Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[kiwipatriot69]

So it would seem given Canterbury was only comissioned in 2007 and we tend to run them for 30 yrs or so, we might expect a replacement in service to Nz by 2040?

Outside of the current budget of course, unless they plan on convincing govt the need for a lpd/ lhd in addition to what they have now as essential

If they decide to be stingy with the airlift purchase and we end up with a similar sized transport to now then imho all the more reson for another sealift solution.

 

[MrConservative]

Yes that would be good, even better if the LHD came well before CY was too old as she would provide very good support for a LHD if we had enough helicopters to make it worth while.

The DCP16 has proposed a CY refit late next decade - how far do they want to take it is the question?

I would not thrown big sums at it frankly - as it really will very much be the weakest link in the JATF conops and capabilities that will evolve and will need to evolve post 2030. The DCP16 is being very optimistic if they are suggesting that the CY will be appropriate as the JATF lead beyond 2025 which is about the time it should be replaced in that role.

The JATF is best left to a vessel specifically designed for purpose - able to exist in at least MIC+ scenarios viz a LHD with the CY as a back-up/reserve/training vessel more inline with its modest capabilities - that with a modest refit should make it last into the 2040's.

 

[Rob c]

The DCP16 has proposed a CY refit late next decade - how far do they want to take it is the question?

I would not thrown big sums at it frankly - as it really will very much be the weakest link in the JATF conops and capabilities that will evolve and will need to evolve post 2030. The DCP16 is being very optimistic if they are suggesting that the CY will be appropriate as the JATF lead beyond 2025 which is about the time it should be replaced in that role.

The JATF is best left to a vessel specifically designed for purpose - able to exist in at least MIC+ scenarios viz a LHD with the CY as a back-up/reserve/training vessel more inline with its modest capabilities - that with a modest refit should make it last into the 2040's.

Unfortunately like the other "Protectors" the less than realistic budget, meant that CY was always going to be a bit of a lemon and all the fixing in the world will not entirely remedy this. But we are stuck with her now and need to make the best of it. If she had been built now I think we would have wound up with a far more capable vessel. For all her short comings, she still is a valued asset. Yes I agree that a better purpose designed vessel should be looked at sooner rather than later, 2040 time frame would be to far away.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati

Why does NZ need an AEGIS equipped vessel? Doesn't make sense to me with the limited resources of the country to invest in this level of equipment.

Yes the DWP and the DCP state the need to maintain a combat capable surface option, but it doesn't quantify that it can't be something otherwise. If combat power and surveillance was what is desired forget the surface ships and buy submarines.

With so few capital ships bang for buck is what's needed. A vessel the size of a Holland is bigger than a Leander but with far more ability.

As to dispersed lethality I agree. But isn't the helicopter the best asset for dealing with so many threats? My suggestion of two 9000 ton enhanced LPDs was only to represent a one for one replacements of the ANZAC's but with more flexibility. Three would be better extremely unlikely that three of anything will replace the two present vessels.

Like Canada planners today have to determine the likely environment and threat that resources will be needed based on their experience. As you stated, had the 1946 plan been acted upon what would the RNZN look like today?

I would expect it would have devolved to the present regardless given the pollies lack of understanding of the needs of its forces. Like you and the others on this site we have a different perspective because we have an interest and a level of experience that we bring to the table without the BS of the system.

 

[Volkodav]

I was reading in the latest RNZN Navy Today, (p.26), in 1946 the NZ Navy Board proposed to the NZG that the RNZN Fleet should comprise of:

• 1 x Fleet Carrier
• 2 x Dido Class cruisers
• 2 x destroyers
• 1 x tanker
• 4 x corvettes (2 existing Flower Class & 2 existing Bird class)

The govt of the day had a fit of collective apoplexy and said no, because it was going back to its pre-war modus operandi; spend as little as possible on defence. Well not quite; they wanted a cruiser because they had one before the war and they didn't understand that a carrier would be a far better platform in the Pacific than a single 6" cruiser could be. They were still fixated on the UK as "home"; hanging onto the apron strings of the Empire.

