Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Zero Alpha]

Janes says HHI is preferred bidder (last month). A surprise to me, as I thought we would get an Aegir-class from DSME, as per Britain and Norway. I'm not aware Hyundai have ever revealed what design they put forward.

HHI in frame for New Zealand tanker programme | IHS Jane's 360

Anecdotally I would have thought the BMT design would be ahead based on maturity, but there is probably a clue on the strength of the HHI offer in some of the open source presentations floating around about capability sets and the how they were more achievable depending on the pice positioning model adopted by the builder. From memory RR was pimping a design a few years back that would fit the bill and included a hangar large enough for a couple of Merlin's.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Are there plans to arm The new littoral and tanker for Nz navy, with more powerful defensive capability,or is this just speculation? also , could someone educate me on how Sea Ceptor would function for our frigates, does it target the inbound missile, or the ship firing it too?

 

[Lucasnz]

Are there plans to arm The new littoral and tanker for Nz navy, with more powerful defensive capability,or is this just speculation? also , could someone educate me on how Sea Ceptor would function for our frigates, does it target the inbound missile, or the ship firing it too?

Plans are to provide a more capable defensive capability than at present. CIWS has been mentioned.

From what I've read Sea Ceptor gets initial targeting information from the ships radar, launches and goes active with its own radar once in range of the target. I think it can receive datalink updates - Could be wrong. No dedicated fire control / guidance radar required (as opposed to ESSM) - its fire and forget.

 

[swerve]

The MBDA website says that the Sea Ceptor missile has a two-way datalink.

I find that checking the manufacturer's website is always a good idea.

 

[Rob c]

I read the article on that ship, while it won the popular vote online, Royal Navy wouldn't adopt it. It was mentioned it cost $400 million to build which would put it out of our price range. Speaking of ships names, has there ever been a HMNZS Auckland? Seeing how they name ships after major regions, or cities.

Not as far as I know, however HMS Heron an Egret class sloop was renamed HMS Auckland prior to her completion as she was slated to join the NZ division RN. The war started before she sailed for NZ so she never served in NZ. Sunk 24/6/41 off Tobruk by Italian aircraft. If she had of come to the NZ division and been there when the NZ division became the RNZN then we would have had a HMS Auckland.

 

[MrConservative]

Not as far as I know, however HMS Heron an Egret class sloop was renamed HMS Auckland prior to her completion as she was slated to join the NZ division RN. The war started before she sailed for NZ so she never served in NZ. Sunk 24/6/41 off Tobruk by Italian aircraft. If she had of come to the NZ division and been there when the NZ division became the RNZN then we would have had a HMS Auckland.

Interesting Rob and thanks. I have never come across that piece of NZ naval history. Googling I see that she was 1200 tonnes and 85m. Those minor surface combatants of WW2 and the early post war are fascinating vessels and quite the unsung heroes.

 

[Rob c]

Interesting Rob and thanks. I have never come across that piece of NZ naval history. Googling I see that she was 1200 tonnes and 85m. Those minor surface combatants of WW2 and the early post war are fascinating vessels and quite the unsung heroes.

These ships were the fore runners to the more numerous Black Swan Class and I obtained the info from the old fashion book, which I have a significant collection. In this case it was from H.T. Lenton's British Escort Ships and Janes, and yes I am fascinated by them

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

Then how to get 3rd OPV?

If the man power issue not solved, selling 2 (tied-up) IPV will make no change. Man powers in Endeavor will go to new AO, those of Manawanui goes to new Littoral ship. Thus, the 20+20 = 40 crews from the 2 active IPV will be the sole supplier of crews for the 3rd OPV.

RNZN may be able to get 5-10 crew from adding automation in AO-R, but maybe 0 from Littoral Operations Support Ship. Making the 3rd OPV itself lean-manned may work, but minimum of 35 will be there (the ship is going deep in to southern ocean).

So, for any "IPV" (or it's replacements), RNZN has only 10-15 crew. As some says, tasks in 24-200 nm and beyond will be covered by the Otago class OPV. But even a Damen 4207 needs 12 crew per vessel.

If the skilled engineer is lacking and the ordinary crew are not, a simple IPVs requiring no/little maintenance onboard will be good? With short ranged nature, it will be doable.

