Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Absalon is not a frigate replacement, it is an alternative to a Canterbury type multi role vessel, a small LPH / LPD / LST, or OPV, IMO any navy looking to replace frigates with an Absalon type vessel is looking to down grade capability while attempting to disguise it as increasing flexibility.

If the NZ government were serious about increasing capability they would be looking towards replacing the ANZACs at end of life with three new globally competitive multi role frigates, Canterbury with a LPD or LHD (preferably two but you need to start somewhere), the IPVs with OPVs, then and only then perhaps consider replacing the original pair of OPVs with Absalon type vessels. Sound unrealistic enough?

This is pretty much the level of capability I see the RNZN needing before they could seriously consider looking at Absalons. You need to have the high end covered off by capable warships and enough of them to support having one in refit or repair at any time. You need a capable ship with a docking well and helicopter facilities to support army requirements and HADR throughout the region, to give NZ the ability to operating unilaterally if required. You need a robust EEZ patrol and enforcement capability with vessels that are capable enough to work outside the EEZ in support of the frigates as required or even in lower level coalition operations. Once all of that is done then, if there are resources to spare, you could invest in a couple of Absalons to support and complement the other capabilities.

 

[MrConservative]

Just to add the old mantra of the "3rd or 4th frigate" for "training" is also starting to loose efficacy as so much of that can be accounted for through the use of ever more sophisticated shore based NTSS (naval training and simulation systems). That technological sea-change (pun intended) we have seen over the last decade is also driving down crew levels. BMT's design concept for the RN Type 31 has under 100 crew iirc.

The White Paper has laid down a clear marker in the necessity of the NZ Govt having capable Frigates that can operate globally with our partners and also independently as directed. This has been signalled for a number of years. The new head of maritime acquisitions at MinDef has come from the RNZN from the rank of Capt after overseeing the FSU project and by all accounts has done a very intelligent job of it. A big part of his job will be scoping the newer of the DWP naval requirements such as the initial exploration of Frigate options and the expansive 3rd OPV role.

There is no remit in the DWP for 'flexible' ships at this time. They are not replacing the Frigates - the DWP is clear - that topic was being discussed here last decade when the future of Frigates were unclear. The DWP10 and DWP16 has given the Frigate dimension within the NZDF/NZ Govt toolbox certainty. Not that there is not a place for flexible vessel - it simply a question for what we will do with respect to the final two IPV's and OPV's down track.

 

[chis73]

Speaking of frigates, some news from today's Select Committee hearing:

Cost of frigates' upgrade rises $100m | Radio New Zealand News

Cost 'blowout' for navy frigate upgrade, but it's 'capability we're going to get' - Gerry Brownlee | Stuff.co.nz

Not sure of the reasons for the cost increase, but the Treasury's last major projects report noted issues with trim & stability.

 

[RegR]

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.

A mixed fleet of 2 ivers and absalon would have at least a 3rd more benefit then we currently have in 2 ANZACs for obvious reasons, math, 3 v 2 available hulls. Ivers are based on absalons and share the stanflex concept (among a list of other things) across the classes and are practically identical in hull, size, weight etc (bar the obvious) so TBH I'm not quite understanding a few of your statements?

Not sure where you a getting the idea I am suggesting this mix just so we can deploy them all at once? That's just as likely as us deploying both ANZACs at once (actually better because we would have 3) so again alittle lost. I understand the rule of 3 (which is exactly why I am against 1-2 C17) and not sure if you understand but we don't have 3 frigates now so again what are we not benefitting from by gaining hull 3? The fact we would'nt deploy them all at once shows they do not indeed need to be the exact same specification or do you think we have an entire fleet of the same class or possibly a single crew covering all ships and thus requires retraining each ship?

So ironically a few of your negatives are in fact the very reason I am suggesting this very "mix" ie similarity, rule of 3, fitout savings etc to indeed help a small navy such as ours acheive flexibilty. If you seriously think we will get 3 high end frigates you obviously forgot how we once upon a time wanted 4 advanced frigates to replace our leanders 1 for 1 and what eventually transpired once the dust settled so either way 2 high end and a "downgrade" is still a benefit only difference being cost (which I feel maybe a concept you are not fully appreciating with our govt). EXACT same specs is all well and good but operational requirements dictate or are you also thinking we need to get a 3rd otago class OPV just for ease of training and rotation? Highly unlikely and if so merely more wasted money.

