Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

It all comes back to NZG policy and funding with the critical manning issue is an actual function of the shortage of funding that has been inflicted on NZDF since Richards Mother of all Budgets in 1991 when Defence had 23% slashed from its budget between then and 1994. The recent civilianisation and demands for savings from existing budgets have exacerbated the situation. There is a significant lack of long term planning and foresight in NZ defence policy by the pollies and IMO they see the security worldview through rose tinted glasses rather than is the harsh reality that it is and can be. That's the significant handicap we have to deal with.

From what ive been reading,from here, Nz Navy Today, Nz Airforce, and Army official websites and media, combatreform, to name just a few sites Its not just what we have to spend, its how we spend it. Just look at the purchase of first of type,unproven in combat vehicle's such as the overpriced Lav 3 at $ 3 million for 105 at 1999 prices, so allowing for inflaton total $400 million . when a full refit, upgrade with our Australian Army allies would have cost less than $900 k apiece, total $94.5 million . which would have made us a lot more compatible ,and actually Air Transportable, unlike the 19 to 23 ton beast the lav is.And up to a third of them are surplus, for sale now.The Airforce, also showing no restraint whatsoever bought in similar vien of thinking, off the shelf,unproved overpriced NH 90 helicopters. $700 million for 8 helicopters? google the manufacters of the blackhawk, less than a third of the price, a highly proven in combat helicopter still being made,loads of customer support to and navy, army variants of all types. Even the refurbished Seasprite helicopters of our navy cost $150 million for a similar number. All the while NZDF is expected to save $300 million a year in expenses .If the Navy acts in a similar fashion with the HMNZ Endevour and Littoral replacement vessels i hope we dont have the same issues with delivery, capability ,malfunctioning and cost overruns of the above three purchases . Doesnt bode well for the planned JATF Amphibious taskforce either :shudder

 

[ngatimozart]

From what ive been reading,from here, Nz Navy Today, Nz Airforce, and Army official websites and media, combatreform, to name just a few sites Its not just what we have to spend, its how we spend it. Just look at the purchase of first of type,unproven in combat vehicle's such as the overpriced Lav 3 at $ 3 million for 105 at 1999 prices, so allowing for inflaton total $400 million . when a full refit, upgrade with our Australian Army allies would have cost less than $900 k apiece, total $94.5 million . which would have made us a lot more compatible ,and actually Air Transportable, unlike the 19 to 23 ton beast the lav is.And up to a third of them are surplus, for sale now.The Airforce, also showing no restraint whatsoever bought in similar vien of thinking, off the shelf,unproved overpriced NH 90 helicopters. $700 million for 8 helicopters? google the manufacters of the blackhawk, less than a third of the price, a highly proven in combat helicopter still being made,loads of customer support to and navy, army variants of all types. Even the refurbished Seasprite helicopters of our navy cost $150 million for a similar number. All the while NZDF is expected to save $300 million a year in expenses .If the Navy acts in a similar fashion with the HMNZ Endevour and Littoral replacement vessels i hope we dont have the same issues with delivery, capability ,malfunctioning and cost overruns of the above three purchases . Doesnt bode well for the planned JATF Amphibious taskforce either :shudder

I think you misunderstand a lot of things especially about military procurement. It's not just the individual items but all the support packages that go with them that are included in the purchase prices. So for example with the NH90 that you cite, that is the complete aircraft plus, the support package and technical manuals, initial training, ongoing support etc.

The NH90 offers far more for NZDF than the UH60 Blackhawk does. For example it is new technology carries more and will last us longer. We would have to purchase more Blackhawks to fill the same requirements so it is a false economy. You have to remember that the NH90 is expected to last 40 years in RNZAF service. The actual problem with them is not enough were bought to do the taskings required. Maybe in the future that can be rectified. With regard to the Seasprites, we were very lucky there in that we could've been looking down the barrel of a very expensive purchase, if the ex RAN ones were either not available or were not up to scratch. Imagine what 10 Wildcats or MH60 Romeos would've cost.

The JATF is using existing equipment etc. The Endeavour and Manawanui replacements are designed to meet present, ongoing and probable future capability needs, hence they have some future proofing designed into them, but being the NZG it will be limited. The JATF is a completely new Concept Of Operations (CONOPS) for NZDF, at direction of NZG. Hence as time progresses there will be new platforms with new capabilities acquired, as older ones are replaced, or new ones are determined to be necessary for acquisition by NZG. Remember that in the end it is the NZG thru Cabinet that make the final decision about acquisitions and defence policy.