NZ at that time could have quite easily crewed a light fleet carrier, especially the air wing, because many Kiwis had served in the RN FAA during the war as aircrew. We also had the those who had served aboard RN carriers as FAA flight deck crew, airframe fitters, engine fitters, armourers, instrument fitters etc. On the ship side of things we had plenty of sailors and officers who had served with the RNZN or the RN, hence the required knowledge and experience was present. We didn't have to acquire aircraft because we had hundreds of F4 Corsairs and TBF Avengers sitting around wasting away outside of Hamilton (they were later broken up and sold for scrap or buried). No need to get pommy aircraft that weren't as capable.

Would have we been better going with a light fleet carrier and the US aircraft we had here? If we had, it would have changed the force structures for both the RNZN and RNZAF down through the decades. We would have had a navy and probably an air force more suited for the vast expanses of the Pacific and not so Eurocentric, yet still able to operate fully with the UK in the Middle East and SEA, and the RAN and USN in the Pacific. The RNZN certainly would have been more easily integrated with the RAN and there would have been a potent ANZAC battle group comprising of three carriers plus escorts. The carrier, destroyers and frigates could've easily contributed to ASW as well as standard carrier ops, with some Avengers being modified for ASW. IIRC the RCN did just that.

Ah what might have been and the benefit of hindsight.

Very interesting but not really surprising as the RAN post war plans revolved around carrier squadrons, each consisting of a light fleet carrier, two cruisers and six destroyers, but with the addition of a reserve fleet of corvettes and frigates that also covered mine warfare, hydrographic and oceanographic missions. Basically the carriers would replace the heavy cruisers, the light cruiser fleet would be replaced with new build updated Bellonia type CLAAs and the destroyers would be Battles and Darings (which were regarded as something in between destroyers and cruisers, as had the Tribals before them).

This thinking was derived from the RN plans to replace their station cruiser squadrons with light fleet carriers. Instead of upto eight heavy cruisers in the SCS out of Hong Kong and Singapore, and squadrons of three or more light cruisers, plus supporting sloops at other stations globally, the RN would deploy smaller groups centered on light fleet carriers escorted by a light cruiser, a couple of destroyers and supported by sloops. This would have resulted in increased combat power, a new strike and interdiction capability, considerably improved ASW, for fewer hulls and lower manning. Remember the new large light cruisers and heavy cruisers that would have been required to replace the RNs pre war cruisers had similar sized crews to the light fleet carriers already in service and building.

As it was I know there were a substantial number of RN FAA trained Kiwis in Sydneys crew on commissioning, NZ getting a carrier would not have been too much of a stretch.

 

[ngatimozart]

Very interesting but not really surprising as the RAN post war plans revolved around carrier squadrons, each consisting of a light fleet carrier, two cruisers and six destroyers, but with the addition of a reserve fleet of corvettes and frigates that also covered mine warfare, hydrographic and oceanographic missions. Basically the carriers would replace the heavy cruisers, the light cruiser fleet would be replaced with new build updated Bellonia type CLAAs and the destroyers would be Battles and Darings (which were regarded as something in between destroyers and cruisers, as had the Tribals before them).

This thinking was derived from the RN plans to replace their station cruiser squadrons with light fleet carriers. Instead of upto eight heavy cruisers in the SCS out of Hong Kong and Singapore, and squadrons of three or more light cruisers, plus supporting sloops at other stations globally, the RN would deploy smaller groups centered on light fleet carriers escorted by a light cruiser, a couple of destroyers and supported by sloops. This would have resulted in increased combat power, a new strike and interdiction capability, considerably improved ASW, for fewer hulls and lower manning. Remember the new large light cruisers and heavy cruisers that would have been required to replace the RNs pre war cruisers had similar sized crews to the light fleet carriers already in service and building.

As it was I know there were a substantial number of RN FAA trained Kiwis in Sydneys crew on commissioning, NZ getting a carrier would not have been too much of a stretch.

If the RNZN had gone with a fleet carrier, those Kiwis on Sydney would've stayed this side of the ditch As it was, it ended up that the two RNZN cruisers and six Loch class frigates were to provide the AAA and ASW escort as part of the RAN CBG, in case of war.

