Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[1805]

A ship that acts as a frigate and a landing ship is not going to fullfill all the rolls required of the RNZN. That is too much of a multirole. The Absalon have a primary role as frigates with a secondary limited landing capability. Yes the Danes and us have similar sized navies and similar populations but our security and regional outlooks are very different. Danish SLOCs do not extend to half the globe; ours do. Their nearest neighbour is across the fence; ours is about 1200 nautical miles away. However there is a lot of merit in your suggestion about cooperation with the Danes. It is most definitely not something to be sneezed at.

The Endeavour replacement is being looked at in a regional context and any Canterbury replacement or addition has to be seen in a regional context as well. Whilst on its on a13,000 tonne LHD in the RNZN appears to be excessive, but when you take into account NZs location and its relationship with Australia then such an LHD is far more practible in the long term. If it is a Navantia built one then it has compatibility with the RAN ones. We are unlike Thailand in that we would get far greater use out of a LHD than they do out of their CV which doesn't have a dock and it is therefore limited. (Same as we are with Canterbury).

I just feel there are some elements of Denmark's ship procurement which could have similar requirements to NZ. The similarities stop there, Denmark takes it's defence priorities a lot more seriously. Ok on twice the GDP it spend over 3 times the money. There is only a passing comparison on ship numbers in the two navies. They will operate 3 AWD + 2 Absalon logistics ships + a fair number of Patrol Frigates/OPVs. NZ operates 2 OPV + 2 now fairly limited patrol frigates..pretty much expensive to operate OPVs + Canterbury.

Just on the SLOC, Denmark has responsibility for support of Greenland 1800miles away. Additional with the end of the Cold War, they refocused defence priorities around an expeditionary capability..aka the Absalons & AWD to protect them. One assumes this was not for deployment in their backyard.

I am not sure about the location of construction of the shipping having much to do with compatibility, ok if you are buying together to get a better deal, it makes sense if you have similar requirements/budget. But Denmark is a NATO country completely works with all the US standards and even uses a lot of US equipment.

 

[MrConservative]

Considering NZ population and anticipated future wealth would it be unreasonable to see them evolving a navy not too different from some of the Nordic states, i.e. Norway or Denmark? 3-5 high capability frigates, a couple of multi-role vessels (Denmark) and smaller craft.

Obviously submarines would be out of the question but 3-5 frigates, some OPVs for Southern ocean work and a pair of small multirole amphibs should not be out of the question.

I am going to pick up from this Volk as what follows is a sketching out of the DWP with my own personal bias of how I would tweak things. The rationale for both the DWP and my own interpretation of what should be focused on in the years ahead has been well covered on DT previously.

Therefore I have conjured up possible replacement plan for the RNZN over the next 22 years through to 2035 which is the outlook timeframe from the DWP10. As I mentioned it includes the capabilities that I have advocated for as well as the plans that have been considered or proposed under the DWP. (I even named the future vessels out what I think maybe appropriate). I have also included within the timeline the RNZAF new capabilities (either planned or proposed) plus what I advocated that could be slotted into the RNZN replacement programme. Some of these RNZAF assets have very focused bearing on the Naval capability and the JATF. Some of the projects I have shifted slightly in timeframe due to an attempt even out what would be huge spending humps. I have not included the Army or Defence Satellite capability growth in this timeline deliberately. I have no doubt that this may generate some comment (which is what it is designed to do) - however take care to assume any aviation assets should be looked through an amphibious / maritime context where appropriate. It is not the thread to discuss the merits of advance pilot trainers or the air transport project. Hop over to the RNZAF thread for that. By the way give any comments some constructive thoughts on why you would have a variation of approach.

