Yes, I had to look at another photo to get the perspective right. Impressive looking ship and ice strengthened to boot. Thing is it is one thing what the CN might want and another what he will actually receive from the NZG, unfortunately.
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
Svalbard might be similar weight to Absalon but she's 37m shorter, she's an icebreaker with a gun, not something that we need I think.
I've been leaning that way for a while now. The critical issue is that there is no Redundancy across the Naval Combat Force, OPV's, Canterbury and Endeavour. I think thats highlighted by the fact that the RNZN was unable to contribute to the Piracy Patrols.
To acheive that redundancy capability you need 3 frigates and 3 OPV (at a min). If you factor in the IPV, Littoral Warfare Ship (though I think the OPV's could pick this up to reduce the number of classes in Service) along with Canterbury and Endeavour then you're looking at 13 ships min. Realistically 15.
I'm not that keen on the Svalbard class. I think it moves us away from the Amphib Task Force. Some like the MEKO CSL would be better (if cost wasn't a factor) given its covette like features.
I agree about the Svalbard - of the Norwegian vessels Harstad would be a better prospect and at least has 1B Ice which may come in handy. Still I think their are other vessels out there which would be better - Svalbard was a strange choice to whack into the middle of a Defence powerpoint presentation.
Agreed on the requirement for 3 frigates for availability and deployability but not sure about a 3rd OPV, if push came to shove a frigate can cover the OPVs roles(albeit alittle overkill) but not vice versa so the extra frigate should be priority. Going off govts plan to consolidate hulls I highly doubt another OPV is on the cards.
According to the RAN thread they have 2 FFHs parked up sitting idle at any one time, could be a perfect oppourtunity to get the frigate numbers up (3 or even 4) and could benefit both countries rather than gathering barnacles tied alongside. Would be an easy fix as should be pretty much exactly the same as ours.
If I understand the RAN contributors correctly, The idle FFH's are there because the govt has made a budget surplus a political imperative at the cost of everything else. They have overspent garnering votes on school halls and pink bats so Navy must make significant cuts over the current budget and thus the idle ships.
BTW all FFH's have been approved for the ASMD upgrade a la HMAS Perth.
Cheers
To be fair the Danes and Norwegians have many more neighbors with many more trawlers much closer to their EEZ than isolated New Zealand. Distance consumes fuel which isn't getting any cheaper. Having said this, New Zealand does need to patrol their EEZ or the others will rob your fishery stocks.
Just a thought:
RNZN has Resolution paying off next month, Canterbury out of action for 7 months from August this year, to be followed by the ANZAC frigate upgrades. Thats a lot of our people sitting around without a ship for the forseeable future.
Meanwhile, RAN ties up two un-upgraded ANZAC frigates due to lack of crew & budget cuts.
Could there be a better time to rent an ANZAC from the Aussies? :idea2
Hopefully, the lights just went on at Jonathan Coleman's place - but I doubt it.
Chis73
RNZN has Resolution paying off next month, Canterbury out of action for 7 months from August this year, to be followed by the ANZAC frigate upgrades. Thats a lot of our people sitting around without a ship for the forseeable future.
Meanwhile, RAN ties up two un-upgraded ANZAC frigates due to lack of crew & budget cuts.
Could there be a better time to rent an ANZAC from the Aussies? :idea2
Hopefully, the lights just went on at Jonathan Coleman's place - but I doubt it.
Chis73
Maybe the RAN could lease the crews from the RNZN instead.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Not really an option IIIRC. The reason AFAIK why two RAN FFH's are tied up at the moment is that Gov't is restricting ADF spending in an attempt to 'keep the budget down' and get back to a surplus. There are enough RAN personnel currently assigned to shore duties to crew the frigates, but with budget cutbacks, the RAN does not have the funding to have the frigates deployed and still absorb the costs of Choules and the projected costs for the LHD's, etc.
-Cheers
Resoloution paying off with no immediate replacement, not a good sign, again people will say later on down the track "well we've done this long without it so do we actually need it?", I feel another capability has just bitten the dust quietly.
We will have a spare crew(s) for a period, Aussies have idle ships for a period- seems like a no brainer, we just borrow an ANZAC, keep the lights going, rent a frigate and give her back with a full tank of gas. Then maybe with availability our frigates could do some real time work and go pirate hunting. Improves morales, puts skills to use and improves international relations, winning.
Work on the ASMD upgrade of the remaining seven RAN ANZACs is due commence in January 2013 and be completed by 2017, so I suspect the RAN won't have truly "idle" ships for long.
while i agree in theory to the RNZN utilising the idol FFH(see the RAN for my unrestricted thoughts on this waste of ships) but while working with the kiwi navy for 6 weeks last Nov, i was informed that one of your FFH was locked up, not for christmas break but for budget cuts. so if your not keen on using the one you have, while flogging the other, not much point in a loan of a Anzac
Not much argument for 3rd frigate or any new vessel for that matter if that is the case, especially since with a ship now gone, one going into long term maintanence and another "locked up" what do we actually have afloat and what are those excess crews doing? Is the navy going the way of the ACF?
Yes if the Aus FFHs are slowly getting upgraded then the parked up ships are irrelevant as there would be unavailable ships anyway.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that doesn't make much sense - are you sure they meant "locked up" as in placed in extended readiness, or just tied up at the wharf? If the latter, I would expect that would be de rigueur these days with Te Kaha & Endeavour currently on-tour, and everyone on a tight budget. Te Mana would leave the wall only in an emergency. Thats the price we have to pay now that we only have two frigates.