 

[Lucasnz]

I'm increasingly of the view that manpower is not the issue. The Otago was berthed in Dunedin the other week and the ODT stated it carried a crew of 60 against the planned complement of 35. I think the core issue is that the IPV were slated for operations out to 24nm but were being used for operations further out, for which they were not suitable. If IPV were limited to operations out to 24nm I don't think their use would be an issue. Ultimately the issue is the size (in terms of ships and personnel) of the RNZN as a whole. In its current configuration its to small in combat and resource protection capability. An increase to 14 vessels would make those problems go away. Over the next 30 years NZ should be transitioning to a fleet of:

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

 

[Rob c]

I'm increasingly of the view that manpower is not the issue. The Otago was berthed in Dunedin the other week and the ODT stated it carried a crew of 60 against the planned complement of 35. I think the core issue is that the IPV were slated for operations out to 24nm but were being used for operations further out, for which they were not suitable. If IPV were limited to operations out to 24nm I don't think their use would be an issue. Ultimately the issue is the size (in terms of ships and personnel) of the RNZN as a whole. In its current configuration its to small in combat and resource protection capability. An increase to 14 vessels would make those problems go away. Over the next 30 years NZ should be transitioning to a fleet of:

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

I think that the 3 major Surface Combatants should be a priority as it is generally agreed that 3 combat ships is the minimum to achieve near 100% availability of at least one of them. The rest would be subject to finances and a significant improvement in conditions of service for servicemen to achieve the manning numbers required. It goes with out saying that some of the rest would be required, but how many would be subject to the above

 

[RegR]

I'm increasingly of the view that manpower is not the issue. The Otago was berthed in Dunedin the other week and the ODT stated it carried a crew of 60 against the planned complement of 35. I think the core issue is that the IPV were slated for operations out to 24nm but were being used for operations further out, for which they were not suitable. If IPV were limited to operations out to 24nm I don't think their use would be an issue. Ultimately the issue is the size (in terms of ships and personnel) of the RNZN as a whole. In its current configuration its to small in combat and resource protection capability. An increase to 14 vessels would make those problems go away. Over the next 30 years NZ should be transitioning to a fleet of:

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

What an OPV can carry and what its crew requirements are are 2 different things. Otago had extra naval pers onboard purely for ANZAC day in it's homeport for the 75th navy annv expressing their freedom of charter, considerable events for representation for any organisation. I had a naval friend who went down and he is not part of Otagos core crew, a classic NZDF trait is rent a crowd. There are people in the navy it is the specific trades/skillsets/experience required to put the ships to sea that are churning and burning.

TBH I cannot see the navy growing by that margin and as has been shown to gain anything we will inevitably lose something else or consolidate to justify. Whilst the rule of three is the logical approach for some reason we have been more in favour of the rule of 2, 2 of class, 2 ships combined into 1, 2 roles in a single capability etc2, somehow I doubt this is what the navy wants but is more what the govt provides them with which all has flow on effects.

We could have all the ships in the sea but if we cannot adequately crew, operate or fund them then they are all rather pointless and until we sort these issues a rather moot plan.

 

[MrConservative]

TBH I cannot see the navy growing by that margin and as has been shown to gain anything we will inevitably lose something else or consolidate to justify. Whilst the rule of three is the logical approach for some reason we have been more in favour of the rule of 2, 2 of class, 2 ships combined into 1, 2 roles in a single capability etc2, somehow I doubt this is what the navy wants but is more what the govt provides them with which all has flow on effects.

We could have all the ships in the sea but if we cannot adequately crew, operate or fund them then they are all rather pointless and until we sort these issues a rather moot plan.

I'd say that the 30 year scenario painted by Lucas is very plausible. In fact projecting a continuation of the last 15 years security outlook over the long term future is less likely. I am loathe to project recent history (post 2000-2015) as a template for the next 30 years. By the late 2030's (25 years away) the projected NZ population will likely be heading in the ballpark of 6 million. It will begin to slow after that point however demographers are nevertheless expecting that the next 20-25 years will see continuing growth through immigration. There will be a further 150,000 people aged 18-39 bracket than there is now. GDP will be circa $675B (in 2014 dollars) in another 25 years time. By 2040+ what Lucas has outlined will actually be the minimum cost of doing business for NZ Inc or the cost will be business of NZ Inc. It would not just be us asking serious questions about New Zealand's commitment to regional defence.