2015 Advanced Pilot Training Project tranche 1 introduction. (Platform mix and type to be determined)
2016 LWSV to replace Manawanui (HMZS Waikato) & Seasprite introduction
2017 MEPT / CMPA Project to Replace B-200 (B350ER) & tranche 2 completeion of APTP.
2018 Aegir 18R to replace Endeavour (HMNZS Endeavour) / tranch 2 of AW109 of 3 109 Power and further LUH platform.
2019 Introduction of Medium Tactical Airlift Project (C-27J) x 4
2020 Antarctic Support/Patrol Vessel to belatedly replace Resolution - new ship to have as many standard COTS propulsion & systems thus compatible with LWSV / Protector to reduce costs. (HMNZS Resolution) & Completion of MTA Project (C27J)
2021 A400M tranche 1 of two airframes to replace first 3 withdrawn C-130Hs
2022 A400M tranche 2 to of two airframes to effectively replace withdrawn and C130s B757's & further NZDF lease / share contribution to a NZ Government used long range commercial aircraft on a pro-rata basis for supplementary roles when required.
2023 MRASS to replace Canterbury (HMNZS Charles Upham) in lieu of any refit. CY sold, mothballed or renamed HMNZS Helen Clark and then sunk by RAAF Shornets in an antiship Ex next to the Rainbow Warrior as a dive attraction & upgrade of AW109 LUH variant to provide a light attack capability with a further 2 additional airframes.
2024 Introduction of P-3K2 replacement (P-8) of 4 airframes
2025 Future OCV intoduction (1) (HMNZS Taranaki) & Introduction of Seasprite Replacement ( 4 x Romeo's)
2026 Completion of P-3K2 replacement completion of Seasprite replacement (4 x Sierra's)
2027 Future Frigate (1) to replace TeKaha (HMNZS Tekaha)
2028 Future OCV (2) to replace Otago (HMNZS Otago) & introduction of BAMS UAV capability with synergy with ADF / USN.
2029 Future Frigate (2) to replace Te Mana (HMNZS TeMana)
2030 Future OCV (3) to replace Wellinton (HMNZS Wellington) & Second tranche of two further Romeos and introduction of UCAV capability
2031 Future Frigate (3) (HMNZS Canterbury) & second tranche of 2 further Sierras
2032 Future OCV (4) to replace two IPV's (HMNZS Southland)
2033 Future OCV (5) to replace two IPV's (HMNZS Taranaki) & completion of UCAV capability
2034 Future Frigate (4)?? (HMNZS Auckland??)
2035 LWSV Waikato to be replaced with OCV (6)

This should put the cat amongst the pigeons.

 

[t68]

A bit of a leap here but lets assume NZ goes for a more conventional LPD type it could be smart to specify the design for but not with a number of systems from the ANZACs, i.e. the 5" gun, Mk41 with ESSM and the Phalanx to have the potential to evolve an Absolon type capability (with the added advantage of a proper dock).

Sounds like an enlarged RSS Endurance class
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noLgjADodfM"]Size Matters - The Navy's Landing Ship Tanks (Defence Watch Nov 09) - YouTube[/nomedia]

 

[Sea Toby]

Sounds like an enlarged RSS Endurance class
Size Matters - The Navy's Landing Ship Tanks (Defence Watch Nov 09) - YouTube

Thailand bought one Endurance for USD 240 million, more than twice the price of HMNZS Canterbury. She doesn't carry much more vehicles or helicopters, and her command and control or hospital isn't any better. Frankly, the Canterbury shines when it comes to economic value. Notice Navantia's Athlas 8000 which has been offered to Norway, Belgium, Portugal, Tunisia, and the Philippines isn't much more than Merwede's Canterbury. She can be fitted with a well dock or not, some prefer only pier to pier sealift instead of a amphibious ship. Navantia is holding the price near USD 120 million.

 

[swerve]

I'd say the Makasar class shines when it comes to economic value.

 

[OPSSG]

I am not interested in 'selling' the Endurance Class LPDs or it's specs, but there is a factual error in what Sea Toby posted.

Thailand bought one Endurance for USD 240 million, more than twice the price of HMNZS Canterbury. [Or wrong by about US$80 million to US$ 85 million, depending on conversion rate used.]

Your numbers for HTMAS Angthong are wrong and off by US$ 80 million to US$ 85 million, depending on conversion rate used. I have posted this information before, here. Please check your facts. The price difference between HTMAS Angthong (at S$200 million or NZ$ 192 million) and HMNZS Canterbury (assuming it's cost is NZ$130 million) is about NZ$ 62 million (or about US$ 51 million).