 

[Bonza]

From what ive been reading,from here, Nz Navy Today, Nz Airforce, and Army official websites and media, combatreform, to name just a few sites Its not just what we have to spend, its how we spend it. Just look at the purchase of first of type,unproven in combat vehicle's such as the overpriced Lav 3 at $ 3 million for 105 at 1999 prices, so allowing for inflaton total $400 million . when a full refit, upgrade with our Australian Army allies would have cost less than $900 k apiece, total $94.5 million . which would have made us a lot more compatible ,and actually Air Transportable, unlike the 19 to 23 ton beast the lav is.And up to a third of them are surplus, for sale now.The Airforce, also showing no restraint whatsoever bought in similar vien of thinking, off the shelf,unproved overpriced NH 90 helicopters. $700 million for 8 helicopters? google the manufacters of the blackhawk, less than a third of the price, a highly proven in combat helicopter still being made,loads of customer support to and navy, army variants of all types. Even the refurbished Seasprite helicopters of our navy cost $150 million for a similar number. All the while NZDF is expected to save $300 million a year in expenses .If the Navy acts in a similar fashion with the HMNZ Endevour and Littoral replacement vessels i hope we dont have the same issues with delivery, capability ,malfunctioning and cost overruns of the above three purchases . Doesnt bode well for the planned JATF Amphibious taskforce either :shudder

Friendly tip: Please don't take combatreform too seriously. It's a one man show run by an absolute nutcase whose claims to credibility have never been explained to a satisfactory extent. That's why his sites look the way the do, and that is why he is so overly aggressive and malicious in his opinions. Do be careful - sorting the wheat from the chaff can be very difficult online, especially if you're only just starting to take an interest in such things.

All the best mate

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Friendly tip: Please don't take combatreform too seriously. It's a one man show run by an absolute nutcase whose claims to credibility have never been explained to a satisfactory extent. That's why his sites look the way the do, and that is why he is so overly aggressive and malicious in his opinions. Do be careful - sorting the wheat from the chaff can be very difficult online, especially if you're only just starting to take an interest in such things.

All the best mate

Thanks Bonza, if only he was the only one i qouted though. With the estimated $3 Billion our defence minister Jonathan Colman bragged about to the media recently on service wide upgrades while national govt in power it seems i may have underestimated the above spend though.Further checking RNZN site showing a refit of $450 million ship wide to the frigates and RNZAF full refits to our Hercules and P3K similar funds which leads me to question ,wouldnt it have been more logical financially and otherwise ,to to replace the old airlift capability with new ones when the Aussies bought there C130J, ditto for the anzac ship build and the NH90s,M113. Instead our systems upgrades and purchases ie lav 3, Anzac frigate build, helos ect differ to our closest ally you aussies and have cost us more in the long run. Makes sense to me to buy jointly with Austraila. After all that,we have a shared history of conflict in the pacific, we mostly do our operations within the pacific with their
support vessels aircraft ect and train with austraila more often than any other ally.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Makes sense to me to buy jointly with Austraila. After all that,we have a shared history of conflict in the pacific, we mostly do our operations within the pacific with their
support vessels aircraft ect and train with austraila more often than any other ally.

the push to share common platforms and especially the logistics tail has been a discussion item between our govts since the early 80's. It just never seems to get enough traction

however, there are things that the kiwis do with less money that aust should be ashamed of. ie NZDEF has no shortage of good lateral thinkers

the end state important thing is culture and similarity of operational constructs - the rest can happen eventually

 

[ADMk2]

