Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Rheinhardt]

Given recent discussions perhaps it would make sense for the RNZN to procure a single type of multipurpose ship, something similar to the Absalon/Crossover or even the black swan class as opposed to many different types of single purpose ships.

These are ships in the 6K tonne range, ~130meters with ~900sq meter cargo bays, multiple helicopter hangers, the Absalon can carry defensive Weaponry like the ESSMs/CAMM and the Crossover is capable of an amphibious assault using it's landing craft (at the expense of space inside the cargo bay). Throw in some additional VLS stations for Attack/missiles (similar to the concept of the T26 GCS) ontop of that and you have a fairly nice multi-purpose ship.

Absalon cost 225M ea, 265m with combat systems installed, the frigate derived from that cost 325mn all up, but this ship would be of similar size, use a much cheaper 76mm cannon, require less complicated sensors (only armed with CAMM-ER) and be built in Korea, so the cost could probably be as low as 200M Ea (without missiles, helicopters or landing craft). The sorts of ships the Government would be interested in to replace the frigates would probably start at 1,2Bn ea...

The ships would be very versatile, there would be lots of room to carry equipment, supplies, air and sea vessels including drones. So the ship would be very versatile, carrying over 450Tonne (based on crossover/absalon). Range should be good too, the swan class has a predicted range of 18,000KM and the absalon has 17,000KM. A dozen such ships would have about 6-7x the capacity for vehicles as our current transport ship if the landing crafts and supplies are included. You could conduct a sealift and amphibious assault with all of our LAVs using 8 out of 12 of these ships for instance. There would be no logistics vehicles, and it would use our entire deployable fleet, but it is possible....

Build these with hardened hulls for arctic patrols, bigger engines and more fuel, build 2-3 tanker/transport supply ships to support any expeditions by carrying supplies, fuel and logistics vehicles and you have a serious expeditionary capability for the pacific and arctic. Would also compliment the Australian Navy with their big Flatdecks and LSTs. Perfect for paroling the region and well suited for securing any islands (as was required during ww2) in the event of a war in the pacific.

 

[ngatimozart]

Given recent discussions perhaps it would make sense for the RNZN to procure a single type of multipurpose ship, something similar to the Absalon/Crossover or even the black swan class as opposed to many different types of single purpose ships.

These are ships in the 6K tonne range, ~130meters with ~900sq meter cargo bays, multiple helicopter hangers, the Absalon can carry defensive Weaponry like the ESSMs/CAMM and the Crossover is capable of an amphibious assault using it's landing craft (at the expense of space inside the cargo bay). Throw in some additional VLS stations for Attack/missiles (similar to the concept of the T26 GCS) ontop of that and you have a fairly nice multi-purpose ship.

Absalon cost 225M ea, 265m with combat systems installed, the frigate derived from that cost 325mn all up, but this ship would be of similar size, use a much cheaper 76mm cannon, require less complicated sensors (only armed with CAMM-ER) and be built in Korea, so the cost could probably be as low as 200M Ea (without missiles, helicopters or landing craft). The sorts of ships the Government would be interested in to replace the frigates would probably start at 1,2Bn ea...

The ships would be very versatile, there would be lots of room to carry equipment, supplies, air and sea vessels including drones. So the ship would be very versatile, carrying over 450Tonne (based on crossover/absalon). Range should be good too, the swan class has a predicted range of 18,000KM and the absalon has 17,000KM. A dozen such ships would have about 6-7x the capacity for vehicles as our current transport ship if the landing crafts and supplies are included. You could conduct a sealift and amphibious assault with all of our LAVs using 8 out of 12 of these ships for instance. There would be no logistics vehicles, and it would use our entire deployable fleet, but it is possible....

Build these with hardened hulls for arctic patrols, bigger engines and more fuel, build 2-3 tanker/transport supply ships to support any expeditions by carrying supplies, fuel and logistics vehicles and you have a serious expeditionary capability for the pacific and arctic. Would also compliment the Australian Navy with their big Flatdecks and LSTs. Perfect for paroling the region and well suited for securing any islands (as was required during ww2) in the event of a war in the pacific.

This has been well discussed earlier on in this thread and the Absalons well and truly gone over. I had been the one to originally champion them in RNZN service, however they do not meet our CONOPs and they are not designed for high intensity conflict. The 127mm guns are for NGS (Naval Gun Support) which the 76mm are not good for that. Black Swan is an interesting concept but it is only a paper concept and to risky for NZ to pursue.

