Could the likes of BAE or Navantia etc, offer something scalable for the future Frigate? A "smaller" T26 for the RN, Brazil, RNZN, for patrolling/keeping SLOC open etc and a "larger" T26/ANZACII for the RAN featuring higher end fitouts for USN task force integration eg with land attack capabilities ie to be operating at the sharp end of the fight - NK/Iran etc)?
It's also very reassuring to know that the NCF features strongly in the future force projection planning etc. Can't wait for the NZDF to release its assessment.
(So we can shout down the agitators - as Mr C says, boy have the tables turned - thanks to technological advances that allow anyone now to say a say and counter the agitator's spin with the facts, as ol' Hager has found lately, what a bugger, not).
For allies that suggests NZ will still complement the ADF's maritime forces (in certain areas) and after all it's nice to know one isn't alone facing the uncertain future world.
Incidentally as Swerve points out, country of origin isn't the issue (for future frigates). It seems to me that the difference between Aust and NZ in procurement options, in simplified terms, is that Aust is at the "bleeding edge" integrating the best of US and global technologies (after all Aust has the defence budgets to allow this) where as in NZ where the funding is very tightly moderated will go for off the shelf technology without all the bells and whistles of their cousins across the ditch.
This is where T26 v ANZAC II becomes interesting. I can see the possibility of potentially longer T26 run/lower costs v the opposite of the ANZAC II. But AuGov pressure will be immense on NZG ...
But to be honest the landscape has changed so much in recent years with take-overs and mergers in the Australian shipbuilding scene, with big players like BAE Syst, Thales and the Spanish-Aust consortiums in there, the future ANZAC II will surely be a much different beast this time around. I couldn't say, at this very early point in time, which way things could go. Happy to be enlightened though!
(As another aside, it's interesting noting these concept designs for, eg Enforcer sealift and other such support vessels, are scalable. Could the likes of BAE or Navantia etc, offer something scalable for the future Frigate? A "smaller" T26 for the RN, Brazil, RNZN, for patrolling/keeping SLOC open etc and a "larger" T26/ANZACII for the RAN featuring higher end fitouts for USN task force integration eg with land attack capabilities ie to be operating at the sharp end of the fight - NK/Iran etc)?
Size isn't the cost driver here - ships simply get more expensive if you use the extra tonnage to put more expensive stuff into them.You don't need a "small" 26 - just tick less of the options list (air con and sat nav as standard, but stick with 18 inch wheels etc..)
Better to buy a decent sized hull and work with that than something with no margin for growth over the hull life.
Ian
Weelllll . . . Absalon isn't intended to operate in high-threat areas alone. The Danish navy is getting three Ivar Huitfeldt class to go with Absalon & Esbern Snare: same hull, but less volume, more power, & heavier armament. APAR, SMART-L, SM-2 etc.
There are only two Absalon-class ships, & they're extremely atypical of European warships. Even Denmark is building a greater number of more combat-capable ships. Why focus on them when discussing European warships & their suitability for the RNZN?
Absolutely right. Extra tonnage also gives the option for greater range and/or endurance, both very cheap additions compared with more weapons & sensors.
Previously you posted:
Fridtjof Nansen = Well great combat system on a small ship, with limited weaponry. Again your not really gaining any fire power over an ANZAC.
FREMM = Again not really designed to go above or beyond what ANZAC had.
So what F-100, Type 45, Ivar, F-70, De Zeven, F-124. Im not see anything that is going to be cheaper or fit in better than an AnzacII or a type 26. Given that both will be brand spanking new and in the water most likely before NZ has to choose you would assume that they would have to be perfered options.
Australia has made it pretty clear what it expects the new class to be able to do, and is most likely to be better armed than the type 26. In fact as far as frigates go, the AnzacII might end up as the most capable outright.
Then because it had already been bought up I mentioned why the Absalon was really not what the RNZN needed,
Ok so we are agreed. Which means we can concider the other options.
Fridtjof Nansen = Well great combat system on a small ship, with limited weaponry. Again your not really gaining any fire power over an ANZAC.
FREMM = Again not really designed to go above or beyond what ANZAC had.
So what F-100, Type 45, Ivar, F-70, De Zeven, F-124. Im not see anything that is going to be cheaper or fit in better than an AnzacII or a type 26. Given that both will be brand spanking new and in the water most likely before NZ has to choose you would assume that they would have to be perfered options.
Australia has made it pretty clear what it expects the new class to be able to do, and is most likely to be better armed than the type 26. In fact as far as frigates go, the AnzacII might end up as the most capable outright.