Honestly I can only see us getting 1 for 1 anyway (if that) so why not have a 3rd that is similar abeit "lesser", but also has multi role and more of a bridge to other roles, be that OPV or sealift, definately an easier sell to the beans then just so we can have an exact same spec available at all times considering we have survived the wars with 2 hulls for all this time (pollies are not big on forward thinking more past working). A downgrade is going from 4 frigates to 2, frigate to OPV, 1 system to a lesser direct replacement so since we do not even have 3 frigates to begin with even having a 3rd vessel with so called "lesser capability" or exact spec does indeed still add to the fleet, even if it is in the guise of flexibility.

 

[recce.k1]

Speaking of frigates, some news from today's Select Committee hearing:

Cost of frigates' upgrade rises $100m | Radio New Zealand News

Cost 'blowout' for navy frigate upgrade, but it's 'capability we're going to get' - Gerry Brownlee | Stuff.co.nz

Not sure of the reasons for the cost increase, but the Treasury's last major projects report noted issues with trim & stability.

Go the Big Guy, Jerry, you tell that weasel Goff!

"Defence Minister Gerry Brownlee told the committee the government is committed to the project because it is a capability it wants the Defence Force to have.

"It won't matter how many times Treasury get upset about the expenditure on something that they don't agree with.

"They don't put their name on a ballot, they don't have the responsibility for the security of New Zealand. It's a capability the government wants, it's a capability the government's paying for, it's a capability we are going to get."

As for Goff, good grief the sooner he becomes the AK Mayor (with apologies to AK'ers Mr C and Gibbo, mind you a new life in the provinces with most of the rest of us here wouldn't be too bad ) and stops his flip-flopping commentary on defence the better! I recall over 10 years ago the Frigate combat system upgrade was in his then Govt's LTDP (DCP) when he was DefMin (although nothing happened)!

 

[htbrst]

Not sure of the reasons for the cost increase, but the Treasury's last major projects report noted issues with trim & stability.

What are the comparative costs compared with the Australian ASMD upgrade which would already have sorted out the trim & stability issues?

I bet the extra $100 million would have gone a long way towards going down that less risky but perhaps pricier path

 

[oldsig127]

What are the comparative costs compared with the Australian ASMD upgrade which would already have sorted out the trim & stability issues?

I can't see that the ASMD upgrade would provide anything but the broadest hints about trim and stability issues given the vastly different scope of works on the RNZN ships.

oldsig

 

[recce.k1]

Absalon is not a frigate replacement, it is an alternative to a Canterbury type multi role vessel, a small LPH / LPD / LST, or OPV, IMO any navy looking to replace frigates with an Absalon type vessel is looking to down grade capability while attempting to disguise it as increasing flexibility.

If the NZ government were serious about increasing capability they would be looking towards replacing the ANZACs at end of life with three new globally competitive multi role frigates, Canterbury with a LPD or LHD (preferably two but you need to start somewhere), the IPVs with OPVs, then and only then perhaps consider replacing the original pair of OPVs with Absalon type vessels. Sound unrealistic enough?

This is pretty much the level of capability I see the RNZN needing before they could seriously consider looking at Absalons. You need to have the high end covered off by capable warships and enough of them to support having one in refit or repair at any time. You need a capable ship with a docking well and helicopter facilities to support army requirements and HADR throughout the region, to give NZ the ability to operating unilaterally if required. You need a robust EEZ patrol and enforcement capability with vessels that are capable enough to work outside the EEZ in support of the frigates as required or even in lower level coalition operations. Once all of that is done then, if there are resources to spare, you could invest in a couple of Absalons to support and complement the other capabilities.

Fortunately (and as Mr C notes in his post following yours) the NZG is committed to the RNZN ANZAC replacements (although at this point in time it's not clear with what and how many). As you say NZ should be aiming for 3 vessels (as with only 2 currently, with the recent Platform Systems Upgrades and the soon-to-be Frigate Systems Upgrades, that's 1 vessel tied up, which surely is potential policy failure territory which fortunately hasn't arisen, but is a risk nonetheless, and potentially/likely adding to crew retention issues due to loss of time at sea and experience etc). Now if the NZG were to signal 4 vessels in forthcoming years, that to me would signal that the NZG is taking seriously the changing circumstances in Asia and changing power dynamics, which as the AusGov correctly views as being a little too close to home for comfort. I guess we'll just have to wait and see ...

