And whoosh, right over your head... unbelievable...
Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
t68
Well-Known Member
I never claimed you were or were not NG made that claim, I just suggested that certain persons may need to update their profile as a lot people on here use it as I guide to whom they are talking too, no malice intended.
It is not and never will be the decision of the NZ Treasury. The funding pathway for the Frigates is already imbedded within future fiscal pathways. The point of the DWP16 was to make this plain and clear and therefore allow the RNZN to start planning accordingly a replacement project.
The bit that everyone misses when discussing the acquisition program of the Danish F-370's is that the capability pathway from the baseline hull to a mature warfighter was done at a drumbeat that was able to be flexible according to fiscal conditions. This spread out the cost of procurement into more manageable chunks than a couple of large Bank of Denmark cheques.
Note also that there will be cross decking from the FSU Anzacs through to their replacements.
NZ need these frigates to fill their international obligations. Most likely these obligations will see them operating around the South China Sea.
This will be a region swarming with submarines, warships, combat aircraft and land based missile batteries. I suspect this is why Australia is looking at ships that are twice the size of its current ANZACs. I don't think that small general purpose frigates will be of much value or be particularly survivable in this sort of environment.
If NZ is serious about building frigates that can genuinely contribute to stabilising this region then I don't believe that the type 31 will be of much use. Type 26 or its equivalent should be the baseline for its new frigates.
Rheinhardt
New Member
Actually that is the problem, they don't meet 'your requirments' but you don't honestly believe that either you or the MOD set those requirements do you? Other countries, geography, political climates and so on set the requirements. All we can do is try and interpret the situation and align our Security Forces to best meet those requirements based on our limited resources....
Anyway it is not that I am unaware or do not understand the arguments against this sort of multi-role ship (or infact anything that isn't a paper air-defense frigate), it is that I disagree with them, the reasoning behind them, and the opinions of their proponents! And I have stated and justified my reasoning behind this yet the same arguments are repeated verbatim with the points I made against those arguments being ignored in the process.
And pulling out an NZDF Membership Card does not make your opinion any more or less correct than anyone else's; nor is stating NZDF policy. It is simply not a legitimate argument against the points of anybody else's arguments. And without two people you can't have a discussion, and people who automatically ignore others because they are already correct don't count, so I guess there will be no discussion about this issue.
And I think it is a rather silly thing to bring up considering we don't have a navy, we have a coastguard that never leaves port and just happens to own two 'warships' (which also never leave port, don't have the ASuW/ASW kit or any sailors trained in these aspects and so are not warships) which exist to tick boxes.. Basically it is a make-work program, the navy literally does nothing (I mean it would have to leave port to do that, then it would have to have something to do...) but create jobs and contracts, and occasionally wave the flag... So how could anyone there actually know anything on account of working there.... I mean really...
Time for a reality check.
There are other sites that are not as strictly moderated in terms of accuracy, factually, or reality as this one is, they have some very interesting discussions on a raft of very interesting topics. I occasionally visit and contribute and so long as I stay away from certain topics all goes well but ironically when I participate in topics that I am a subject matter expert in it all goes to excrement.
The problem with these other sites is that claimed experience and qualifications are not verified, the moderators only tend to intervene when discussions get personal and someone peddling grossly inaccurate or untrue statements as fact are often given more "respect" than those providing real facts because the mods don't know any better. These sites are run by mob rule and the"truth" is determined by a show of hands or vocal acclaim rather than genuine analysis.
I can only handle reading so much bs before I take my bat and ball and go home, leaving the armchair experts, who may have toured a ship on a port visit, or attended an airshow or army open day once or twice, the old leading seaman stoker who worked on one refit at Cockatoo Island in the mid 70s and the clueless fanbois who think wikipedia, news.com and Defence Today make them more knowledgeable than someone who worked in engineering on the projects actually being discussed, to their own devices.
If that's the sort of discussion you like then go there and participate in shouting down the people who have actual relevant experience and knowledge. Try and shout SMEs here and you will be put in your box because this is a site that prides its self on facts.
There are other sites that are not as strictly moderated in terms of accuracy, factually, or reality as this one is, they have some very interesting discussions on a raft of very interesting topics. I occasionally visit and contribute and so long as I stay away from certain topics all goes well but ironically when I participate in topics that I am a subject matter expert in it all goes to excrement.
The problem with these other sites is that claimed experience and qualifications are not verified, the moderators only tend to intervene when discussions get personal and someone peddling grossly inaccurate or untrue statements as fact are often given more "respect" than those providing real facts because the mods don't know any better. These sites are run by mob rule and the"truth" is determined by a show of hands or vocal acclaim rather than genuine analysis.
I can only handle reading so much bs before I take my bat and ball and go home, leaving the armchair experts, who may have toured a ship on a port visit, or attended an airshow or army open day once or twice, the old leading seaman stoker who worked on one refit at Cockatoo Island in the mid 70s and the clueless fanbois who think wikipedia, news.com and Defence Today make them more knowledgeable than someone who worked in engineering on the projects actually being discussed, to their own devices.
If that's the sort of discussion you like then go there and participate in shouting down the people who have actual relevant experience and knowledge. Try and shout SMEs here and you will be put in your box because this is a site that prides its self on facts.