In November 2008, Thailand signed a contract for about S$ 200 million (in a basket of currencies), for:-

(i) 1x 141m HTMAS Angthong with a SCANTER 4100 air and surface surveillance radar (at 141-metre in length, with a displacement of about 7600 tonnes);
(ii) 2x 23m Landing Craft Mechanised (LCM); and
(iii) 2x 13m Landing Craft Vehicle and Personnel (LCVP).​

The above price includes hosting and training the Thai Navy crew while they were in Singapore before the handover in 2012. This Thai LPD has a Oto Melara 76 mm super rapid gun at the 'A' position, two stabilized 30mm guns on each side and 5 machine gun mounts for self defence; whereas the 131m HMNZS Canterbury (based on MS Ben-my-Chree, a commercial roll-on/roll-off ferry) has only 1x stabilized 25mm gun at the 'A' position and two machine-gun mounts on the sides for self defence.

She doesn't carry much more vehicles or helicopters, and her command and control or hospital isn't any better.

But the Endurance Class LPDs (which are better armed than HTMAS Angthong with Simbad twin launcher mounts) can carry more and is more capable than you think - equipped with the EL/M-2238 Star (3D multi-beam and multi-mode radar), in Singapore Navy service. On 31 December 2004 and in a race against time, RSS Endurance sailed to Aceh in Indonesia to deliver emergency supplies and medical personnel to aid in the relief efforts under Operation Flying Eagle (see link here and here). RSS Endurance set sail from Singapore with:-

(i) 470 people (including a field hospital);
(ii) 51 vehicles and heavy equipment; and
(iii) 350 pallets and crates of relief supplies.​

It has a flight deck that is rated to handle a Chinook, with a large hanger that can stow at least two 10-ton helicopters (without tail folding), a deck landing system, called ASIST and a lift (than can carry up to 22,000 kg) that connects the tank-deck to the hanger. The ScanEagle UAV is integrated and deployed on RSS Endeavour for a counter-piracy mission in the Gulf of Aden in 2011, though that is not on the spec sheet. There are 5 ships of the class in service with the Thai and Singaporean Navies.

I'd say the Makasar class shines when it comes to economic value.

Really? Cheap = good (Just joking... )

Will it meet NZ's naval needs? Or will it have the same sea-keeping problems that need to be fixed?

 

[ngatimozart]

Whilst discussing LPDs and LHDs, I am using a terminology that is USN based and it saves a lot of confusion. I am fully aware that the RNZN classifies and pennants its ships using the RN system, but I find the USN classification system easier to work with and understand.

I’ve been arguing the LPD more in the NZ context given that I feel it would be an easier sell to the pollies, treasury misers and general public, than a LHD would be, just based on their perceptions. The LHD would automatically be seen as an aircraft carrier. Personally, I would prefer an LHD because of the greater versatility that it would offer, both in a military role and HADR role. However as stated above I think that it would be a difficult sell to the powers that be.

It is agreed that the MRV Canterbury is not all that is desirable in an amphibious ship. Bear in mind that NZ has not operated this true capability before and its previous foray into this field was a highly uninformed unmitigated disaster brought about by public service officials and politicians. Canterbury gives us something to learn with and the next obvious and logical step would be a dedicated ship with both a dock and flight deck capability. That is one of Canterburys weaknesses in that it does not have a dock, so it is limited to using existing port facilities to offload heavy stores in a greater than calm sea state and any vehicles.

Now Mr Cs DWP and its implementation.

I am going to pick up from this Volk as what follows is a sketching out of the DWP with my own personal bias of how I would tweak things. The rationale for both the DWP and my own interpretation of what should be focused on in the years ahead has been well covered on DT previously.
2015 Advanced Pilot Training Project tranche 1 introduction. (Platform mix and type to be determined)
2016 LWSV to replace Manawanui (HMZS Waikato) & Seasprite introduction
2017 MEPT / CMPA Project to Replace B-200 (B350ER) & tranche 2 completeion of APTP.
2018 Aegir 18R to replace Endeavour (HMNZS Endeavour) / tranch 2 of AW109 of 3 109 Power and further LUH platform.

Quantity changed to 7 and all are armoured, wired and fitted for but not with weapons. Weapons are a separate project. This will bring them into line with the 5 A109 Makos already flying in the RNZAF.
2018 Second tranche of 4 NH90s ordered for delivery in 2022.