Upon further reflection I take back my thoughts in my post above about whether instead having an Absalon/Crossover type in the RNZN inventory could be useful even as an OPV replacement (and certainly not as a Frigate replacement). I now think that it would be rather pointless - it would be an expensive exercise (eg the weapon/sensor outfit) for little real-world practical use in this region (and likely not good enough for low-medium conflicts in the wider region). It would also be overkill for routine EEZ patrolling and enforcement.

Instead that money would be better spent obtaining a second Canterbury type multi-role/sea-lift vessel to ensure the RNZN can always have such a vessel available for HADR and the like, or much better still, as advocated by others here put the funds towards a future LPH / LPD / LHD etc.

(It also means the role of the Frigates aren't confused and scarce funding is allocated accordingly - not split between Frigate and Absalon/Crossover costly upgrades etc).

For local/regional EEZ duties, the cheap-as-chips Protector/Otago class OPV's are fine (we surely don't need Absalons/Crossovers for that role - they would be overkill), although ultimately when the OPV's are replaced then perhaps the RAN's SEA 1180 OPV programme could be the path to take. Unless the NZG wants something larger/better equipped that could also undertake coalition anti-piracy duties afar in lieu of Frigates etc.

 

[swerve]

Speaking of frigates, some news from today's Select Committee hearing:

Cost of frigates' upgrade rises $100m | Radio New Zealand News

Cost 'blowout' for navy frigate upgrade, but it's 'capability we're going to get' - Gerry Brownlee | Stuff.co.nz

Not sure of the reasons for the cost increase, but the Treasury's last major projects report noted issues with trim & stability.

The Australians had to deal with a lot of trim & stability issues & ended up doing major work & losing some performance, because they added a lot of topweight. I thought that one of the reasons for the chosen RNZN upgrade was that it didn't add all that topweight.

What happened?

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I have to admit that I am confused about what I thought were the needs of NZ frigates and the governments desire for them to accomplish.

The Leander's of the 70's and 80's were 3000 tons SeaCat PDMS, main gun torpedoes and a short legged Wasp helo. The 90's brought the ANZACs with there updated capabilities yet still without a ship based SSM.

So what is the issue with an Absalon style frigate? I know it's a COTS design but how is this an issue? If ASW is the mission long range sub fired torpedoes have ranges in excess of 40 km. Sub launched SSMs have ranges in excess of hundreds of kilometres. The helo is the tool at long range to kill the sub.

The same applies to AAW in that in order to deal with approaching hostile aircraft you want to knock them down far from the ship. Is the NZ Government looking at SM2 or 3 and Mark 41 VLS tubes. IMHO I don't think that this is likely.

So the weapons fit out of an as built Absalon has the same capability as the current ANZACs with room for more missiles plus an extra helo and the flex deck all with a reduced crew and better facilities and sea keeping ability because of its 6000 tons.

What is the need in NZ service of a Iver type that is just a larger ANZAC with capabilities NZ will never be afforded in SM2-3 or TLAM.

Canada has the same problem. Our ops as of late have been basic patrol and wave the flag. When the chips were down and we needed to support the Army or HADR missions the unitasker frigates and destroyers were of little value as they had almost zero transport capacity. Even non combatant evac from disaster areas or civil uprisings is almost impossible because of the lack of space inherent in a combat vessel.

I see the Absalon style vessels as big LCS. Not perfect but flexible. Able to do many tasks, some new to enable the NZDF to do its job better.

 

[RegR]

I have to admit that I am confused about what I thought were the needs of NZ frigates and the governments desire for them to accomplish.

The Leander's of the 70's and 80's were 3000 tons SeaCat PDMS, main gun torpedoes and a short legged Wasp helo. The 90's brought the ANZACs with there updated capabilities yet still without a ship based SSM.

So what is the issue with an Absalon style frigate? I know it's a COTS design but how is this an issue? If ASW is the mission long range sub fired torpedoes have ranges in excess of 40 km. Sub launched SSMs have ranges in excess of hundreds of kilometres. The helo is the tool at long range to kill the sub.