 

[Todjaeger]

Given recent discussions perhaps it would make sense for the RNZN to procure a single type of multipurpose ship, something similar to the Absalon/Crossover or even the black swan class as opposed to many different types of single purpose ships.

These are ships in the 6K tonne range, ~130meters with ~900sq meter cargo bays, multiple helicopter hangers, the Absalon can carry defensive Weaponry like the ESSMs/CAMM and the Crossover is capable of an amphibious assault using it's landing craft (at the expense of space inside the cargo bay). Throw in some additional VLS stations for Attack/missiles (similar to the concept of the T26 GCS) ontop of that and you have a fairly nice multi-purpose ship.

Absalon cost 225M ea, 265m with combat systems installed, the frigate derived from that cost 325mn all up, but this ship would be of similar size, use a much cheaper 76mm cannon, require less complicated sensors (only armed with CAMM-ER) and be built in Korea, so the cost could probably be as low as 200M Ea (without missiles, helicopters or landing craft). The sorts of ships the Government would be interested in to replace the frigates would probably start at 1,2Bn ea...

The ships would be very versatile, there would be lots of room to carry equipment, supplies, air and sea vessels including drones. So the ship would be very versatile, carrying over 450Tonne (based on crossover/absalon). Range should be good too, the swan class has a predicted range of 18,000KM and the absalon has 17,000KM. A dozen such ships would have about 6-7x the capacity for vehicles as our current transport ship if the landing crafts and supplies are included. You could conduct a sealift and amphibious assault with all of our LAVs using 8 out of 12 of these ships for instance. There would be no logistics vehicles, and it would use our entire deployable fleet, but it is possible....

Build these with hardened hulls for arctic patrols, bigger engines and more fuel, build 2-3 tanker/transport supply ships to support any expeditions by carrying supplies, fuel and logistics vehicles and you have a serious expeditionary capability for the pacific and arctic. Would also compliment the Australian Navy with their big Flatdecks and LSTs. Perfect for paroling the region and well suited for securing any islands (as was required during ww2) in the event of a war in the pacific.

While the Absalon-class support ship is quite versatile, it is a support ship, not a direct frigate replacement. Also worth noting is the ship fitout. With the ANZAC-class FFH replacements expected in the late 2020's to early 2030's, then a fitout approximating that of the upgraded frigates with Sea Ceptor and a 76 mm gun could very well be insufficient for the region. At present it is an open question if an ER version of Sea Ceptor will be developed, or what sorts of systems would be required for it.

There are valid arguments to be made about enabling vessels to perform several roles, however one has to be wary of attempting to cram to many/opposing roles into a hull. One tends to get a ship with fair to mediocre performance. Just look at the MRV HMNZS Canterbury as a shining example. Sealift and ice-strengthened ocean patrolling in the same hull just do not go well together.

 

[swerve]

CAMM-ER is under development in Italy to replace land-based SAMs. Porting that to a ship-based system should be a minor exercise, given the nature of CAMM, small enough that MBDA might be happy to do it with a single small customer such as the RNZN signed up, hoping to recoup the cost from several customers.

 

[ngatimozart]

CAMM-ER is under development in Italy to replace land-based SAMs. Porting that to a ship-based system should be a minor exercise, given the nature of CAMM, small enough that MBDA might be happy to do it with a single small customer such as the RNZN signed up, hoping to recoup the cost from several customers.

We have bought Sea Ceptor which is the Naval variant of CAMM so yes maybe in the future a navalised variant CAMM-ER could be a wise acquisition.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

This has been well discussed earlier on in this thread and the Absalons well and truly gone over. I had been the one to originally champion them in RNZN service, however they do not meet our CONOPs and they are not designed for high intensity conflict. The 127mm guns are for NGS (Naval Gun Support) which the 76mm are not good for that. Black Swan is an interesting concept but it is only a paper concept and to risky for NZ to pursue.

I understand the Absalon design is not full milspec with issues related to compartmentalization and damage control but in the world New Zealand is likely to operate, in a coalition of allies, is contributing a single frigate / destroyer a valuable use of funds. In another thread you state that the P8 is a national strategic asset so let's leave the high end contribution as the P8 to international high tempo and high threat operations. A vessel "like" the Absalon class offers a lot of flexibility to a nation the size of New Zealand. It's weapons package as built exceeds the current ANZACs. In comparison to previous Leander class frigates the Absalons are miles ahead in capabilities.