2019 Introduction of Medium Tactical Airlift Project (C-27J) x 4
2020 Antarctic Support/Patrol Vessel to belatedly replace Resolution - new ship to have as many standard COTS propulsion & systems thus compatible with LWSV / Protector to reduce costs. (HMNZS Resolution) & Completion of MTA Project (C27J)

Armed with 2 x 30mm and 2 x .50HMG.

2021 A400M tranche 1 of two airframes to replace first 3 withdrawn C-130Hs
2022 A400M tranche 2 to of two airframes to effectively replace withdrawn and C130s B757's & further NZDF lease / share contribution to a NZ Government used long range commercial aircraft on a pro-rata basis for supplementary roles when required.

B757 replaced with 2 x commercial aircraft fitted out same as combi. Able to take l463 pallets, medivacs, pax, VIP, etc. At moment, only aircraft that appears to meet long range criteria is A330 and it has already been converted for such.
2022 Second tranche of NH90s delivered.

A bit of a leap here but lets assume NZ goes for a more conventional LPD type it could be smart to specify the design for but not with a number of systems from the ANZACs, i.e. the 5" gun, Mk41 with ESSM and the Phalanx to have the potential to evolve an Absolon type capability (with the added advantage of a proper dock).

2023 MRASS to replace Canterbury (HMNZS Charles Upham) in lieu of any refit. CY sold, mothballed or renamed HMNZS Helen Clark and then sunk by RAAF Shornets in an antiship Ex next to the Rainbow Warrior as a dive attraction & upgrade of AW109 LUH variant to provide a light attack capability with a further 2 additional airframes.

MRASS aka LHD 13,000 tonne through deck and as Volkodav suggested fitted for systems of the soon to be decommissioned ANZACs. I do like his idea of fitting the 5in gun and Mk41 VLS. That would give the Charles Upham good self protection and some offensive capability. The Mk41 VLS shouldn’t just be limited to ESSM but also include ASROC and Harpoon. It should also have 2 x remote 30mm up forward and 2 aft along with .50cal HMG along the sides. The 13,000 tonne allows for future proofing and it would take the weight of the 5in gun topside starboard and the VLS.
2023 By Royal Proclamation HM The King decrees that the NZ Army will henceforth and for all perpetuity be known as the Royal New Zealand Marines. God save The King. The RNZM will retain the same independence, rights and privileges that the NZ Army had.

2024 Introduction of P-3K2 replacement (P-8) of 4 airframes
2025 Future OCV intoduction (1) (HMNZS Taranaki) & Introduction of Seasprite Replacement ( 4 x Romeo's)

Romeos I think will be somewhat old then. Suggest keep minds open but I would think that NHI should have sorted all the issues out with the NATO Frigate Helicopter which after all does allow a lot of commonality with our NH90s.

2026 Completion of P-3K2 replacement completion of Seasprite replacement (4 x Sierra's)
2027 Future Frigate (1) to replace TeKaha (HMNZS Tekaha)
2028 Future OCV (2) to replace Otago (HMNZS Otago) & introduction of BAMS UAV capability with synergy with ADF / USN.
2029 Future Frigate (2) to replace Te Mana (HMNZS TeMana)
2030 Future OCV (3) to replace Wellinton (HMNZS Wellington) & Second tranche of two further Romeos and introduction of UCAV capability
2031 Future Frigate (3) (HMNZS Canterbury) & second tranche of 2 further Sierras
2032 Future OCV (4) to replace two IPV's (HMNZS Southland)
2033 Future OCV (5) to replace two IPV's (HMNZS Taranaki) & completion of UCAV capability
2034 Future Frigate (4)?? (HMNZS Auckland??)
2035 LWSV Waikato to be replaced with OCV (6)

This should put the cat amongst the pigeons.

As far as I am aware the project for the Wideband Global Satellite Communications (WGS) is progressing along with FOC in 2015 / 16. Strategic Bearer Network [Ministry of Defence NZ] All we have to do now is draw up a RFP for the OCVs. I have been thinking of Eurocopter Tigers at the sharp end but for the money, we could buy Gripens. Also they appear to still be having problems. Mind you it doesn’t state whether the cost is fly away or total life cost etc.

