This is turning into quite an interesting discussion and some very important questions have been asked and important points raised.
I'm going to play devils advocate here. Within the context of the South Pacific does the RNZN need an extensive radar / weapons outfit. Short answer is probably not.
While I see NZ has always needing high end ships as part of international obligations. Within the South Pacific a 76mm/127mm, CAAM, helicopter and a couple of 25mm, limited ASW combined with a restricted sensor outfit along the lines of Thetis / Floreal / Sigma would allow the RNZN to cover 90% of the contingency's in the South Pacific. .... In terms of high end capability I think NZ needs to find a niche roll in terms of either "Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support ....
I think that the RNZN does need a reasonably good radar system that has good detection values and able to have multiple illumination channels. It also has to be a system that can be easily integrated into a wider allied (e.g., RAN, USN etc.,) Task Force network. Here I would plumb for quality and suggest the Australian CEAFAR radar and CEAMOUNT illuminator system. The Aussies are stating that its price is comparable to 2D radar systems.
radar (CEAFAR active phased array) - Team Australia - DMO Also it is being developed to be included on small ships such as corvettes. Its main components are software based rather than hardware based so upgrades are far less expensive.
Australia and USA Collaborating on New Small-Ship Radars
The way I see it we need to balance quality over quantity, we just aren't doing it properly right now. Were heavy on the light end and light on the combat end. There is IMHO no balance in the fleet right now.
New Zealand has a larger EEZ than Ireland, but the Irish have eight OPVs. Of course the Irish have nations and their fishermen much closer than New Zealand as well. But I don't consider having two OPVs as being excessive anymore than I do having two frigates as being excessive. Nor do I consider having four IPVs as being excessive. If anything, New Zealand is short in every type of ships.
I strongly agree with both Lucas and Toby. They both make very valid points and that is why I advocate 3 frigates and around five properly armed OPVs, plus 4 IPVs. I also think that Lucas’s suggestion of the RNZN specialising in “Land Attack, Naval Surface Fire Support” is quite good. He goes on to state in a later post:
I was thinking about just mounting two single 127mm gun turrets, that put out a similar number of rounds to the old twin turrets. Part of my justification for looking at specialising in Naval Fire Support is the declining numbers of surface combatants in the western fleet that would be available to support forces ashore. A two turret ship could carry out the roll of two surface combatants, therefore freeing up units for other duties. I don't have the data for Gulf War but one US study states that in the Falklands War a total of 7,900 rounds were fired from 14 ships (18 Guns in total), so on average around 439 rounds per gun. That I suspect is close to the max ammo outfit for a gun these days, so resupply would also would take two vessels off the line, in a sustained fight. I think in the face of declining ship numbers there is a lot to be said for a two gun ship. Anyway my two cents worth of madness. I do like the Absolom class, but its possibly in terms of electronics over engineered for South Pacific operations, but why tinker with something that works
.
I undertook a quick search for western navies using any form of naval MRLS and the only real info I found was a DT discussion
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/missiles-wmds/naval-version-mlrs-10871/ It is apparent from the discussion that a naval MRLS would be a highly specialised system that would take up for more useful space on a modern warship. Lucas does have quite a valid point regarding the diminishing numbers of surface combatants with guns capable of providing NGS. His concern is reflected in the above DT Naval MRLS thread. Lucas suggests mounting 2 x 5” guns on a future RNZN frigate class, citing the above concern. However, Assail begs to differ:
I think that there are many misconceptions about naval gunfire support (NGS) or whatever the modern term is. There are very few occasions, apart from a Normandy style amphib landing that require high volume, continuous fire. The majority will be responding to spotter's call for fire to quell firefights or the ubiquitous H&I (Harassment and Interdiction). Even at these lower rates, a ship will require to replenish ammo every 4 to 5 days. Most RAN DDG's in Vietnam were averaging about 14,000 rounds per 6 month deployment and during that time gun barrels would need to be replaced once and then returning home with them clagged. I guess the point is that given NZ's strategic reality, a second gun would be a disadvantage because of the capability forfeited by having one with no tactical advantage achieved.
If an appropriate sized frigate was acquired by the RNZN then capability may not necessarily be forfeited by installing a second 5” gun in the B gun position. The Danes have done it on their Iver Huiteld Class installing 2 x 76mm guns until they obtain the 35mm revolver auto cannon which will go in the B gun position and the A gun will be replaced by a 5” gun.
Danish Naval Projects - Patrol Frigate - Iver Huitfeld Class - Patrol Ship - Projekt Patruljeskib - NATO Comparisons - CASR - Canadian American Strategic Review - Danish Ships - Standard Flex - Frigate Project - Absalon Class - SCSC - Single Class - . Albeit a smaller calibre gun and a temporary arrangement, but it is feasible. The 5” magazine space would have to increased significantly and another forward mount found for a 30mm remote auto cannon. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the Absalon would be ideal for NZ - room to work with within the hull.