From a purely dollars and cents perspective even Canada needs to find its place in Defence matters and realize it can not do all things that it once did. Becoming a provider of niche capabilities and offering that to a coalition has far more benefit to both parties.

I am not saying to downgrade the navy to a constabulary but to recognize the threat envelope and provide a solution of a large multipurpose hull with great flexibility for use in a lower threat environment while still projecting a big stick.

Defence like my world of emergency response is all about the "if" factor. If nothing happens perfect but if it does happen you better be prepared. No current vessel milspec or cots is going to standup against current or future surface missles or torpedoes and still function. The Danes have recognized this and have maximized their defence expenditure. Hopefully Canada makes the right decision and chooses a mix of Iver and Absalon for its designs to replace what's left of our navy. Looking to OZ and its $9 billion AWD program for three vessels I hope neither NZ or Canada goes in that direction.

 

[RegR]

So why exactly is a NZ ANZAC any better than an absalon for what we do? (Honestly as I just see the base as systems transport for us really), Anti-piracy, escorting our "JATF" (lets be honest in a wider op), response in the islands, southern interdiction etc. Let's look realisticly at what we have done to gauge what we will do for a true appreciation. Do we really need 2 high end specialised frigates or possibly something with more versatility and options? we are a small navy and getting smaller so why would we continue to concentrate our forces into a corner? If govt was serious about having a more "specialised" frigate force we would still have 4 or even 3 to fully maximise their potential.

I guess it's similar to the P8 vs everything else debate, can we/do we have options? Is the trade off worth the expense? A frigates only as good as its equipment fitted and maintained! To be brutally honest just thinking of all the ops we have done with the ANZACs in our navies context then an absalon actually would have been better ie anti-piracy ops, could have even covered other tasks ie op Winston and be truly joint force ie transport army AND prov NGS. Whilst

A true high end frigate able to cover ASW, ASuW and missile defence etc fully is a hard (and extremely expensive) capability to aqquire and maintain at the best of times so would we be better served channeling all this funding into 2 seemingly over qualified platforms that we could possibly use theoretically or say 3 lesser able but more task capable platforms for a similar price ie 2 iver types and an absalon type, that is more probable in employment mid range.

We are the NZ navy not a big player navy so cannot afford to constrain our fleet into specific roles anymore but need a more broader practical approach, which is a new found philosophy of our forces so I can't see our frigates being fundamentally any different if at all possible. No doubt most systems will be upscaled from the current fleet if at all possible to cost save so would transferring the current gun mount (or same calibre) be impossible from say ANZAC to Absalon just because that's what they went with? It is a larger ship so why not? I do however quite like the plug and play nature of the absalon/iver family systems to adjust for specific roles that actually adds to (or not) their functionality.

Just my opinion anyway and obviously specific to our navy and what we do regularly. I just see more benefit for our forces with a more role capable vs role centric combat force regardless of perceived lack of "punch" in a particular area. Does not even have to be this particular family but more so the concept just have not seen this much "flex" in another operational navy with similar maritime regards as us.

Just read Novas post but seems as though we have the same thought process in this regard.

 

[Rheinhardt]

This has been well discussed earlier on in this thread and the Absalons well and truly gone over. I had been the one to originally champion them in RNZN service, however they do not meet our CONOPs and they are not designed for high intensity conflict. The 127mm guns are for NGS (Naval Gun Support) which the 76mm are not good for that. Black Swan is an interesting concept but it is only a paper concept and to risky for NZ to pursue.

When I suggested RNZN might be better of procuring a single class of ship like the Crossover/Absalon I didn't mean either of those two ships, I meant a ship like those two ships (which are very similar in size, role and capability). I then went on to specify that such a ship should combine the Amphibious assault capabilities of the Crossover with a local air-defense system comparable to the Absalons (based on CAMM which is actively guided i.e. doesn't need to be guided to the target by the radar so can use a basic radar like giraffe ABM) combined with attack missiles like the T26 ship has. There is little reason why the first two would be difficult to achieve, the later would require stretching the hull...