 

[swerve]

...
Really? Cheap = good (Just joking... )

Will it meet NZ's naval needs? Or will it have the same sea-keeping problems that need to be fixed?

Makasar is very cheap. I was trying to suggest that the argument that Canterbury was a good buy because she was cheap compared to some of the other options should be viewed in the light of a really cheap ship - & one with a dock.

If price is your main criterion, Canterbury suddenly doesn't look so good. And if you care about capability, then perhaps, the extra cost of some other ships is not a waste.

 

[ngatimozart]

Makasar is very cheap. I was trying to suggest that the argument that Canterbury was a good buy because she was cheap compared to some of the other options should be viewed in the light of a really cheap ship - & one with a dock.

If price is your main criterion, Canterbury suddenly doesn't look so good. And if you care about capability, then perhaps, the extra cost of some other ships is not a waste.

That cheap if wiki is to be believed - $37.5 million??? What's been left out? One wonders things like anchors, magazines, hangars crew accomdation etc.? Anybody heard what they are like?

 

[MrConservative]

Just a small correction regarding the CYs cost - the original estimate was $130 million but actually the vessel came out to $177 million. A further $20-22 million was spent on rectification of issues. It was originally called a Multi-Role vessel, however that moniker changed with the government.

However, the good news is that the RNZN believe that by next year it will be all good to go. Eight years is not that long to wait after all good things take time - heck it took NASA longer to put a couple of guys on the moon and their ship only lasted eight days and 99% of it was left behind or fell off. The superb inspired miracle of marine engineering, risk management, fiscal planning and stupendous political foresight that is the HMNZS Canterbury will last much longer than that and far less will fall off.

 

[swerve]

$37.5mn is the value of the contract with Daewoo ($150mn) divided by four. But I'm not sure that's the real price. It's unclear what costs were included in the contract. For example, the last two were built in Indonesia. Were the local costs included? What about weapons?

Peru is now building the first of two. It'd be interesting to know what they're costing.

But I have no difficulty in believing that Daewoo could build the bare ships pretty damn cheap, maybe that cheap. Harland & Wolff built two Point-class* militarised ro-ros for ca $60 million each (today's rates), about the same time, & it's a far higher-cost yard, building faster ships twice the size - & although the Points are simpler, I reckon the Makasars for Indonesia have a pretty basic, therefore cheap, fit-out.

*I saw Eddystone at Marchwood at 7.15 am on Saturday 21st Sep. Had to use the zoom on my camera to read the name.

 

[chis73]

Here's an interesting tidbit from Janes:

Sources confirm New Zealand in negotiations for Australian Penguin missiles - IHS Jane's 360

NZ is negotiating (now??) to buy some (perhaps all) of Australia's Penguin missiles. That's curious, as the Beehive press release on the Seasprite purchase back in April said that Penguins were included in the deal (I wonder how many?)

beehive.govt.nz - Seasprite helicopter project approved

I really really hope that hard-over issue the Seasprite has truly is sorted.


Chis73

 

[ngatimozart]

Here's an interesting tidbit from Janes:

Sources confirm New Zealand in negotiations for Australian Penguin missiles - IHS Jane's 360

NZ is negotiating (now??) to buy some (perhaps all) of Australia's Penguin missiles. That's curious, as the Beehive press release on the Seasprite purchase back in April said that Penguins were included in the deal (I wonder how many?)

beehive.govt.nz - Seasprite helicopter project approved

I really really hope that hard-over issue the Seasprite has truly is sorted.


Chis73

Maybe IHS Janes stuffed up. I have heard they aren't as good as they used to be. It also might be that NZ have to negotiate end user, warranty and maintenance issues with Kongsberg.

 

[40 deg south]

Maybe IHS Janes stuffed up. I have heard they aren't as good as they used to be. It also might be that NZ have to negotiate end user, warranty and maintenance issues with Kongsberg.

Chris73
Well spotted. While clicking through to read the link, there was a related article on display.

