Acquiring an Upgraded OPV / Corvette I feel provides a balance in capabilities in order to maintain and develop the Joint Task Force while carry out EEZ patrols. I don't think upgrading the capability of the OPV is some thing to be ignored, especially when considered against what the USCG is proposing with its offshore patrol cutter. Upgrading the OPV's won't result in overkill given the weight limitations will limit what can be done, but making the most of existing assets seems to me a cost effective way of improving capability in the RNZN.
Attempting any sort of significant upgrade programme to the current
Protector-class OPV's IMO would be a bit of a waste. In part this is because the vessels themselved ended up ~300 tonnes overweight due to the ice-strengthening. Equally significant is the design layout precludes any sort of significant upgrades without significant yard time and reallocating internal compartment layout and structures. If one looks at the drawings for the
Protector-class found
here, when one compares the layout of Deck 01 immediately beneath the mounting of the 25 mm cannon on Deck 02, one sees that there is an HVAC unit and a centre-line passageway leading to the ship's small arms storage and a washroom, as well as compartment walls, part of the ship's magazine, and a ship's ladder down to Deck 1. In order for any sort of larger mounting to be installed, the appropriate through-deck penetrating structures would need to be put in where those various compartments are, and those compartments and the associated wiring and equipment will themselves need to be relocated. Not something which is going to have a positive impact on already overweight vessels.
Also looking at the outline of the OPV, I do not really see any sufficiently large and flat area where a non deck-penetrating mount could be installed, since those areas are already set aside for the helipad, RHIB launch/recovery, etc. It might be possible to install some mini-Typhoon mountings on the Bridge Deck... Honestly though I suspect the viable upgrades for the
Protector-class OPV are mostly going to be in the sensor and electronics areas.
What I am looking at Reg is long term planning. The FFHs are due for replacement around 2025 - 28, give or take. Lucas has pointed out the Protector OPVs have a 25 year life span and as he and Tod have said this is long term. We would want replacement OPC / OPVs designed, built and achieving IOC before the Otago and Wellington are due to be paid off for good. I fully understand the problems the RNZN and NZDF face at the moment, but a lot can and probably will change in the intervening years. My own opinion is that the threats will increase, become more open and volatile, with the South Pacific not being immune. As pointed out by Tod this conversation needs to happen now because the time involved in a Naval Vessel replacement project is long.
The main reason why our current OPVs have the armament they have is political pacifist. Most of those pollies have gone and so NZDF theoretically have a better chance of obtaining a better armament fitout on replacement OPV / OPC. From what I understand a 3in / 76mm main gun with DART & VULCANO ammo has punch of a 5in / 127mm gun. With regard to the force structure I suggested, the Canterbury will have to be replaced around 2025 - 28, the Endeavour needs replacing now and the understanding is that the NZG is looking at a JSS type solution. If the SH2G(I) Seasprites are bought, they'll need replacing around 2030. Navantia can do a 13,000 tonne build of the Canberra class LHD which would make sensefor the RNZN. The RNZN and RAN are drawing even more closer as evidenced by the recent ministerial joint statement:
So IMHO the 13,000 tonne Canberra class LHD, or more accurately an upgraded version, is a viable option. The question was asked on the RAN thread if the two navies would become one. Don't think so but anything is possible. Finally the FFL discussion on RAN is now talking of sea control corvettes and the opportunities they offer.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/n...navy-discussions-updates-5905-661/#post255591
So let the discussion continue.
Given a choice, I would rather NZ look to Australian or ASEAN yards for any future large vessel builds, rather than Europe. South Korea is capable of rapid construction of quality vessels at cost effective prices. Depending on the path the Philippine shipbuilding industry takes, it might be able to approach South Korea in quality at even lower build costs. Given that both nations are considerably closer to NZ (and that NZ is more likely to directly interact with...) establishing a better military and industrial relationship IMO would be sensible. Especially if is reduces the cost NZ spends to import a large military-use vessel.
As for looking at and discussing some of these ideas... I have the unfortunate feeling that the NZDF is being (or perhaps has been) setup for falling off another financial cliff by Gov't. Again. Looking at the expected timeframes, from my figures, it looks like the RNZN is expecting to replace the
ANZAC-class FFH ~2030, with the
Protector-class OPV's reaching their respective 25 year service lives between 2030 - 2035, depending on when their "clocks" are considered to have started. While I have not come across a reliable service life date for Canterbury, I expect that it could last ~25 years, possibly less given some of it's limitations as a sealift vessel. What that means is that the RNZN is likely looking at regenerating virtually the entire surface fleet except for the AOR, within a ~5 year span. Unfortunately I suspect the costs for that will be a bit much for the NZDF to handle all at once if the budgeting is like it currently is now. This might be easier to bear if some of the vessels get replaced a little earlier.
Also, I went back again and compared the
Knud Rasmussen-class OPV to the
Protector-class OPV and several things stood out to me. While I lack answers to the questions, whatever the answers are, they may prove illuminating.
In terms of displacement, the two designs are comparable, with the Danish OPV displacing ~41 tonnes less. The Danish OPV is considerably shorter, being ~13 m shorter. The beam of the two ships is again comparable, being ~14.6 m vs. 14 m. The Danish vessel has a deeper draught by ~1.3 m. Something which I find particularly noteworthy is that the diesels aboard the Danish OPV generate ~5,440 kW, with the diesels aboard the Kiwi OPV generate nearly twice that output, at ~10,800 kW. That sort of power generation difference could certainly explain the max speed difference.
Where I ended up with questions which I lack answers to is as follows. If the Danish vessel has roughly the same displacement as the Kiwi OPV, but is 13 m shorter, with engines that generate half the power output (and would presumably be smaller/lower displacement than those in the Kiwi vessel) and also only has ~half the range, what is taking up all that displacement aboard the Danish vessel.
Granted, some of that displacement likely is taken up by then better sensors and electronics, as well as the improved armament if fitted with some of the StanFlex modules. The SB90E SAR vessel aboard a
Knud Rasmussen-class will take up a further ~7 tons. In further reading, it appears that the Danish OPV's are capable of functioning as light icebreakers, breaking 70 cm of fjord ice vs. the Lloyds ice class 1C requirement for 40 cm of the Kiwi OPV's. What I wonder is to what degree the Danish OPV's had been ice-strengthened increasing the displacement...
It might be possible for a revised OPV, combining some of the features of the
Protector and
Knud Rasmussen-class vessels. For instance, take the
Knud Rasmussen design and increase the hull length by ~15 - 20 m (total length of 85 - 90 m). This increased length should allow sufficient space for a helicopter hangar (and a hangar magazine, something lacking in the
Protector-class design), as well as increased space for additional fuel/stores bunkerage. Increase the number of bunks available for crew, as well as extra bunks for supercargo. Increase the number and/or output of the machinery, while reducing the ice strengthening down to Lloyds ice class 1C, and increase the number of StanFlex slots by adding one or two additional at the stern for possible MCM, survey or other work.
I would not be surprised if the displacement of a
Knud Rasmussen-class OPV at full load, but only ice strengthened to class 1C would have a displacement of ~1,560 tonnes. While such changes like listed above would likely still result in a design being over ~2,000 tonnes, it might not be grossly over.
-Cheers