From what ive been reading,from here, Nz Navy Today, Nz Airforce, and Army official websites and media, combatreform, to name just a few sites Its not just what we have to spend, its how we spend it. Just look at the purchase of first of type,unproven in combat vehicle's such as the overpriced Lav 3 at $ 3 million for 105 at 1999 prices, so allowing for inflaton total $400 million . when a full refit, upgrade with our Australian Army allies would have cost less than $900 k apiece, total $94.5 million . which would have made us a lot more compatible ,and actually Air Transportable, unlike the 19 to 23 ton beast the lav is.And up to a third of them are surplus, for sale now.The Airforce, also showing no restraint whatsoever bought in similar vien of thinking, off the shelf,unproved overpriced NH 90 helicopters. $700 million for 8 helicopters? google the manufacters of the blackhawk, less than a third of the price, a highly proven in combat helicopter still being made,loads of customer support to and navy, army variants of all types. Even the refurbished Seasprite helicopters of our navy cost $150 million for a similar number. All the while NZDF is expected to save $300 million a year in expenses .If the Navy acts in a similar fashion with the HMNZ Endevour and Littoral replacement vessels i hope we dont have the same issues with delivery, capability ,malfunctioning and cost overruns of the above three purchases . Doesnt bode well for the planned JATF Amphibious taskforce either :shudder

Spacing and paragraph structure would help mate! Just saying...

With regards to the point about buying 'non combat proven' platforms, how exactly do you become 'combat proven' if no-one ever buys the capability? It's a bit of a circular argument...

If one only buys 'combat proven' platforms, then one is only ever buying yesterday's technology. The LAV III is a development of the LAV II which most certainly is combat proven with the USMC and Canadian Army, but it is a developed and enhanced version.

Chosen as it was by the Canadians, USMC, US Army (as the base Striker vehicle platform) and tested as thoroughly as it was (and now proven on operations) you guys made a very sound choice of vehicle, to replace the worn out and thoroughly obsolete M113A1.

The guy behind Combatreform is the nutcase 'Mike Sparks' who allegedly was a USMC reservist (although there is considerably doubt about that) and thinks the M113 is the solution for virtually every military problem that could ever occur.

Need to fight submarines? Here's a modified M113. Need to intercept Russian Badgers? Here's a modified M113 and so on...

 

[RegR]

Thanks Bonza, if only he was the only one i qouted though. With the estimated $3 Billion our defence minister Jonathan Colman bragged about to the media recently on service wide upgrades while national govt in power it seems i may have underestimated the above spend though.Further checking RNZN site showing a refit of $450 million ship wide to the frigates and RNZAF full refits to our Hercules and P3K similar funds which leads me to question ,wouldnt it have been more logical financially and otherwise ,to to replace the old airlift capability with new ones when the Aussies bought there C130J, ditto for the anzac ship build and the NH90s,M113. Instead our systems upgrades and purchases ie lav 3, Anzac frigate build, helos ect differ to our closest ally you aussies and have cost us more in the long run. Makes sense to me to buy jointly with Austraila. After all that,we have a shared history of conflict in the pacific, we mostly do our operations within the pacific with their
support vessels aircraft ect and train with austraila more often than any other ally.

Australian circumstances are a lot different to ours and whats suits them does not always fit in with us be that operationally, financially or even for suitability. Whilst it may have made sense operationally to buy in on the J deal back then, financially the SLEP bought us time to now consider other options such as A400 as opposed to potentially commiting to a type for the next 40-50 years that may not be completely suitable for our future direction.

They can also have options such as tracked and wheeled and cover their bases whereas we have to go with one or the other and try to cover our most likely bases as logistically this is what we can more readily achieve. It also makes more sense for us to future proof and buy something at the start of its life cycle with new technology and not something at the end with dying tech.

In the end it's what we can comfortably afford and sustain as like you say bragging $3 billion is still better then blowing out $13 billion. We are a small country with big priorities and a proportionate funding scale, gotta get the balance right or waste it all.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Spacing and paragraph structure would help mate! Just saying...

With regards to the point about buying 'non combat proven' platforms, how exactly do you become 'combat proven' if no-one ever buys the capability? It's a bit of a circular argument...

If one only buys 'combat proven' platforms, then one is only ever buying yesterday's technology. The LAV III is a development of the LAV II which most certainly is combat proven with the USMC and Canadian Army, but it is a developed and enhanced version.

Chosen as it was by the Canadians, USMC, US Army (as the base Striker vehicle platform) and tested as thoroughly as it was (and now proven on operations) you guys made a very sound choice of vehicle, to replace the worn out and thoroughly obsolete M113A1.

The guy behind Combatreform is the nutcase 'Mike Sparks' who allegedly was a USMC reservist (although there is considerably doubt about that) and thinks the M113 is the solution for virtually every military problem that could ever occur.