The same applies to AAW in that in order to deal with approaching hostile aircraft you want to knock them down far from the ship. Is the NZ Government looking at SM2 or 3 and Mark 41 VLS tubes. IMHO I don't think that this is likely.

So the weapons fit out of an as built Absalon has the same capability as the current ANZACs with room for more missiles plus an extra helo and the flex deck all with a reduced crew and better facilities and sea keeping ability because of its 6000 tons.

What is the need in NZ service of a Iver type that is just a larger ANZAC with capabilities NZ will never be afforded in SM2-3 or TLAM.

Canada has the same problem. Our ops as of late have been basic patrol and wave the flag. When the chips were down and we needed to support the Army or HADR missions the unitasker frigates and destroyers were of little value as they had almost zero transport capacity. Even non combatant evac from disaster areas or civil uprisings is almost impossible because of the lack of space inherent in a combat vessel.

I see the Absalon style vessels as big LCS. Not perfect but flexible. Able to do many tasks, some new to enable the NZDF to do its job better.

Sorry Nova, I took your last post as meaning you were not in favour of an absalon type not infact suggesting an all absalon combat fleet. keyboard interpretatation can be lost in translation sometimes.

Whilst I do like absalon I do see the requirement for an improved frigate in our navy for sharp end of the stick duties in the frigate role which is why I suggesteded Ivers for the direct replacement of the ANZACs (as these are the more improved and considered frigate versions of the family ie sensors, fitouts and hence operation and role) and absalon for the much needed and lacking 3rd frigate, which at this stage is hearsay and not cemented in the ocean yet despite what some automatically think. Like or better does not nesscessarily equate into added numbers and I think we still have a few hurdles in the current fleet before we go adding extras anyway. $100m dollar overspends on upgrades are not exactly helping the cause either as this just equates to $150m in pollies eyes in comparison if we had 3. I think we will gain an extra OPV, possibly gain a 3rd "frigate" but another CY or LHD/LPH as well is maybe a fleet expansion dream to far for our current ability or funding which is why I see an added absalon as somewhat of a workable comprise each way.

Had not really considered abs as our go to frigate but I guess anything could be made possible with abit of tweaking, modification and modernising. That being said as you say I also think the absalon is equal to if not better than our current ANZACs so yes still an improvement as is considering the added versatility as well, one of the biggest things for me is the downgrade (if it can be called that) in speed compared to ivers and ANZAC but I guess the design could be re-jigged in build to compensate with added engines at some penalty and compromise.

Some seem to be getting caught up in the title of the ship vs the functionality but again bar speed if I had a choice between our ANZAC and an absalon, for our navy, the choice would be pretty simple. What does an ANZAC do vastly any different that cannot be replicated?

On a side note another thing I find strange is the size of our navy and the Danes, for our relatively equal size wise navies (2500 vs 3400) along with similar maritime considerations they seem to be able to operate 44+ ships vs our 11 (that we struggle to put to sea for various reasons), all being rather modern vessels comparitively and their "frigate" numbers are almost the same size as our entire fleet plus they have 30 other boats on top of that. Are we grossly inefficient or are they extremely organised? It sure looks to be the case especially recently anyway.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

In this day and age is the difference of 4 or 5 knots that much of a concern? When is that dash speed needed because I do not see 30 knots practical for an extended period. Its not like having to keep up with a sub so the ship can depth charge them.

It has been suggested by the CASR 101 site that an upgraded Absalon with a hull plug for two additional engines would afford that needed increase in speed as a replacement for Canada's frigates and destroyers. But again, based upon likely use is the design engineering and cost worth the result?

A fleet of three Absalon style frigates, three OPV's, three Damen MRNA as discussed earlier, an AOR and a LHD would provide a variety of multi purpose hulls able to meet governments and NZDF needs IMHO. All would have a transport capability. Nine would have a patrol / flag waving capability, three would have a war fighting capability. All would be above 3600 tons.

With the bean counters and the pollies making the final decision on any capability giving them as multi purpose of an option is in my mind the best probability of getting the nod to build. Its like the ACF, a single role instrument that could not accomplish other government taskings in a theatre that was perceived to have no role. But ships that can do many things including HADR and government agency support besides their military role.