 

[RegR]

I'd say that the 30 year scenario painted by Lucas is very plausible. In fact projecting a continuation of the last 15 years security outlook over the long term future is less likely. I am loathe to project recent history (post 2000-2015) as a template for the next 30 years. By the late 2030's (25 years away) the projected NZ population will likely be heading in the ballpark of 6 million. It will begin to slow after that point however demographers are nevertheless expecting that the next 20-25 years will see continuing growth through immigration. There will be a further 150,000 people aged 18-39 bracket than there is now. GDP will be circa $675B (in 2014 dollars) in another 25 years time. By 2040+ what Lucas has outlined will actually be the minimum cost of doing business for NZ Inc or the cost will be business of NZ Inc. It would not just be us asking serious questions about New Zealand's commitment to regional defence.

I would say 25 years ago someone quoted exactly the same and yet here we are today, small and getting smaller. I think the only thing saving us now is that we literally cannot go any smaller without a major change in focus ie actual constabulary/coast guard type and whilst I would like to 100% think that would not happen I also once thought an ACF was the backbone of our air force and a pillar of our defence force, apparently me and govt have differing veiws.

The next big litmus will be the ANZAC replacement project for a true vision of the future ie numbers, fit out and even if it will be frigate as this will give us a combative (or not) heading to gauge off. Time will tell but history is'nt exactly painting a good picture depending how you look at it or which party you ask.

 

[MrConservative]

I would say 25 years ago someone quoted exactly the same and yet here we are today, small and getting smaller. I think the only thing saving us now is that we literally cannot go any smaller without a major change in focus ie actual constabulary/coast guard type and whilst I would like to think that would happen I also once thought an ACF was the backbone of our air force and a pillar of our defence force, apparently me and govt have differing veiws.

The next big litmus will be the ANZAC replacement project for a true vision of the future ie numbers, fit out and even if it will be frigate as this will give us a combative (or not) heading to gauge off. Time will tell but history is'nt exactly painting a good picture depending how you look at it.

There is now a clear recovery process going in the NZDF, which has followed a period of stabilisation a period admittedly extended due to the GFC and CHC11. For the first time in a generation defence is finally getting coherency of purpose. The damage done over the previous 25 year period does take time to fix. The change from the old LTDP of last decade to what is evolving through the next two DWPs will be a marked change. The signals have already been sent via the mid point rebalancing 2 years ago that the maritime sphere is to get reinvestment - including Anzac replacements. The IPV's add nothing to the NZ security paradigm and are a false analogy numbers wise. I'm happy to see the NZG has the good sense to palm them off and a couple of helo capable, larger, more persistent OPV's working within our region of interest alongside airborne patrol assets in a networked enabled environment is a far better outcome and is the way they are going to do things in the years ahead.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

... Over the next 30 years NZ should be transitioning to a fleet of:

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

I am not that optimistic. From 1989, I am following RNZN (as a fan of), and continuously seeing shrink or flat = no increase. So, "20 years from now", I guess

• 3 "Crossover 131 Amphibious (5500t)" or like (replacing 2 ANZAC-FFs and MRV) for light-frigate role (with 2-sets of CAPTAS-1 canistered) and transport role (all 3)
• 1 "Antarctic" OPV (~4000t): the 3rd OPV and secondary transport roles
• 2 normal OPVs (~2000t)
• 4 new smaller/simpler IPV; for < 24nm tasks (2 for RNZVR, 2 for regular force)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (2000-3000t)
• 1 AO (? t)

In other words, the same arrangement to the current fleet. Sorry not funny at all, but realistic and affordable. And what is more, it is "in good shape", I think.