Need to fight submarines? Here's a modified M113. Need to intercept Russian Badgers? Here's a modified M113 and so on...

Well one good thing about having to keep equipment running for decades on shoestring budget is our military command surely would be planning well in advance for obselete ,past due tech?

So we could of had brand new Blackhawk,missile system ESSM like the aussies do on thier frigates,yes m113 too upgraded much earlier as we would have had plenty of research material, think about how many conflicts and new systems have come out since our last big spend on defence.

We got the hercs, the sioux helicopter,bell uh1and p3 orions and m113 when i was still in nappys mate, im 45. We had plenty of time to find and purchase proven combat systems, buying Canadian weapons and systems upgrades ie CAMMS, instead of americas currently manfactered ESSM the aussies do on thier frigates, has cost us dearly and made our systems differ, not compatable.

Ditto for the Canadian Lav 3. Not compatable with the Lav 1 or 2 aussies use. Drivetrain more complex, 8 wheels instead of six, weapons systems differ,and most important, CANT fit on our C130 transports as the damn thing breaks the hercs 19 ton cargo limit. So that means slow deployment by sealift, good thing we have the Canterbury now eh?

 

[MrConservative]

Well one good thing about having to keep equipment running for decades on shoestring budget is our military command surely would be planning well in advance for obselete ,past due tech?

So we could of had brand new Blackhawk,missile system ESSM like the aussies do on thier frigates,yes m113 too upgraded much earlier as we would have had plenty of research material, think about how many conflicts and new systems have come out since our last big spend on defence.

We got the hercs, the sioux helicopter,bell uh1and p3 orions and m113 when i was still in nappys mate, im 45. We had plenty of time to find and purchase proven combat systems, buying Canadian weapons and systems upgrades ie CAMMS, instead of americas currently manfactered ESSM the aussies do on thier frigates, has cost us dearly and made our systems differ, not compatable.

Ditto for the Canadian Lav 3. Not compatable with the Lav 1 or 2 aussies use. Drivetrain more complex, 8 wheels instead of six, weapons systems differ,and most important, CANT fit on our C130 transports as the damn thing breaks the hercs 19 ton cargo limit. So that means slow deployment by sealift, good thing we have the Canterbury now eh?

There is no point in crying over politically orientated decisions and under investment made 10-15 years ago. We all knew that at the time and knew that they were to create significant force structure and capability issues well into the future. We are finding that out now and much of the work done at present is having to work and remedy to two time frames. 1) Interrim solutions and 2) long term force structure planning. Remedying the past also was delayed by vary precarious state of the government coffers and global economy that has taken 5 years to fix. Go back and read the post by RegR and digest it. Let it sink in.

But lets take care of some misconceptions:

The Blackhawk was one of a number of helicopters evaluated. It did not met requirements. The NH-90 did. End of story.

An upgrade of the M113 was also evaluated as well as other IFV's and the NZLAV won out. Issue for many is not the vehicle per se it was that too many were possibly bought.

No one seriously considered moving a single LAV by air. Still dont. Even if we get the A400M other than being a stunt for the media - they will go by sealift. More likely is to urgently deliver or retreive a NH-90, a seasprite or a couple of AW109s

The whole C-130J v upgraded C-130H debate has been thrashed on DT over the last decade. So what - its done and is ancient history. The Clark government did not want to pay for the J's. (There were 8 J's on offer as part of a package from the RAAF buy) But we are now looking at getting into the A400M which is the perfect solution. The point that has been forgotten is that the NZDF decided that the C130 upgrade was feasible and would extend the lift of the C130 until a preferred replacement would come availabe the next decade. They had been aware of the design specs and RFI for the A400 before they made the decision to contract L3.

The P-3K2 - yes its upgrade was dithered but gthere was no other option but to do it. It is far more capable than any other option and will see us through to its logical replacement the P-8.

CAMMS are a mid life upgrade for the Anzacs that should see them through until the two Anzacs are replaced. It gives us options at that point to do a swap over to possible purchase of the Type 26 or another vessel. That the RAN has gone for ESSM and we CAMMS is not the be all and end all.

Anyway back to Navy stuff and things positive - another option to replace the Canterbury later next decade.

AAD2014: DCNS markets the Mistral 140 in Africa - News - Shephard

 

[ngatimozart]

Anyway back to Navy stuff and things positive - another option to replace the Canterbury later next decade.