 

[John Fedup]

It has been suggested by the CASR 101 site that an upgraded Absalon with a hull plug for two additional engines would afford that needed increase in speed as a replacement for Canada's frigates and destroyers. But again, based upon likely use is the design engineering and cost worth the result?

I believe the hull plug modified Absalon mentioned on the CASR site was intended as a potential destroyer replacement for the tribal class which could also serve as a command ship. The RO/RO is an added benefit. Three such ships along with 12 Ivers would be a nice package IMHO. The pollies will likely force the RCN to live with 10 frigates based on an existing design (likely the cheapest and least capable if junior has his way). A direct replacement of the Tribals is not on.

 

[RegR]

In this day and age is the difference of 4 or 5 knots that much of a concern? When is that dash speed needed because I do not see 30 knots practical for an extended period. Its not like having to keep up with a sub so the ship can depth charge them.

It has been suggested by the CASR 101 site that an upgraded Absalon with a hull plug for two additional engines would afford that needed increase in speed as a replacement for Canada's frigates and destroyers. But again, based upon likely use is the design engineering and cost worth the result?

I look at it more as better to have it and not need it then need it but not have it. There would be times when that extra speed ie interdiction, SAR, HADR even avoidence etc would come in handy and also maintain pace when working with our allies ie US carrier groups where if needed we don't want to be the chain if at all possible. Also the like or better mantra kicks in regards to ANZAC, for me top speeds another option we should at least attempt to maintain (if not improve) along with systems, upgrade paths, crew comfort etc and yes while at the lower end of the scale still a consideration IMO, not a deal breaker but not a sweetener at the same time.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I believe the hull plug modified Absalon mentioned on the CASR site was intended as a potential destroyer replacement for the tribal class which could also serve as a command ship. The RO/RO is an added benefit. Three such ships along with 12 Ivers would be a nice package IMHO. The pollies will likely force the RCN to live with 10 frigates based on an existing design (likely the cheapest and least capable if junior has his way). A direct replacement of the Tribals is not on.

John

The Danish designs are the leader as far as everything I have read for CSC especially given OMT's work on A/OPS.

Given what the RCN has done and what they couldn't do with its current fleet I look at the mix of the two designs in an opposite view. The Ivers are the better armed and equipped and have better electronics. I would opt for six of these for use as our contributions to USN carrier groups and as integral components of our own task groups. I would prefer nine of the Absalons as the GP replacement for the CPF. This gives us the fifteen hulls as outlined in NSPS. I truly believe that we will not ever see a dedicated transport or Big Honking Ship as former CDS Hillier had proposed so the lift that the Absalons offer gives us an organic transport ability. With SF taking a lead role in so many operations the flex deck will be very beneficial for them.

We must constantly evolve and our forces and their equipment need to be prepared for any eventuality. Two Cyclones and the flex deck plus the heavy armament mix would be true force multipliers for any CF operation.

This is off topic so I will respond further under the RCN thread.

 

[40 deg south]

The Australians had to deal with a lot of trim & stability issues & ended up doing major work & losing some performance, because they added a lot of topweight. I thought that one of the reasons for the chosen RNZN upgrade was that it didn't add all that topweight.

What happened?

Good question, which I doubt anyone outside of MinDef and RNZN can answer at this point. This is what the report says:

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/statese...ublications/majorprojects/pdfs/mppr-feb16.pdf

Navy view

Preliminary Design has been completed and a Contract Change Proposal (CCP) for Preliminary Design approved on 15 January 2016.Cost pressures have emerged from preliminary design and these are considered manageable within budget expectations. However, the overall duration of the combined preliminary and detailed design phases will be longer than originally planned due to the larger than anticipated volume of work.The refit is now planned to start in June/July 2017 (8 months later than advised in the October 2015 report) given the duration of the design phase and the resultant change in the delivery of the installation CCP now due in May 2017The Project will now engage with key stakeholders to
determine the optimum refit schedule considering ship departure date, CCP approval process, operational state of the ship(s) and the pre-refit preparation period in Victoria, Canada. This will determine the actual refit start date.The change to the overall project status of the project from Green to Amber reflects the risk to budget and schedule noted above

Treasury view

The monitoring delivery confidence assessment has declined to Amber, as the refit is now expected to start eight months later than planned, and a risk has emerged around trim, weight, and stability.