DSEI 2013: Kongsberg, New Zealand in advanced talks for Penguin - IHS Jane's 360

[QUOTENorway's Kongsberg Defence Systems is looking to sign a contract to supply its Penguin anti-ship missiles for the Royal Zealand Navy's (RNZN's) new Kaman SH-2G Super Seasprite maritime helicopters by the end of the year, a company official told IHS Jane's on 12 September.

The acquisition of Penguin anti-ship missiles was approved by the New Zealand Ministry of Defence (MoD) in April 2013 as part of a procurement package for Super Seasprite airframes that were previously rejected by Australia. The helicopters are intended to replace the RNZN's five ageing SH-2Gs that have been in service since the 1990s.

Kaman Aerospace Corporation was awarded a USD120 million contract for 10 Super Seasprites, a mission flight simulator and logistic support on 8 May.[/QUOTE]

There may be issues relating to the ability of the Aust. government to transfer the missiles to NZ without Kongsberg approval. Or is may deal with spares and support. I just hope that it was foreseen by NZDF planners and telegraphed to Ministers in advance.

 

[Sea Toby]

I was speaking in US Dollars, not NZ Dollars. My figures are correct. From Wiki:
On 11 November 2008, a SGD 200 million contract was signed between ST Marine and Thailand for the sale of one unit of the Endurance class LPD and its associated landing craft.

200 million SGD convert today to 240 million USD. When the Canterbury was built the NZD was worth around 70 percent of a USD. 70 percent of 177 million NZD is around 124 million USD. I stand with my figures. I understand your frustration with everyone using different dollars to spin things.

However, I will agree the Endurance is a better ship. New Zealand didn't really buy an amphibious ship as much as they bought a sea lift/transport ship. Furthermore, New Zealand has no desire to use the Canterbury in any opposed landing operations. Why buy a ship with more capability and expense than you want or desire? When you really get down to it, New Zealand bought a ship more capable than the ship they had in service for decades, the old Monowai. The Canterbury is larger, carry more troops and equipment, and is roro instead of lolo. She has a hospital and command and control facilities the Monowai never had. And that 25 mm Bushmaster gun is larger than any gun the Monowai ever had too as well.

 

[RegR]

I would think 3 FFH GP frigates with stanflex or similar built along the lines of the Absalons and 4-6 OPVs built to IC ice standard with stanflex or similar and armed with 76mm gun, Mk41 VLS, couple of 30mm and .50 cal etc., around the 2,500 - 3000 tonne displacement like corvettes but able to do taskings that current OPVs tasked with plus antipiracy, ASW etc., and act as escort for a 13,000 tonne RNZN LPD / LHD if need be in low risk environment.

As much as I would like to see an enlarged navy I don't see it happening due to financial, manning and political will reasons. We can barely keep the current fleet afloat let alone adding to it (@350 new sailors and $$$$$). An extra frigate and 2-4 more OPVs? that's a lot more funds, manpower and eventual dilution of hardware to the rest of the fleet than our little old navy can handle at this stage.

Our current OPVs currently have a 25mm cannon, bit of a leap to VLS in govt thinking terms but the only way I see it happening is to concentrate on what numbers we have and get them to a reasonable standard before we go doubling the fleet. If our current frigates and OPVs were fully kitted and decent they would go from expensive targets to game changers in their own right and happily add to any force. Maybe getting too late for the frigates and not enough tonnage on the OPVs but for future reference anyway.

Quality first quantity later.

 

[ngatimozart]

As much as I would like to see an enlarged navy I don't see it happening due to financial, manning and political will reasons. We can barely keep the current fleet afloat let alone adding to it (@350 new sailors and $$$$$). An extra frigate and 2-4 more OPVs? that's a lot more funds, manpower and eventual dilution of hardware to the rest of the fleet than our little old navy can handle at this stage.

Our current OPVs currently have a 25mm cannon, bit of a leap to VLS in govt thinking terms but the only way I see it happening is to concentrate on what numbers we have and get them to a reasonable standard before we go doubling the fleet. If our current frigates and OPVs were fully kitted and decent they would go from expensive targets to game changers in their own right and happily add to any force. Maybe getting too late for the frigates and not enough tonnage on the OPVs but for future reference anyway.

Quality first quantity later.