 

[Rob c]

If the RNZN had gone with a fleet carrier, those Kiwis on Sydney would've stayed this side of the ditch As it was, it ended up that the two RNZN cruisers and six Loch class frigates were to provide the AAA and ASW escort as part of the RAN CBG, in case of war.

The carrier concept is laid out in Mathew Wright's 2001 book Blue Water Kiwi's.and this said that the additional annual cost of operating the carrier was f 800.000 and the total cost was f 1,050,000 extra =, taking the total naval budget to f 1,999,000.
f used for pounds.

 

[bigglesNZ]

I have always been of the opinion that a LHD and a LPD, both fitted with VLS and appropriate sensors, would be the optimal fit for the RNZN. However I would not travel the Algerian LPD route, but rather go South Korean with US weapons apart from Sea Ceptor, which we already have acquired for the ANZAC FFH. I would replace the 2 ANZAC FFH's with 3 South Korean built FFG/H along the lines of their KDX IIA including AEGIS. The Protector class OPV and IPV would be replaced with corvettes built along the lines of the South Korean FFX III design. The SOPV would remain the same. Additional naval helos would have to be acquired and that would have to be looked at closely. The funding for this is available within the current $20 billion CAPEX.

Interesting, the KDX IIA vessels do seem to represent incredible value when compared to European frigates. Even 2 of these would be a significant increase in capability. Operating several AEGIS ships would provide the most meaningful anti-air capability possible without an ACF too.

 

[ngatimozart]

Interesting, the KDX IIA vessels do seem to represent incredible value when compared to European frigates. Even 2 of these would be a significant increase in capability. Operating several AEGIS ships would provide the most meaningful anti-air capability possible without an ACF too.

Gidday cobber, welcome to the forum. Nice to have another Kiwi here.

In reality we would need three ships because of the rule of threes. That way we would always ensure that one ship is operational. With two ships, as with the current ANZAC frigates, when one is in refit and the other one ends becoming unavailable or unserviceable for any reason, then we are up the proverbial creek. Te Mana is off to Canada for a systems refit soon and it will be there, in a dry dock, until next year. If Te Kaha is suddenly required and is unavailable then we have a frigate sized problem.

 

[alexsa]

Gidday cobber, welcome to the forum. Nice to have another Kiwi here.

In reality we would need three ships because of the rule of threes. That way we would always ensure that one ship is operational. With two ships, as with the current ANZAC frigates, when one is in refit and the other one ends becoming unavailable or unserviceable for any reason, then we are up the proverbial creek. Te Mana is off to Canada for a systems refit soon and it will be there, in a dry dock, until next year. If Te Kaha is suddenly required and is unavailable then we have a frigate sized problem.

The RAN could lend you and FFG 7, no problems at all ............................. sorry I could not resist .

PS, In case anybody is wondering .... I am not being serious

 

[t68]

The RAN could lend you and FFG 7, no problems at all ............................. sorry I could not resist .

PS, In case anybody is wondering .... I am not being serious

As per above in bold, as a pure hypothetical would it have been more benifical if say the Kiwis did not put there Anzacs thru upgrade and instead did a deal with AusGov that they would receive the 3x FFG's in exchange for the Anzac's and then we put them thru the ASMD upgrade in line with RAN Anzac's would that have benifits for both Navies?

 

[Volkodav]

As per above in bold, as a pure hypothetical would it have been more benifical if say the Kiwis did not put there Anzacs thru upgrade and instead did a deal with AusGov that they would receive the 3x FFG's in exchange for the Anzac's and then we put them thru the ASMD upgrade in line with RAN Anzac's would that have benifits for both Navies?

Ironically, despite the issues with the FFGUP last decade, the resulting ships have turned out to be more capable more capable, as well as cheaper to own and operate than the ANZACs, pre or post ASMD. The biggest issue was taking so long and costing so much to upgrade the pretty much shagged, much older, US built FFGs, meaning the return on investment was nowhere near what it should have been (and probably is for Melbourne and Newcastle).