I haven't seen anything official that one of the frigates has been placed in extended readiness. I would be surprised the Navy would take that much of a risk. If they have, they are keeping it very quiet. Standing down an IPV, I could believe, as we have a large enough fleet of them to get away with that.
I was thinking a lease of a RAN ANZAC would only be a short term thing - while Canterbury is out of action. That wouldn't impact severely on RAN's upgrade plans.
As an aside, has anyone heard what plan RNZN have for managing when the frigates go through their upgrades? That will leave us with only one frigate available for a long time (years?)
Chis73
I was working with the RNZN from End Oct to Dec over 6 weeks...in that time the most people that were onboard Te Mana were 10...and it wasnt early RAP.
A couple of the crew had joined Canterbury as they had nowhere else to go. The RNZN had offered rapid discharge to reduce numbers if that answers a few questions.
One of the IPVs was also 'tied up' with no plans for patrol or leaving the berth.
In regards to the seasprite fleet, if we were just going to bolster the numbers with ex RAN sprites then why are we waiting as the problems are already known with this type, availability, support, maintanence etc, and the idle frames are just sitting in a warehouse somewhere ready to releive the pressure now.
If we were going with a new type such as 60Rs or 90s then agreed that will take time and evaluation but not sure if the problems are already identified now why we are waiting to sort at some point in the future, they are not going to magically go away and are still going to cost us the same money in the future as they are now(if not more).
If the sprites are as expensive to operate and maintain as stated due to its semi-rareness then why not take the hit now and upgrade to something new, with more roles and more mainstream which would create efficiencies in training, spares and operation. Logic would dictate MH-60 due to synergies with our closest neighbour and ally, but NFH90 also has some benefits ie less fleet types.
Something like 3 MH-60Rs(for the frigates) and 3 MH-60Ss(for support ships) would give us more tasks covered, a better supply chain and improved interaoperabilityand availability but also a smaller type would be required for the OPVs unless they can handle the larger helo type(s). I would say all Rs but the suites would probably be overkill and expensive just to sit on Canterbury or the new tanker for something like disaster releif and not really role specific.
Just a thought anyway unless govt are going to do the usual and give the current sprites a new paint job for a few more years life and run the platforms into the ground prior to handing over to the local museums.
If we were going with a new type such as 60Rs or 90s then agreed that will take time and evaluation but not sure if the problems are already identified now why we are waiting to sort at some point in the future, they are not going to magically go away and are still going to cost us the same money in the future as they are now(if not more).
If the sprites are as expensive to operate and maintain as stated due to its semi-rareness then why not take the hit now and upgrade to something new, with more roles and more mainstream which would create efficiencies in training, spares and operation. Logic would dictate MH-60 due to synergies with our closest neighbour and ally, but NFH90 also has some benefits ie less fleet types.
Something like 3 MH-60Rs(for the frigates) and 3 MH-60Ss(for support ships) would give us more tasks covered, a better supply chain and improved interaoperabilityand availability but also a smaller type would be required for the OPVs unless they can handle the larger helo type(s). I would say all Rs but the suites would probably be overkill and expensive just to sit on Canterbury or the new tanker for something like disaster releif and not really role specific.
Just a thought anyway unless govt are going to do the usual and give the current sprites a new paint job for a few more years life and run the platforms into the ground prior to handing over to the local museums.
Tee_Centre_10
Member
A split purchase may end up more expensive than getting 6 Romeos.
6 x Rs can be treated as a single fleet. 3 x R and 3 x S would need to be treated as two fleets, with two sets of procedures/documentation/training courses/conversion courses/upgrades/etc/etc/etc.
It also isn't very flexible. If one aircraft goes U/S or through deeper maintenance or undergoes an upgrade you've lost 33% of your fleet. A fleet of 6 is far easier.
Romeos can have the electronics stripped out, so it can still perform in the utility role.
6 x Rs can be treated as a single fleet. 3 x R and 3 x S would need to be treated as two fleets, with two sets of procedures/documentation/training courses/conversion courses/upgrades/etc/etc/etc.
It also isn't very flexible. If one aircraft goes U/S or through deeper maintenance or undergoes an upgrade you've lost 33% of your fleet. A fleet of 6 is far easier.
Romeos can have the electronics stripped out, so it can still perform in the utility role.
Yeah have to totally agree on that, no way would our Navy or MoD go for a split purchase, im hopping for the MH60R but we will have to wait and see how the next review goes.
They are different models as in they have the suites or not, not completely different helicopters altogether, therefore buying the helos and then removing the suites does not save money as you have still purchased the more expensive suites/internal fittings in the first place. An R would inevitably cost more then a S due to its slight build differences regardless of with/without internal fitout.
The S is a pure logistical support helo with more room inside(so ideal for the likes of Canterbury or the new tanker), does not have the smaller footprint landing gear needed for the smaller frigate decks and minus all the sensors. An R and a S have the same glass cockpit. No point having a fully guccied ASW helo on transport ship responding to tsunamis or doing DOC tasks. Yes having all helos being the exact same model will have advantages but if it saves millions on the initial purchase cost I think I can guess which type govt would prefer regardless of what navy wants.