While the Absalon-class support ship is quite versatile, it is a support ship, not a direct frigate replacement. Also worth noting is the ship fitout. With the ANZAC-class FFH replacements expected in the late 2020's to early 2030's, then a fitout approximating that of the upgraded frigates with Sea Ceptor and a 76 mm gun could very well be insufficient for the region. At present it is an open question if an ER version of Sea Ceptor will be developed, or what sorts of systems would be required for it.er.

Yes, possibly, no, no, no, no & no. The Absalon is more heavily armed, larger, carries a greater payload, has longer range than all frigates, except the very large and very expensive European super frigates and the shrunken Asian Burke Clones. So unless your criteria of frigate is a >1.5bn USD 7,000tonne frigate with 48 VLS stations and the most expensive radar system you can possibly fit into it then yes it is a frigate. And yes I believe that is the criteria used by Phill Geof when he said the frigate will cost billions of dollars. It is not an area-air-defense frigate/destroyer, but it is still a frigate.

And the Strales 76mm Oto Melara is actually a very good cannon, it has very good traverse rate, rate of fire and is very good for CIWS particularly with the DART ammo. And it is very cheap, low impact, it is $4mn 7.5t compared to $25m 28t, plus the ammunition handling systems and storage is much more compact. The cost of 127mm Gun is actually even more than that because you have to pay for all that extra space, weight, structural reinforcing, the ammunition costs more, then you have to carry that extra weight around...

I would rather A.) dump the cost and space savings into more defensive capabilities for the ships, or B.) not have to reduce the number of ships because someone somewhere wants to reminisce about the days of gunships and demands we spend more money to put in bigger guns.

I understand the Absalon design is not full milspec with issues related to compartmentalization and damage control but in the world New Zealand is likely to operate, in a coalition of allies, is contributing a single frigate / destroyer a valuable use of funds. In another thread you state that the P8 is a national strategic asset so let's leave the high end contribution as the P8 to international high tempo and high threat operations. A vessel "like" the Absalon class offers a lot of flexibility to a nation the size of New Zealand. It's weapons package as built exceeds the current ANZACs. In comparison to previous Leander class frigates the Absalons are miles ahead in capabilities.

From a purely dollars and cents perspective even Canada needs to find its place in Defence matters and realize it can not do all things that it once did. Becoming a provider of niche capabilities and offering that to a coalition has far more benefit to both parties.

Defence like my world of emergency response is all about the "if" factor. If nothing happens perfect but if it does happen you better be prepared. No current vessel milspec or cots is going to standup against current or future surface missles or torpedoes and still function. The Danes have recognized this and have maximized their defence expenditure. Hopefully Canada makes the right decision and chooses a mix of Iver and Absalon for its designs to replace what's left of our navy. Looking to OZ and its $9 billion AWD program for three vessels I hope neither NZ or Canada goes in that direction.

Thankyou.. Nowadays milspec and reduced milspec means very little, even civilian and milspec is only extra bulkheads and armouring non-critical areas. And when that ship is hit by a large supersonic cruise missile it is still going to crack in half like an egg. Just look at the weapons trials of the Brahmos... Rather than wasting time practicing 'damage control' the crews should be training not to get sunk.

Regardless both the Absalon/Iver huitfeldt and the crossover variants show us that you can specify the standards, reduced navy standards or full standards and the shipyard will build it to that spec. But since modern anti-ship weapons are designed to sink ships not start fires or poke holes I would rather spend that money on making sure the ship doesn't get hit than having an extra bulkhead and a bit more kevlar to protect the ship from small arms fire...

>As a side note we save a lot of money by giving up the area-defense requirement, the 5" gun which is standard and a few other things. Because of that we can use dirt cheap radar like Sea-Griffin ABM (even if we retained the option to up-spec by building in ontop of a mast wired up for something better), and if we invest a bit more when we build it, to build a stretched hull with additional VLS stations for attack missiles, then area-defense missiles could be added in later on. And by picking Reduced Naval Standards, the savings could go into uprating the vessels for patrols in the arctic.

 

[ngatimozart]

Reg, when we went into East Timor one of our Leander frigates (Canterbury or Waikato) took care of an Indonesia sub that was sneaking around in places where it shouldn't been. It was persuaded that it suddenly remembered that it had some other place it was supposed to be.