Since we are venturing off into silliness, just imagine where Aust and NZ would be now if the original plan to locally build six FFGs instead of just two had gone ahead, NZ could have tagged onto a much bigger project and gotten much more capable ships to start with. Those additional ANZAC FFGs would likely have been an evolved design with Mk-41 VLS instead of Mk-13 and a hybrid combat system somewhere between the original FFG's and the 9lv on the ANZACs. This would mean two helos instead of one, larger missile capacity, better damage control, improved maintainability, cheaper cost of ownership and then just imagine the result when they received an ASMD type MLU?

 

[bigglesNZ]

Gidday cobber, welcome to the forum. Nice to have another Kiwi here.

In reality we would need three ships because of the rule of threes. That way we would always ensure that one ship is operational. With two ships, as with the current ANZAC frigates, when one is in refit and the other one ends becoming unavailable or unserviceable for any reason, then we are up the proverbial creek. Te Mana is off to Canada for a systems refit soon and it will be there, in a dry dock, until next year. If Te Kaha is suddenly required and is unavailable then we have a frigate sized problem.

Cheers for the welcome! I have been lurking around this forum for some time and finally decided to join in.

As I understand we were meant to have four ANZAC's before politicians got involved. It will be interesting to see what happens when they are due to be replaced!

 

[ngatimozart]

The RNZN is to deploy an IPV and crew to Fiji for six months from May. This is to help Fiji with their maritime surveillance. Be a good draft that

Fiji and NZ to partner on maritime surveillance

 

[ngatimozart]

Cheers for the welcome! I have been lurking around this forum for some time and finally decided to join in.

No probs. Lurking is a time honoured habit amongst some of us.

As I understand we were meant to have four ANZAC's before politicians got involved. It will be interesting to see what happens when they are due to be replaced!

That's the trouble with pollies, they interfere and poke their noses in where they aren't needed or wanted

The problem is that there is no political consensus anymore regarding defence - there hasn't been since the 1980s. It is used as a political pawn and plaything by the political parties to advance their own ideological interests at the expense of the nation and the state.

 

[Gibbo]

The RNZN is to deploy an IPV and crew to Fiji for six months from May. This is to help Fiji with their maritime surveillance. Be a good draft that

Fiji and NZ to partner on maritime surveillance

Good to see NZ Govt doing a little more to support P.I. nations - the Govt talks up their effrot but isn't Oz that stumps up with Pacific Patrol boats? I know we do patrols but this is a far better commitment.

And that brings me to the next point... and I know many may disagree, but this shows (to me at least) that they shouldn't rush to dump the IPV's - sell 2 & perhaps keep the other 2 for training and the closer in patrol work (that they already currently do and could continue to do more efficiently than an OPV). I appreciate there's a move to more onshore & simulated training but nothing beats sea-time!

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Could this not be a sales trip? An opportunity for Fiji to see an IPV's performance before making an offer? At 56 m should be far more capable than the existing vessels in their inventory the biggest of which are the 31 m pacific patrol boats.

 

[MrConservative]

Could this not be a sales trip? An opportunity for Fiji to see an IPV's performance before making an offer? At 56 m should be far more capable than the existing vessels in their inventory the biggest of which are the 31 m pacific patrol boats.

No. This is a stop gap to bind the FMF over. From 2018 the current Fiji fleet will be too far gone and there is a few years gap until 2022/23 when they get there OZ donated 40m Australs.

 

[MrConservative]

The RAN could lend you and FFG 7, no problems at all ............................. sorry I could not resist .

PS, In case anybody is wondering .... I am not being serious

NZ was actually looking into this in 1998 post Anzac cancellation under DefMin Max Bradford.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Could this not be a sales trip? An opportunity for Fiji to see an IPV's performance before making an offer? At 56 m should be far more capable than the existing vessels in their inventory the biggest of which are the 31 m pacific patrol boats.

Good call. I had commented earlier maybe fiji or one of the other islands could be prospective buyers, although no mention surprisingly in the defence white paper of whether they intend to replace them one for one with Opv or not?