 

[Rob c]

I am not that optimistic. From 1989, I am following RNZN (as a fan of), and continuously seeing shrink or flat = no increase. So, "20 years from now", I guess

• 3 "Crossover 131 Amphibious (5500t)" or like (replacing 2 ANZAC-FFs and MRV) for light-frigate role (with 2-sets of CAPTAS-1 canistered) and transport role (all 3)
• 1 "Antarctic" OPV (~4000t): the 3rd OPV and secondary transport roles
• 2 normal OPVs (~2000t)
• 4 new smaller/simpler IPV; for < 24nm tasks (2 for RNZVR, 2 for regular force)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (2000-3000t)
• 1 AO (? t)

In other words, the same arrangement to the current fleet. Sorry not funny at all, but realistic and affordable. And what is more, it is "in good shape", I think.

Some interesting options here, the only one would not pursue would be the smaller/ simpler I.P.V. The current one's are simple, and reducing their size would make them unusable in the Tasman sea in winter as happened with the old 33mtr Lake class of 1972 -1990. It is all to do with the natural wave length of the Tasman. I don't know all the details but I was told when on one, that anything less than 50mtrs was a waste of time if you wanted to be able to stay at sea in winter in the Tasman.

 

[Lucasnz]

I am not that optimistic. From 1989, I am following RNZN (as a fan of), and continuously seeing shrink or flat = no increase. So, "20 years from now", I guess

• 3 "Crossover 131 Amphibious (5500t)" or like (replacing 2 ANZAC-FFs and MRV) for light-frigate role (with 2-sets of CAPTAS-1 canistered) and transport role (all 3)
• 1 "Antarctic" OPV (~4000t): the 3rd OPV and secondary transport roles
• 2 normal OPVs (~2000t)
• 4 new smaller/simpler IPV; for < 24nm tasks (2 for RNZVR, 2 for regular force)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (2000-3000t)
• 1 AO (? t)

In other words, the same arrangement to the current fleet. Sorry not funny at all, but realistic and affordable. And what is more, it is "in good shape", I think.

While I understand the rational behind your force I don't think it meets the security challenges of the future. This is my view:

• IPV - The RNZN likes them because they give junior officers command experience - but from a practical point of view they acheive nothing, as Mr C as highlighted, in terms of wider defence policy. The NZG would in my view be better off acquiring a single class of smaller IPV for customs, police and fisheries to operate nation wide. I note that fisheries operated there own IPV like this in the 1980's..
• OPV - My preference is for single class of OPV, both in terms of gaining economy of scale during construction, through life support and training. Operationally NZ is deficient in the OPV its operates vs the size of the EEZ. Looking at the Irish Navy and the recent white paper released last year, the Irish Government considers 8 vessels the minimum, with 2 coastal. Say's something about our ability to police our own EEZ. Given the resource challenges facing the world NZ will need to increase its policing of the Blue Waters around NZ and in support of the South Pacific states. 4 OPV by themselves will not achieve this. Given the current threat situation in the South Pacific is likely to be at the low / mid (at a stretch) end of conflicts, some form of military capability is required, short of a fully armed frigate. Hence my argument for following the examples of Denmark, the Netherlands and France in building a larger OPV, that is more akin to a frigate. Ice Strengthening these vessels provides a back stop for the NZG should the agreement on territorial claims in the Antarctic expire. It also provides the NZG with the ability to provide a proportional response to situations in the South Pacific.
• Frigate Replacement - I have left the term Frigate out of my suggestion deliberately. Given what appear to be a
  - expanding threat from ICBM proliferation;
  - developments like the rail gun;
  - extended range ammunition;
  - more capable target discriminating ASM / with a degree of stealth and if in the future the UK has its way two sub munitions;
  - Sub's with huge detection ranges (if some capabilities are accepted as true).
  NZ needs to ask the question as to whether we need a larger surface combatant; a more specialized combatant or retain the general purpose frigates currently operated. While I like the concept of an Absalom Class type vessel from a damage control perspective, the cargo deck provides a significant risk in terms of free surface flooding, making them unsuitable for High Intensity combat. If NZ wants to be seen as a good "international" citizen some form of major surface combatant is required.

A penny for ones thoughts - lets just hope the DWP provides clarity and vision for defence planning over the next 10 years.