We are not suggesting that any future frigate have a full ASW suite, in fact if you note the theme has been GP frigates which have the hull mounted sonars and not the towed arrays or in some cases the variable depth sonars. Nor are we suggesting the full ASMD suite that the RAN ANZAC class now have. However when in a coalition or allied fleet you do have to have capabilities that do not make you a liability to that fleet in a contested environment. IMHO the current RNZN ANZACS are close to being a liability because they scrimp on SAM, have no SSM, plus the torpedos are suspect because they are not the latest Mk46 and are old time wise. The Iver Huitfeld class would be ideal for NZ service with some minor modifications, such as replacing the current 76mm gun with the 127mm gun and fitting two hangars instead of one. Why two? Because air is free and steel is cheap. More importantly gives the option of a helo and a UAV, such as Scan Eagle or Fire Scout etc., or two helos being deployed with the ship concurrently.

 

[RegR]

Reg, when we went into East Timor one of our Leander frigates (Canterbury or Waikato) took care of an Indonesia sub that was sneaking around in places where it shouldn't been. It was persuaded that it suddenly remembered that it had some other place it was supposed to be.

We are not suggesting that any future frigate have a full ASW suite, in fact if you note the theme has been GP frigates which have the hull mounted sonars and not the towed arrays or in some cases the variable depth sonars. Nor are we suggesting the full ASMD suite that the RAN ANZAC class now have. However when in a coalition or allied fleet you do have to have capabilities that do not make you a liability to that fleet in a contested environment. IMHO the current RNZN ANZACS are close to being a liability because they scrimp on SAM, have no SSM, plus the torpedos are suspect because they are not the latest Mk46 and are old time wise. The Iver Huitfeld class would be ideal for NZ service with some minor modifications, such as replacing the current 76mm gun with the 127mm gun and fitting two hangars instead of one. Why two? Because air is free and steel is cheap. More importantly gives the option of a helo and a UAV, such as Scan Eagle or Fire Scout etc., or two helos being deployed with the ship concurrently.

This is what I am saying, to discount frigates for frigates sake based on a scenario Canterbury conducted 2 class iterations (and 17 years) ago is again a possibility when we really should be more funding probability for what our navy does realistically for max potential use, not min possible chance. Are you also suggesting a current absalon would not have been able to identify, track and potentially prosecute that indo sub same as our leander? And yes if we do not equip our platforms sufficiently anyway ie torps then all they are is expensive targets so we may as well have multi-role expensive targets at least and get added use from them.

I would like to think modern systems can be more readily adapted to varying hulls and thus made not only potent but practical. Along with adequate intergration, helo support, modifications etc I cannot see why we cannot modify at the build stage to cater for ie submarine detection (which I assume absalons have otherwise their torpedoes are rather redundant) as well as suit other tasks ie flex bay for "other" than combat tasks, a rather big NZDF function regardless of how we feel they conduct their daily buisness. Much like modifying a iver to cater for an extra helo, which being basically the same hull should not be to much of a mod.

I would argue for us sealift is a more benficial and realistic output for what we conduct so if we could somehow combine into our "combative" fleet even partially then we should explore and consider, especially if it still does what we need it to do regardless of if it's a pure frigate or not. Who's to say any coalition needs another "frigate" in lieu of a "frigate"? If we just build more of the same anyway all we gain is numbers whereas sometimes commanders require options. I do understand the GP function and we would be stupid to limit ourselves and box ourselves into a genre and IMO you cannot actually get much more general purpose than an absalon type vs say an ANZAC type under our ensign. I honestly cannot see us getting an extra sealift ship or keeping CY past replacement as back up so between any extra space built into ENDII and something along these lines then our redundancy options are rather limited.

Agreed on ivers which is why I also suggest an absalon, same family, cheaper than some (for hopefully that magical 3rd), scalable, future proof weight/ size wise, optioned etc. 2 ivers and an absalon (again type concept) will give us alot more options than just going down the straight frigate path (again).

 

[Volkodav]

"Shrunken Asian Burkes"? Both Japanese designs and South Korea's KDXIII are larger, heavier and in some (maybe many) ways better equipped than the baseline USN Burkes. The "shrunken" AEGIS ships are the Spanish designed ones.

The Absalon, from my perspective, is a beefed up, better armed and equipped alternative to a Canterbury type support ship or a large OPV, think pre WWI colonial cruiser or between wars sloop. An instrument of the Foreign Office / DFST / State Dept. for showing the flag, providing a national presence, boarding parties, landing parties, work parties, naval gunfire support, etc. that is able to defend itself against small single role warships, pirates etc.