With regard to the number of ships all that would happen is that one extra ship (3rd Frigate) would be acquired. The 6 new OCVs would replace the current 2 OPVs plus the 4 IPVs. We are not looking at having everything tomorrow but between now and 2030. The fleet crewing numbers can be slowly built up over time and also automation reduces crewing numbers in ships. With regard to VLS, that is becoming standard and it's a matter of keep presenting the concept until the pollies get used to the idea. You fit VLS but you don't have to load it all the time. OCV tonnage could sit at around 2,500 - 3,000 tonnes per vessel and with stanflex each one could have different taskings such as LWS or ASW etc. One way to get the pollies onside would be to develop an oil spill module that could be utilised by the OCVs - saves the NZG having to buy two dedicated ships.

 

[OPSSG]

200 million SGD convert today to 240 million USD. When the Canterbury was built the NZD was worth around 70 percent of a USD.

Let me do the mathematics for you in 3 steps to show that you are wrong.

(i) You have got your Singapore Dollar to US dollar conversion rate all wrong.

S$ 1 = US$ 0.79
S$ 200 m = US$ 158 m​

Therefore, the cost in US dollars of the Thai ship HTMAS Angthong is US$158 million.

(ii) The conversion rate from NZ$ to US$ is:-

NZ$ 1= US$ 0.82
NZ$ 130 m = US$ 106.6 m​

Therefore, the cost in US dollars of HMNZS Canterbury is US$ 106.6 million.

(iii) Based on the above, the price difference between the two ships is ONLY about US$ 51.4 million. Which means your calculations or basic mathematics is wrong!​

 

[ngatimozart]

I was speaking in US Dollars, not NZ Dollars. My figures are correct. From Wiki:
On 11 November 2008, a SGD 200 million contract was signed between ST Marine and Thailand for the sale of one unit of the Endurance class LPD and its associated landing craft.

200 million SGD convert today to 240 million USD. When the Canterbury was built the NZD was worth around 70 percent of a USD. 70 percent of 177 million NZD is around 124 million USD. I stand with my figures. I understand your frustration with everyone using different dollars to spin things.

However, I will agree the Endurance is a better ship. New Zealand didn't really buy an amphibious ship as much as they bought a sea lift/transport ship. Furthermore, New Zealand has no desire to use the Canterbury in any opposed landing operations. Why buy a ship with more capability and expense than you want or desire? When you really get down to it, New Zealand bought a ship more capable than the ship they had in service for decades, the old Monowai. The Canterbury is larger, carry more troops and equipment, and is roro instead of lolo. She has a hospital and command and control facilities the Monowai never had. And that 25 mm Bushmaster gun is larger than any gun the Monowai ever had too as well.

It is not about the Monowai, which actually has nothing to do with this. This is about standing up a proper amphibious force and learning how to do it. There is a major change in NZ Defence focus to a regional focus and a Joint Amphibious Task Force has been designated to be formed by 2015. There was a wholly disasterous attempt with the Charles Upham and now we have Canterbury. It's about taking smalll steps and learning. Canterburys replacement will be the next step up the ladder. Canterbury is one part of a larger entity. Already lessons appear to have been learned evidenced with the RFI for the Endeavour replacement which has a regional outlook rather than a wholly NZ one, amongst other things.

 

[Todjaeger]

Let me do the mathematics for you in 3 steps to show that you are wrong.

(i) You have got your Singapore Dollar to US dollar conversion rate all wrong.

S$ 1 = US$ 0.79
S$ 200 m = US$ 158 m​

Therefore, the cost in US dollars of the Thai ship HTMAS Angthong is US$158 million.

(ii) The conversion rate from NZ$ to US$ is:-

NZ$ 1= US$ 0.82
NZ$ 130 m = US$ 106.6 m​

Therefore, the cost in US dollars of HMNZS Canterbury is US$ 106.6 million.

(iii) Based on the above, the price difference between the two ships is ONLY about US$ 51.4 million. Which means your calculations or basic mathematics is wrong!​

That is not quite right either. The basic contract price for HMNZS Canterbury was NZD$130 mil. but after rectification and modification work, came out to NZD$177 mil. or USD$145.14 mil. or about USD$13 mil. less than the price for HTMS Angthong...