 

[MrConservative]

I am not that optimistic. From 1989, I am following RNZN (as a fan of), and continuously seeing shrink or flat = no increase. So, "20 years from now", I guess

• 3 "Crossover 131 Amphibious (5500t)" or like (replacing 2 ANZAC-FFs and MRV) for light-frigate role (with 2-sets of CAPTAS-1 canistered) and transport role (all 3)
• 1 "Antarctic" OPV (~4000t): the 3rd OPV and secondary transport roles
• 2 normal OPVs (~2000t)
• 4 new smaller/simpler IPV; for < 24nm tasks (2 for RNZVR, 2 for regular force)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (2000-3000t)
• 1 AO (? t)

In other words, the same arrangement to the current fleet. Sorry not funny at all, but realistic and affordable. And what is more, it is "in good shape", I think.

Wow. The kind of fleet structure we should have if we were a non-aligned, small, green, european country just of the west coast of the UK.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'm increasingly of the view that manpower is not the issue. The Otago was berthed in Dunedin the other week and the ODT stated it carried a crew of 60 against the planned complement of 35. I think the core issue is that the IPV were slated for operations out to 24nm but were being used for operations further out, for which they were not suitable. If IPV were limited to operations out to 24nm I don't think their use would be an issue. Ultimately the issue is the size (in terms of ships and personnel) of the RNZN as a whole. In its current configuration its to small in combat and resource protection capability. An increase to 14 vessels would make those problems go away. Over the next 30 years NZ should be transitioning to a fleet of:

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

I would probably go slightly different but with the general direction that you are taking by combining the two FF and OPV classes to something like this:

• 3 Iver Huitfelds or similar
• 8 Black Swan Sloop Of War derivatives
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the Black Swan derivatives)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

The Ivers give great high intensity level combat coverage and I would suggest a minimum of 32 VLS cells permanently fitted with capacity to have another 16 or more using Stanflex or similar modular arrangement. The hangar arrangement would also have to be modified to take two NH90 helos. That allows for one helo and an UAV.

The Black Swan concept (drawing) was something that the UKMOD looked at about six years ago. The RN are not keen on the idea because they see it as endangering the Type 26.

Specifications

• Length: (WL) 90m
• Beam: (WL) 15.5m
• Draft: 4m
• Max Speed: 18 knots
• Range: 10,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
• Displacement: 3150 tonnes
• Hangar: Merlin plus rotary wing UAV
• Flightdeck: Chinook ramp down
• Basic complement: 8 plus 32 mission planners
• Fixed Armament: 1 x 30mm gun, 2 x GPMG miniguns

However in the RNZN it would be quite a good concept, with some modification, because it would fill roles that more than one platform fill at the moment and it would offer far greater flexibility below that of the level of the Ivers. With this concept it needs to be understood it is not platform centric but systems centric and the hull itself is basically a logistical base for the systems. If used in conjunction with something like Stanflex this, I feel, would be ideal for the RNZN subject to the following caveats:

• ice strengthened to 1A preferably
• a CIC ability is included i.e., same systems as on the Ivers with the open architecture consoles etc.
• structurally able to mount a 76mm main gun
• Rheinmetall GDM-008 Millenium Gun as CIWS - again, same as on Ivers

Don't need to acquire 8 76mm guns etc., but like I say its a hull with a basic crew and then plug and play systems. The UK was suggesting a cost ₤STG 65 million which is around NZ$135 million per ship.

Survivability. With resilience stemming from numbers, and the intent to keep the host platform outside the tactical weapon envelope of potential adversaries, cost has been reduced through adopting commercial standards where possible. If the risk to the platform from enemy action is low, then adopting commercial International Maritime Organisation conventions on subdivision and damage stability is a feasible option. ‘For a combatant, adopting The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea to define the safety limit would not be appropriate, unless the military value of the asset is equitable with the value and availability of a merchant ship’. This fits well with a philosophy of survivability through platform numbers. The adoption of this reduced standard permits a one compartment damage standard, with a reduction of watertight bulkheads from around 8 to 4. This generates a significant cost saving, both in terms of hull structure and system complexity. It also reduces the amount of armour required. With the crew concentrated in the superstructure and hull under the bridge, this area can be economically armoured against small arms fire. The only other allowance for armour in the design is for protection to magazines. The relaxation of shock and other military standard requirements for machinery and other equipment will also have a significant effect on the cost of the platform. This philosophy sees a shift in emphasis from ship, to crew survivability.