Above all remember that the Danes only operate a pair of them and their primary combat power is three full size air warfare frigates / destroyers that use top end combat systems.

Thinking on it, the way the Absalons have been deployed is probably not dissimilar to how Australia used the LPHs and look what we replaced them with.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Surely when it comes to replacing the frigates, the updated systems and weapons can be stripped out of them and re used on the new ones? after all they cost 440 million to fit and wont be in service untill 2018! Shave a bit of time, and money off the build.

 

[spoz]

Nowadays milspec and reduced milspec means very little, even civilian and milspec is only extra bulkheads and armouring non-critical areas. .

Not so. While compartmentalisation is certainly one aspect it is by no means the only one. Bulkhead penetration requirements, wiring standards, stand off distances, fire protection, redundancy in electrical distribution and firemain systems, alternative control mechanisms, escape arrangement and many others are affected. To compare a ship being built to "milspec" standards to one being built to commercial standards is like chalk and cheese. Armouring is usually only applied to vital spaces; too much volume, weight and stability margin is consumed to use it where it is not needed.

There is a reason high end capable ships cost more than OPVs; it's not all in just the weapon and sensor systems. While the aphorism that steel is cheap and air is free is true; what goes within the hull and occupies the space most certainly is not.

 

[Volkodav]

Surely when it comes to replacing the frigates, the updated systems and weapons can be stripped out of them and re used on the new ones? after all they cost 440 million to fit and wont be in service untill 2018! Shave a bit of time, and money off the build.

Depends what the replacement is whether you can reuse equipment from the existing ships. Also you need to factor in where they will be built and outfitted as to whether this would be worth doing.

It makes sense for the UK as they are building the replacements for the Type 23 and their combat systems were in need of an upgrade as they were retained much longer than originally intended. The advantage is they are installing a new CS on a proven platform and then will be moving a, by then, proven CS to a new platform, reducing the risk and development effort.

 

[Rheinhardt]

I would argue for us sealift is a more benficial and realistic output for what we conduct so if we could somehow combine into our "combative" fleet even partially then we should explore and consider, especially if it still does what we need it to do regardless of if it's a pure frigate or not....

Agreed on ivers which is why I also suggest an absalon, same family, cheaper than some (for hopefully that magical 3rd), scalable, future proof weight/ size wise, optioned etc. 2 ivers and an absalon (again type concept) will give us alot more options than just going down the straight frigate path (again).

Actually the Crossover series of ships by Damen, specifically the crossover 131 (amphibious and the combatant) is much better than Absalon. They are a cross between the Sigma Frigate and the Enforcer LPD, are the same size/weight as the absalon (similar sized cargo hold) but have the ability to conduct an amphibious assault, across the horizon and with vehicles straight to the beach.

Crossover 131:

• Can carry Large Boats i.e. CB90\
• Can Carry 2* Landing Craft (for vehicles/equipment/personal)
• 3D radar, CAMM and ASMs (Combatant variant)
• Optional Rear Heavyweight Torpedo System
• Optional Rear Towed Sonar Array

If the design was modified to include an elevator (like the Swan Class) then the aviation facilities could be expanded to include the Cargo Hold below (Cargo hold is 6M tall, NFH90 is 5.3M) the aviation hangar/deck greatly increasing aviation capabilities. Meaning that the ship could serve as a Helicopter ASW Destroyer. In this role additional fuel could be carried in the containerized cargo hold. Additionally other systems like the containarized missile systems proposed by MBDA, UK MOD and the Russians could be brought from the cargo hold onto the aviation deck where they could be fired (and then dumped of the side of the ship.

So in one cost effective platform you get:

• ASW Frigate
• Mine Warfare Ship
• Helicopter ASW Destroyer
• Amphibious Assault Ship
• Air/Sea-borne Drone Mothership
• Logistics Ship
• Adhoc missile boat (using containerized missiles)
• Long range patrol ship

And actually I don't think it makes too much difference for the RNZN if they intercept a missile 50KM away or 200KMs away. To be practical an area defense ship would need to have an engagement range in the 300-400KM range in order to catch the missile in the high-altitude phase and to catch the launch platform (otherwise the missile dips below the radar horizon and pops out 50KM away or the launch platform returns). The only missiles with that performance are the S300-400 from Russia and maybe the latest SM-6 SAMs from the USN. Getting any of these, coupled with a radar system capable of detecting and targeting the launcher at that distance would be enormously challenging and difficult.