AAD2014: DCNS markets the Mistral 140 in Africa - News - Shephard

Looks interesting but it's French and they've been known to do different things just because they're French. If you want to go down that track there is a 13 - 14,000 tonne variant of the Navantia Juan Carlos I LHD upon which the RAN LHDs are based and that would be a more logical choose for NZ, IMHO.

 

[Bonza]

Thanks Bonza, if only he was the only one i qouted though. With the estimated $3 Billion our defence minister Jonathan Colman bragged about to the media recently on service wide upgrades while national govt in power it seems i may have underestimated the above spend though.Further checking RNZN site showing a refit of $450 million ship wide to the frigates and RNZAF full refits to our Hercules and P3K similar funds which leads me to question ,wouldnt it have been more logical financially and otherwise ,to to replace the old airlift capability with new ones when the Aussies bought there C130J, ditto for the anzac ship build and the NH90s,M113. Instead our systems upgrades and purchases ie lav 3, Anzac frigate build, helos ect differ to our closest ally you aussies and have cost us more in the long run. Makes sense to me to buy jointly with Austraila. After all that,we have a shared history of conflict in the pacific, we mostly do our operations within the pacific with their
support vessels aircraft ect and train with austraila more often than any other ally.

Oh I don't have a position on the argument so wasn't trying to disprove your points, just trying to give you a head start regarding information sources. For the record, try to avoid anything from Air Power Australia too, they're kooks in a similar vein to dear old Sparky of Combat Reform.

 

[KiwiRob]

Looks interesting but it's French and they've been known to do different things just because they're French. If you want to go down that track there is a 13 - 14,000 tonne variant of the Navantia Juan Carlos I LHD upon which the RAN LHDs are based and that would be a more logical choose for NZ, IMHO.

Have you got a link to the smaller Juan Carlos?

 

[t68]

Have you got a link to the smaller Juan Carlos?

Here you go, scroll down till you get to the LHD, from memory they have three different size

http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

The Singaporean's also have plans called the Endurance 160 that would be my choice if they build a couple for themselves just tack an order on a hot production line

 

[MrConservative]

Looks interesting but it's French and they've been known to do different things just because they're French. If you want to go down that track there is a 13 - 14,000 tonne variant of the Navantia Juan Carlos I LHD upon which the RAN LHDs are based and that would be a more logical choose for NZ, IMHO.

There is also the Italians BDSL which they fitted out fairly with some suprisingly good kit for the Algerians. The Germans with the MRD/MRH Meko range which at one stage included a 10000 tonner concept. I would also like to see what the Koreans could do if an RFI went out for tender.

 

[John Fedup]

Here you go, scroll down till you get to the LHD, from memory they have three different size

http://www.infodefensa.com/wp-content/uploads/JCI_en_v2.pdf

The Singaporean's also have plans called the Endurance 160 that would be my choice if they build a couple for themselves just tack an order on a hot production line

Great article, especially the JC-1 info.

 

[ADMk2]

Well one good thing about having to keep equipment running for decades on shoestring budget is our military command surely would be planning well in advance for obselete ,past due tech?

So we could of had brand new Blackhawk,missile system ESSM like the aussies do on thier frigates,yes m113 too upgraded much earlier as we would have had plenty of research material, think about how many conflicts and new systems have come out since our last big spend on defence.

We got the hercs, the sioux helicopter,bell uh1and p3 orions and m113 when i was still in nappys mate, im 45. We had plenty of time to find and purchase proven combat systems, buying Canadian weapons and systems upgrades ie CAMMS, instead of americas currently manfactered ESSM the aussies do on thier frigates, has cost us dearly and made our systems differ, not compatable.

Ditto for the Canadian Lav 3. Not compatable with the Lav 1 or 2 aussies use. Drivetrain more complex, 8 wheels instead of six, weapons systems differ,and most important, CANT fit on our C130 transports as the damn thing breaks the hercs 19 ton cargo limit. So that means slow deployment by sealift, good thing we have the Canterbury now eh?

Australia uses the 8 wheeled, 'Australianised' LAV-25 base vehicle known as the ASLAV. IN up-armoured form it ain't airlift capable by a C-130 either. Neither are more modern M113 variants and even the extremely thin-skinned and thoroughly obsolete M113A1 variants, could only be flown very short distances in non-refueled C-130H's. The weapons on the NZLAV are the exact same 7.62mm, 12.7mm and 25mm guns we use on our 'LAV 2's'...