The Contract Change Proposal finalising detailed design and installation costs is now scheduled for May
2017, with a planned refit start date of June/July 2017.

Once installation costs are finalised, the necessity of drawing down from the special contingency to cover additional costs will be assessed. Installation cost estimates will be refreshed in May and October 2016 and February 2017.The monitoring focus over the next period will be project cost pressures, and the outcome of the weight stability study

Note that there are a couple of chunks withheld from Treasury comments.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Yes, just viewed the piracy patrol mission frigate Absalon shown on you tube, impressive 45 min documentry. Harpoon Missiles and millenium guns as well as newer torpedoes.Seems to have a lot more firepower than even our upgraded frigates will. Seeing we only have one Sealift ship, surely having a supplimental capability over the fleet would be in order, with better protection than Canterbury has? For the price too, we could afford 4 frigate navy at less than half the cost of RAN frigates planned build.

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, just viewed the piracy patrol mission frigate Absalon shown on you tube, impressive 45 min documentry. Harpoon Missiles and millenium guns as well as newer torpedoes.Seems to have a lot more firepower than even our upgraded frigates will. Seeing we only have one Sealift ship, surely having a supplimental capability over the fleet would be in order, with better protection than Canterbury has? For the price too, we could afford 4 frigate navy at less than half the cost of RAN frigates planned build.

Ironically it was this documentary that convinced me that Absalon was likely not suitable for either Australia or NZ as a frigate, or amphib, replacement. I loved the concept but then came to realize that it could never be as capable or survivable as a contemporary frigate / destroyer nor would it be as effective as an LPD, LPH, let alone an LHD.

They are great for Denmark, complementing three high end air defence frigates, as well as their patrol frigates, OPVs, with FAC/MCMV/PBs progressively being replaced. Denmark also has ice breakers, environmental protection ships and large numbers of minor vessels operated by the national guard. In addition they operate three RORO sealift vessels in conjunction with the Germans.

This is a very comprehensive and capable force by any standard and far in excess of what NZ has. Pull the Absalons out of the equation and the Danes still have a larger, more capable and flexible navy than the Kiwis. Saying that the Absalons carry more missiles than the ANZACs misses the point that NZ dumbed down their frigate replacement in the late 80s aiming for lower individual capability (in comparison with contemporary designs) in exchange for greater numbers, then failed to order a second batch of two negating the whole concept. NZ would have been far better off IMO buying / building a pair of FFG-7, Type 23, Type 123 full capability frigates than only two ANZACs.

 

[Bonza]

Yes, just viewed the piracy patrol mission frigate Absalon shown on you tube, impressive 45 min documentry. Harpoon Missiles and millenium guns as well as newer torpedoes.Seems to have a lot more firepower than even our upgraded frigates will. Seeing we only have one Sealift ship, surely having a supplimental capability over the fleet would be in order, with better protection than Canterbury has? For the price too, we could afford 4 frigate navy at less than half the cost of RAN frigates planned build.

I'll leave out discussion of Absalon as it's been brought up repeatedly and IMO the reality of the vessel's suitability has been explained sufficiently by several other posters.

Just wanted to point out there may not be a very good argument for procuring Harpoon in whatever context, as it's an aging weapons system whose stand-off anti-ship capabilities are beginning to be eclipsed by newer missiles such as the Kongsberg NSM/JSM and the LRASM, both of which are potential contenders for the USN OASuW increment 2 competition.

It seems to me that Harpoon capability integration would be cash outlay for a system that may potentially find itself outpaced in the next decade or so. Maybe it would be more sensible to invest money in a newer system that will remain relevant and well supported for a much longer time?

Just my view. In any case I don't know if a surface-launched AShM capability is actually being considered or sought...

 

[ngatimozart]

I actually agree about the Harpoon. It is past it's use by date and money would be better spent on a new system if such a system were to be acquired. At present no ship launched SSM capability is being sought. Cost will have been the reason for its omission from the ANZAC FFH and undoubtedly still will be a major factor in its continued omission.

Regarding the rehashing of the Absalon, this has been well and truly thrashed in this thread so go back and have a read before bringing it up again. Then you will understand the arguments and reasons why it is not a good platform for NZ.