So people that actually work in the Navy don't know anything, and the Navy as a whole does nothing? Do you not realise how disrespectful (not to mention utterly incorrect) it is to say that?
You need to wind your neck in before someone snaps it off matey...
I am none the wiser from reading your posts what in fact you are advocating.
Are you against multi-role ships like the X-Over and Absalon because what you wrote above comes out strongly against them?
But go back a few days and you are saying that they, multi-role ships are the one size fits all solution to future RNZN requirements.
kiwipatriot69
Active Member
Rheinhardt , you need to check your facts, even the media covers from time to time what role our respective forces do, and where they are, as does NZDF, RNZN, and Navy today websites in more detail,just to name a few. My brother did his apprenticeship on Leander class Frigate Canterbury in the early seventies, i find that statement of your pretty insulting, about our 'do nothing' forces.
This is a formal warning. You are required to dial back your attitude and refrain from insulting other members, those who are serving or have served and the NZDF or components of it. Failure to heed this warning may result in sanctions being taken against you. Any such decision, if required, will be taken by a meeting of Moderators. If you have any queries regarding this you may PM one of the Moderators.
Annnnnd this is one of those left field posts. Our navy does nothing? No news where your from I take it, navy just made a rather large (and vital) contribution to op Winston with 2 ships and 2 helos, ANZAC conducted an anti piracy op with the coalition of the willing patrolling the sea lanes and prevented a fair amount of drugs hitting the streets and no doubt funding terrorists in the same instance, for a small navy going through a refit of said ANZACs (again why we need 3) this in my eyes constitututes in fact being rather busy.
Your statement also then contradicts your logic as why would you propose high end frigates if you believe navy will just park them up and never leave port? That would be the definition of a pointless excersise and gross waste of much needed funding.
I only feel mods could go abit easier on relevant posters but when they become non-sensical dribble bordering on trolling then go for gold.
And seen, good stuff Ngati.
geebuz wept, must be an antipodean thing.....
can we pause a little before the thread derails to the point of a temp locking?
there's minimal appetite for demonstrations of disrespect - and its clearly identified in the Forum Rules as one of the clear hurt points
this thread is sitting on 5 minutes to midnight from the perspective of chewing up moderator goodwill
play nice - and anyone disrespecting any service, military or service people will be shunted quick smart
if anyone wants to backchat then send yourself an email - but if it appears in here then the poster will go on holidays and the effort deleted
intervention in play. thread now unlocked
can we pause a little before the thread derails to the point of a temp locking?
there's minimal appetite for demonstrations of disrespect - and its clearly identified in the Forum Rules as one of the clear hurt points
this thread is sitting on 5 minutes to midnight from the perspective of chewing up moderator goodwill
play nice - and anyone disrespecting any service, military or service people will be shunted quick smart
if anyone wants to backchat then send yourself an email - but if it appears in here then the poster will go on holidays and the effort deleted
intervention in play. thread now unlocked
Last edited:
FYI, the AU gov't has shortlisted the F104/5 frigate (on which the AWDs are based), the British T26 (first steel won't be cut until 2018, I believe, due to austerity measures in the UK) and the Italian version of the FREMM frigate of which two or three are in the water. All are in the six to seven thousand tonne class - possibly too large for NZ's frigate requirement.
Of the three contenders, the Type 26 probably represents the greatest risk as it is still only a paper design. I also read somewhere that the UK may reduce the numbers ordered down to just 6.
I was a little surprised that the German MEKO 400 didn't make the cut as its MEKO 200 stablemate, on which the Anzac frigates are based, was a very successful program.
Personally I don't think that the sizes would be seen as to large at all. Mind you if individual frigates ever get to the tonnage of HMS New Zealand there may be some please explains
Yes, I to would've had thought that the MEKO 400 would've been included for precisely the same reasons.Six Italian FREMMs are in the water, & five have been commissioned. The 7th & 8th have been laid down.
Altogether a dozen FREMMs have been launched, 10 commissioned, & 15 laid down.
Thanks for the updated info. Do those figures include the French version?
DWP 2016 released supplementary docs indicate that the Protector fleet vessel Otago, Wellington and Canterbury plus remaining IPV's to be replaced 2029-2034 as expected.
It is clear that at this stage that 3 OPV's (OT, WL & the new vessel) + 2 IPV's + a further supplementary EEZ capability within the LWSV solution is where we are heading with respect to maritime patrol. Docs note increased ISR capability with sovereign territory / EEZ so airborne surveillance is very much front and centre in their thinking.
It portends that once the protector fleet replacement begins the two IPV's will be replaced by a larger vessel of which would be part of a likely sub class of three vessels following on from the Anzac replacements.
It is clear that at this stage that 3 OPV's (OT, WL & the new vessel) + 2 IPV's + a further supplementary EEZ capability within the LWSV solution is where we are heading with respect to maritime patrol. Docs note increased ISR capability with sovereign territory / EEZ so airborne surveillance is very much front and centre in their thinking.
It portends that once the protector fleet replacement begins the two IPV's will be replaced by a larger vessel of which would be part of a likely sub class of three vessels following on from the Anzac replacements.