The problem with the Royal New Zealand Navy is that they don't have the capability to play well with NATO Allies, the US or Australia. The Royal New Zealand Navy as I see it is more Akin to a Coastal navy like Ecuador or even Mexico. With their size, they are almost as big as the US Coast Guard. If the Royal New Zealand Navy wanted to play with US & Australia, they would need to modernize their Navy and put it on Par with NATO Frigate Navies.
The way I see it, they should have gone with 4 Multi Role Frigates such as the FREMM Frigate, F-125 or the Álvaro de Bazán class frigate or the Fridtjof Nansen class frigate. The other attractive option for the Royal New Zealand Navy is that they could have looked at a modified patrol frigate out of the Legend-class National Security Cutter that the US Coast Guard is operating right now. Their Navy right now, almost operates like the US Coast Guard.
4 Multi Purpose replenishment ships such as the Berlin class replenishment ship or the Lewis and Clark class dry cargo ship.They should Ditch the HMNZS CANTERBURY and should have gone with 2 to 4 LPD's such as the Endurance class LPD, San Antonio class amphibious transport dock, Galicia class landing platform dock or even the Rotterdam class amphibious transport dock.
As for their Patrol Force, I believe they should have gone Sentinel class cutter that is better armed than what they have. The other would have been Spain's Buque de Acción Marítima.Their Patrol Boats they have, which is nothing more than a toothless patrol boat. They could have made it very well Armed.
As for the helicopters, they should have ditched the Seasprite and should have gone with the more capable MH-60R or SH-60 or their other option would have been to go with the NH90 NFH.
Several points here seem to have been overlooked.
First, the RNZN has a pair of FFH's in service which are approaching the time for their mid-life update. While not the best kitted out frigates in service, they are more heavily armed than the new National Security Cutters entering service in the USCG. Depending on the options chosen their MLU, the capabilities of the RNZN
Anzac-class FFH's could expand significantly. While most observers do agree that the RNZN would have been better served had a third and perhaps fourth FFH been purchased, it would make little sense for the RNZN to have chosen one of the suggested classes, unless the RNZN had decided to retire and perhaps sell their Anzac-class vessels early, instead of conducting a MLU. The Royal Norweigan Navy's Aegis-equipped
Fridtjof Nansen-class FFG is perhaps a good example of this dilemma. The RNZN's oldest
Anzac-class FFH, HMNZS Te Kaha was commissioned July 1997, and the HNoMS Fridtjof Nansen was commissioned April 5th, 2006.
It would better instead of consider what the RNZN should do in terms of a replacement programme for the FFH's, both in terms of numbers, capabilities, cost and timeframe.
As for the RNZN getting four replenishment vessels, I have to ask, "why?"
Take a look at the composition of the RNZN fleet
here. The RNZN fleet currently only has ~8 vessels which might be deployed away from NZ, and that includes the current replenishment vessel, a survey vessel, a diver/MCM vessel, the MRV/sealift vessel HMNZS Canterbury, both OPV's and the two FFH's. As a practical matter, all of those vessels are not going to be deployed away from NZ at the same time, and more likely some vessels would not be deployed away from NZ given their roles. Having a second replenishment vessel might be nice for NZ to have, to give a bit more freedom and flexibility when the primary vessel is undergoing maintenance, but is not essential. Particularly given the typically limited scope RNZN's deployments away from NZ and/or Oz.
Now in terms of getting something better than Canterbury... Yes, something better would have been nice. However, prior to Canterbury the RNZN did not have any sort of amphibious capability, and the Project Protector programme which included Canterbury was like most NZDF aquisition programmes run on a 'shoe-string' budget. IIRC the whole Project Protector fleet, the Canterbury MRV, the two OPV's and the four IPV's costing a total of ~NZ$500 mil. Again from memory, there was a cost limitation for the Canterbury which worked out to ~NS$130 mil. or ~USD$100 mil. Such a limitation would have put a ST Marine-built
Endurance-class LPD out of reach, since they cost ~US$135 mil. nevermind a US-built
San Antonio-class LPD since the costs at present are looking to average out somewhere above US$1.2 bil. per vessel, and could end up as high as US$1.7 bil. per vessel. A similar situation would exist if the
Galicia-class or
Rotterdam-class amphibs had been chosen, since those vessels have higher costs than an
Endurance-class LPD.
As for the IPV's needing heavier armament... Against what exactly? The four new IPV's are just that, Inshore Patrol Vessels, designed to operate in and around the islands of New Zealand. I doubt they would ever engage in significant patrolling of the edges of the EEZ, since they lack the size and displacement to deal with the gentle waters of the southern Pacific and Southern Oceans. Apart from some police/fishery/enviromental enforcement activities, I suspect much of what the IPV's are actually going to be doing is SAR work. For these sorts of roles, so close to NZ proper, small arms are really all that is required.
One thing which those who have not spent much time looking at the NZDF, is to really look at the resource limitations which the NZDF has had to operate under for so long and the degree to which politics and the Treasury have dictated what can be purchased or how much can be spent.
-Cheers