With a fleet of 5 Hercules, I'm not exactly sure the NZDF was planning on airlifting many of those M113A1's under any circumstances, so what difference you bought a vehicle that actually has a chance of surviving modern combat makes (because of the weight of it's protection) I'm really struggling to see...

NZ Buying CAMMS is an interesting topic, maybe you should read up on it a bit, before venturing an opinion. From recollection, NZ is spending about $446m (about $223m per ship) on upgrading it's 2 ANZAC frigates with CAMMS and other relevant platform upgrades.

Australia meanwhile has spent in excess of $2 Billion on ESSM upgrades, radar / IRST and combat systems upgrades alone for it's ANZAC's (and that is rough 'back of the pad type sums), without accounting for platform upgrades...

Bringing your ANZAC Class vessels up to modern spec is pricey, but your expenditure would have been far worse if NZ had gone down the same path we have. That was the point of NZ choosing CAMM and deliberately moving away from our upgrade choices. It WAS far cheaper to do so...

 

[swerve]

There is also the Italians BDSL which they fitted out fairly with some suprisingly good kit for the Algerians.

BDSL is about 9000 tons, & a modified San Giusto. Slightly bigger, & apart from the armament (1 x 76mm & 2 x 25mm guns & Sylver VLS with Aster 15), the biggest difference seems to be the lift enabling the use of the vehicle deck as a hangar for large helicopters. The first two San Giorgios can only carry helicopters on deck, & San Giusto only has a lift for small helicopters.

The Germans with the MRD/MRH Meko range which at one stage included a 10000 tonner concept. I would also like to see what the Koreans could do if an RFI went out for tender.

Navantia, Damen Schelde, DCNS, Fincantieri & ST Marine all offer LPDs or small LHDs based on the ships they've already built, which should all be fairly low risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreans also have something similar (they've built LPDs & LHDs), & if not, they could certainly build one if wanted. TKMS hasn't built anything on those lines, but given its skills & experience, I expect it could turn its published concepts into hardware pretty well. And now, the Japanese should be allowed to compete in this market. A modified Oosumi class could be interesting.

Spoilt for choice, eh?

 

[StobieWan]

Bringing your ANZAC Class vessels up to modern spec is pricey, but your expenditure would have been far worse if NZ had gone down the same path we have. That was the point of NZ choosing CAMM and deliberately moving away from our upgrade choices. It WAS far cheaper to do so...

There's the added benefits of clawing back some margins that had been consumed as well as avoiding any parasitic measures like ballasting (which had to be done for the Oz ships, reducing their top speeds by a couple of knots)

The NZ mods should produce something that's a bit more seaworthy from anything I've read so far.

 

[MrConservative]

Navantia, Damen Schelde, DCNS, Fincantieri & ST Marine all offer LPDs or small LHDs based on the ships they've already built, which should all be fairly low risk. I wouldn't be surprised if the Koreans also have something similar (they've built LPDs & LHDs), & if not, they could certainly build one if wanted. TKMS hasn't built anything on those lines, but given its skills & experience, I expect it could turn its published concepts into hardware pretty well. And now, the Japanese should be allowed to compete in this market. A modified Oosumi class could be interesting.

Spoilt for choice, eh?

Cheers Swerve.

I forgot the Damen Schelde Enforcer Range. Definately spoiled for choice.

The JMSDF are looking to modify the Osumi Class to embark the MH-22. They must be considering the installation of a elevator and hanger? I would hope so. Yes it would be then an interesting vessel to throw into the mix. Not originally having below deck hangerage was always a head scratcher for me.

 

[40 deg south]

There is also the Italians BDSL which they fitted out fairly with some suprisingly good kit for the Algerians. The Germans with the MRD/MRH Meko range which at one stage included a 10000 tonner concept. I would also like to see what the Koreans could do if an RFI went out for tender.

I hadn't really thought about it, but once you start to list possible Canterbury replacements, you have possible contenders from South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Italy, France, Germany, Netherlands, possibly Japan, and doubtless others. Only a handful of these will suit NZ's needs,but the number of competitors should make it possible to drive a hard bargain. As long as most of these players are still in business in the mid-2020s when we need them!