And that sort of capability creep is how a 200-300Million dollar frigate becomes a 1-1.5Bn dollar Destroyer. And other navies have an excuse, they have battlegroups formed around expensive carriers they want to protect or they are much closer to their neighbors and so these ships act as a mobile component of their air-dense network.

This does not apply to us, we have no capital ships to defend, no air-defense system to augment so we have no requirement for an area air-defense frigate. And we cant afford a Russian Style Battlecruiser with the weaponry and sensors required to attack aerial launch platforms within their ~300Km engagement radius, or destroy missiles before they enter sea-skimming phase.

 

[RegR]

"Shrunken Asian Burkes"? Both Japanese designs and South Korea's KDXIII are larger, heavier and in some (maybe many) ways better equipped than the baseline USN Burkes. The "shrunken" AEGIS ships are the Spanish designed ones.

The Absalon, from my perspective, is a beefed up, better armed and equipped alternative to a Canterbury type support ship or a large OPV, think pre WWI colonial cruiser or between wars sloop. An instrument of the Foreign Office / DFST / State Dept. for showing the flag, providing a national presence, boarding parties, landing parties, work parties, naval gunfire support, etc. that is able to defend itself against small single role warships, pirates etc.

Above all remember that the Danes only operate a pair of them and their primary combat power is three full size air warfare frigates / destroyers that use top end combat systems.

Thinking on it, the way the Absalons have been deployed is probably not dissimilar to how Australia used the LPHs and look what we replaced them with.

All those points you raise are ironically what our navy (our navy) does quite abit of on a regular basis, hence the initial suggestion.

Australia sent their LPHs on anti-piracy patrols? I know they send ANZACs and FFGs but not LPHs, how did that go? What were the other deployments out of interest? I guess the initial point of having a large flex deck is to in fact make use of it, very much like an alternative to CY but in fact not CY, kind of the point.

 

[Volkodav]

All those points you raise are ironically what our navy (our navy) does quite abit of on a regular basis, hence the initial suggestion.

Australia sent their LPHs on anti-piracy patrols? I know they send ANZACs and FFGs but not LPHs, how did that go? What were the other deployments out of interest? I guess the initial point of having a large flex deck is to in fact make use of it, very much like an alternative to CY but in fact not CY, kind of the point.

The Absalons served in a command and control role for the anti piracy mission kitted out as an afloat head quarters for the international mission and embarking special forces to supplement their regular capabilities. This is not dissimilar to how the LPHs were used in the Gulf and Indian Ocean as taskforce HQs, nothing unusual as a number of navies have used Amphibs in this way for years.

 

[RegR]

The Absalons served in a command and control role for the anti piracy mission kitted out as an afloat head quarters for the international mission and embarking special forces to supplement their regular capabilities. This is not dissimilar to how the LPHs were used in the Gulf and Indian Ocean as taskforce HQs, nothing unusual as a number of navies have used Amphibs in this way for years.

Yes and there's the icing for me, supplement their regular capabilities, which still included patrolling, interceptions and boarding as per a regular frigate, still plus plus IMO. Afloat headquarters, yet another feather in the cap. I would even go so far as to say for this type of mission this could be even better suited than an amphib and in our case freeing up our lone version for its core role has its obvious advantage.

Interesting clips on youtube show exactly what absalon acheived on this mission, in this case all our ANZACs can (and did) do and more. The doco actually gave a good insight into what a vessel like this can do for the RNZN and NZDF considering the tasks we undertake on a regular basis.

Yes whilst not a true frigate in the sense of the word, for us, I still believe the concept still offers more not less. Matter of opinion I guess.

 

[recce.k1]

The Absalon, from my perspective, is a beefed up, better armed and equipped alternative to a Canterbury type support ship or a large OPV, think pre WWI colonial cruiser or between wars sloop. An instrument of the Foreign Office / DFST / State Dept. for showing the flag, providing a national presence, boarding parties, landing parties, work parties, naval gunfire support, etc. that is able to defend itself against small single role warships, pirates etc.

Above all remember that the Danes only operate a pair of them and their primary combat power is three full size air warfare frigates / destroyers that use top end combat systems.