Whilst the UK may take that approach I think that in the NZ context we would want a greater damage control and survivability content. Hence I think that the basic crew numbers would have to increase as well. However I do believe that this is a concept well worth investigating.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

Thanks for response

I don't know all the details but I was told when on one, that anything less than 50mtrs was a waste of time if you wanted to be able to stay at sea in winter in the Tasman.

Thanks. "50m", intersting. Current problem is RNZN cannot even afford/man the IPV you have know.

My point is, if you limit the IPV task to "within 24nm" or even 12nm from the shore, how small/cheap/maintenance-free can the IPV be. Damen 4207 for example is "a 32m-long PC applied with Enlarged Ship Concept to make it 42m long". That's why it can be operated with only 12 crew, i.e. only 60% of those you need for Protector IPVs. These kind of approach would be practical, I think. If not, as Lucasnz-san has suggested, navy will not need it (simply because unable to man it = waste of money).

- My preference is for single class of OPV, both in terms of gaining economy of scale during construction, through life support and training.

Good point. My idea is that, Antarctic ship regulation becoming so strict these days, already there is a merit to build 2 different class. What is more, I am talking about 20-years from now. So the currently planned "3rd OPV" = Antarctic OPV will be there. Not bad, I guess.

Given the current threat situation in the South Pacific is likely to be at the low / mid (at a stretch) end of conflicts, some form of military capability is required, short of a fully armed frigate. Hence my argument for following the examples of Denmark, the Netherlands and France in building a larger OPV, that is more akin to a frigate.

I'm sorry but I do not share this idea. Firstly, a modern stabilized 25mm gun is much "lethal" than 20mm or even 40mm guns you had in 1970s. Its "enough", I guess. One thing I cannot follow is the future possible conflicts in South Pacific as you claim. What island are you talking about? (Sorry I may lack good information on such issues).

- Frigate Replacement ...
NZ needs to ask the question as to whether we need a larger surface combatant; a more specialized combatant or retain the general purpose frigates currently operated. While I like the concept of an Absalom Class type vessel from a damage control perspective, the cargo deck provides a significant risk in terms of free surface flooding, making them unsuitable for High Intensity combat. If NZ wants to be seen as a good "international" citizen some form of major surface combatant is required.

Denmark is sending Absalon to Gulf. USN LCS has a similar mission bay. Italian PPA has a small mission bay in its stern. If your point is critical, you can add a fire/water-tight wall in the FLEX deck, relatively easily. My point is that, 2 FF and 1 MRV concept is OK, but you need something in case MRV is in long-refit. Then you need "2 or more" transport vessels.

And, modern full-rate escort is deadly expensive. Expecting 2 "T26-like" large escorts for ANZAC replacement is equivalent to asking for Spruance class DD for Leander replacement in late 1980s. So the light-frigates, GPFF, FTI, PPA, whatever you call it, with ~half the cost of "hi-end" escorts, will be the right choice for RNZN.

Combining the "light frigate" and "2 or more" transports, Crossover/Absalon comes in. Yes, tranport deck is smaller than what you have in Canterbury. That's why I am proposing 4th transport, the Antarctic OPV to be added, so that Navy can send "2" vessels, if needed.

- 3 Iver Huitfelds or similar
-8 Black Swan Sloop Of War derivatives

Yes "Iver Huitfelds" is great hi-end escorts, but I'm afraid it is DEADLY expensive. As I noted above, it will require almost all other assets in your navy to be disbanded. Do not believe in its "cheapness". Denmark navy itself is doing much works to arm/test it, and the 32-cell Mk.41 is still empty. Never fired SM-2 up to now. In other words, these cost was not included in the building cost. Also, after they built it, the ship yard was scrapped. (financially was a big damage?)

Another point is that, 8 Black swan is as expensive as 8 (or more) Otago OPV. I cannot find the money. And what is more, you are talking about its mission module. But the module itself shall be quite expensive, even much expensive than the vessel itself. Again, no money, I guess.

If you want Iver Huitfelds and Black-swan with proper mission modules, I guess you will have only 1 Iver and 3 Blackswans, in place of 2 ANZACs and 2 Otagos and 1 Antarctic OPV. In this case, you still have 1 MRV, 1 AO and 1 LCS. But I do not think this is a good idea.