Fully agree ... and like the Danes, the RNZN requires a naval combat force of "high-end" Frigates (and come the RNZN ANZAC replacements mid-late 2020's, very similar to in terms of capabilities, if not actually the same, as the RAN's SEA5000 Future Frigate) which can fight in medium-to-high intensity conflicts (seamlessly integrating with other allied forces).

We here generally knock our pollies (and uninformed public) over their "sea blindness", we here generally acknowledge the RNZN needs to protect NZ's trade and commerce afar (eg exports and crucial imports by participating in wider efforts to stabilise and support unimpeded trade routes around Asia and the Middle East etc), so to walk-the-talk NZ needs appropriate assets capable of doing so.

I suspect any moves to replace the current ANZAC's in time with the likes of the Absalon/Iver/Damen Crossover would sound alarms in Canberra (eg "those damn Kiwi's are cutting capabilities again and leaving all the heavy lifting to the Aussies" etc)?

Having said that I do see some attractions of the Absalon/Iver/Damen Crossover types in which people here are articulating, particularly in a low-threat NZ-Pacific context. I wonder though if there is also a place for these vessels in the RNZN, but not as Frigate replacements, but instead as large OPV replacements?

Eg a couple of Damen Crossovers or similar, fitted with no more than the 76mm gun, ideally ASW sensors and torps (to detect the ever increasing sub numbers in the wider Asia-Pacific region), FFBNW the likes of CAMM(M) SeaCeptor for defensive measures (including limited surface-surface stand-off engagement), twin hangers (helo/UAV or two helos for troop insertion), plus the multi-functional mission storage spaces for vehicles and landing craft etc. These would be ideal for showing the flag around the Pacific (and at times further afield) for HADR ops, anti-piracy ops, dealing with instability/fragile Pacific states, but potentially be of use in low-to-potentially medium intensity conflicts?

I wonder how possible this is?

If so, a 2020-2030's RNZN combat/patrol fleet could be quite attractive (in a NZ/Australian context):

• 2-3 "NATO standard" Frigates (for medium-high intensity conflict contexts).

• 2 "Large" OPV's (for HADR, anti-piracy, low (to potentially medium?) intensity contexts eg Damen Crossover concept/variation).

• 1-2 "Large" Ice-strengthened OPV's eg Harry DeWolf concept/variation

Finally I think Novascotiaboy makes a great point for NZ that "large" is better, in terms of vessel sea-keeping in the treacherous and unforgiving Southern Oceans around NZ. I realise he was meaning for any potential ice-strengthen OPV, but surely the same could apply for any future frigate which could be deployed into the Southern Oceans should there be (future) surface/sub-surface threats to seek and destroy. This could align nicely then with the RAN's larger future frigate programme (which may not need to be ice-strengthened as such for NZ, simply better sea-keeping ability etc). I think NZ found that out the hard way when we deployed an ANZAC Frigate Te Kaha into the Antarctic many years ago which got bashed around (and I may be wrong here, but didn't the RAN's HMAS ANZAC also suffer somewhat on an early Southern Ocean deployment around the same time or was that for a different reason)?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

How would the acquisition of a mixed fleet of two Iver and one Absalon style vessels be of benefit? The fleet is too small to see the deployment of all three at once. The rule of threes sees one hull in a high tempo deployment, one hull in training and one hull in refit. At most two hulls would be available at one time. With this reality then all three hulls need to be the same to reduce training. The Iver fit out IMHO does not offer the flexibility that a small Navy needs. Using the Stanflex approach only two sets of major weapons systems are required to fit out the two operational hulls while the hull in refit remains unarmed, thus saving funds.

Recce K1I agree with your comments regarding the ability of a twin hangar hull to offer exceptional air ops via a mix of helicopters and UAVS or just additional storage. With a current fleet of 8 naval helicopters how many are deployable at any one time? I would guess no more than four to five. If sub hunting is the mission I would prefer the two every time. The ability to operate in a HADR response with two NHI 90s as well as logistics in the flex deck at 24 knots provides Government with a powerful soft power influence in the South Pacific.

In support of the JATF concept two flex frigates, the new MSC and the CANT would see a formidable personnel and equipment movements capability with all four hulls being transports.

Not too many countries could stand up that capability today let alone in 2030 in a fleet with less than a dozen hulls. Truly impressive the more I think about it.