Shanesworld
Well-Known Member
Dont know sorry. South America apparently but haven't heard anything more.
NZDF General discussion thread
- Thread starter NZLAV
- Start date
The problem with the UK T26 is you'd get a first class ASW capability, but a very austere AAW and ASuW capability. And for a premium price. That's fine for the RN who has other specialist vessels, but Australia and Canada wanted more from their versions.That's a good question and I too have been hoping we would hear a great deal more about impacts on defence policy (but it doesn't seem to be playing out in public which isn't unusual unfortunately). In relation to being easier to buy from the likes of the UK v US, I would think considerations would include the financial terms of any deals (eg the amount to be paid over x period of time and possibly any loan interest rates considerations). There could also be differing arrangements (if any) for local industry to participate by supplying some of the components (depending on what the finished product is eg ship, aircraft or vehicle etc). And importantly for the operators of any proposed kit (NZDF) do they want to be fully interoperable with Australian and US systems and technology or change over to UK or European etc. At the end of the day there will be a budget to adhere to (and the likes of Treasury to convince). So no easy answer as it may depend on what is actually required (ship, plane, vehicle etc).
But let's look at a real life example, contrary to the naysayers there is NZDF interest in the Type 26 Frigate and at the time of the following article being published, for 2-3 vessels. (You would think nowadays at least 4 would be a fair number considering the strategic situation we are facing but that's simply wishful thinking on my part).
BAE hopeful of multimillion-pound deal with New Zealand
Defence group says country is ‘clearly interested’ in deal for its advanced warshipswww.ft.com
Could the UK variant clinch the deal? What if it were offered a lot cheaper than the Australian variant (Hunter Class) which is more than likely due to the added costs to "Australianise" their vessels with their own unique and leading edge CEA Phased-Array Radar and Aegis combat management system etc? But then on the other hand, how much extra would it cost to swap out some UK systems with US systems, allowing for smoother interoperability and crew exchanges with our Australian allies? Would that make the Canadian version more applicable for NZ (eg familarity with LM CMS etc)? Interesting discussions on the Canadian thread here about their requirements for torpedo launchers, which RNZN would want as well, but something the RN aren't installing on theirs. So these are the issues for the NZDF and MoD to work through but costs will be an important factor.
If the UK could produce a T26 for NZ$2b/ship (US$1.4b/ship), I would suggest that's a reasonable cost that the NZG could afford. 3x vessels at $NZ6b is doable (and so are 4 vessels at $8b that is also doable - I know people here will say "no way, you are dreaming" but when the NZG is quite happy to spend NZ$14b+++ on light rail to Auckand airport (and billions and billions on other vanity projects) please don't tell me we can't afford high capability assets when we can, and especially when we have the CCP trying to setup bases in our region (and how will that play out over the next 10-20 years)! However it is a also a matter of having a balanced force and other lethal assets nowadays so one may not to put all its eggs in one basket. Eg if only 3x T26 were acquired, the other $2b (as no longer required) could fund an additional 5x P-8A's as an example (they cost approx NZ$400m/aircraft currently).
If NZ has that kind of budget, wouldn't something like the US Constellation class be a better choice? It's primary mission is still ASW, but you get a superb AAW (SPY-6, AEGIS, CEC, SM-2, ESSM2) and ASuW (16 x NSM) as well. Designed for long endurance, rough seas, small crew and excess space and power for future upgrades (specifically directed energy weapons).
The first US vessel will cost US$1.3b, the second US$1b and subsequent vessels about US$900m.
You could argue that the Constellation class would have better commonality with RAN Hobarts and Hunters due to AEGIS, CEC and common US missiles. And, of course, you'd have perfect commonality with the USN.
I'd be wary comparing costs between nations, everybody does it differently with what they cover and include, for example not sure if the $900m includes all Government Furnished Equipment (GFE).
Does seem however that there is multiple options for New Zealand depending on what level of capability (Price) they want with the US, UK, Canada and Australia all having(or will have) active production lines that offer high levels of commonality. There are also many other nations making similar levels of ship but would need more changes for NZ requirements.
If NZ were to pick from the above four though I suspect they would go with the Canadian version of the T26 as it has the same combat system as the Anzacs with a similar weapons fit.
Does seem however that there is multiple options for New Zealand depending on what level of capability (Price) they want with the US, UK, Canada and Australia all having(or will have) active production lines that offer high levels of commonality. There are also many other nations making similar levels of ship but would need more changes for NZ requirements.
If NZ were to pick from the above four though I suspect they would go with the Canadian version of the T26 as it has the same combat system as the Anzacs with a similar weapons fit.
Stuart M
Well-Known Member
Not exactly what I ment, fwiw short of sending forces supplying munitions as others are doing is 'active'. Bit hard to claim to champion Ukraines cause when you decline to supply the means sustain their cause.
NZs actions are far less than what it could be doing, its refused to fast track an independent sanctions bill let alone much else.
Kiwigov
Member
Thanks, good context. Interesting that the USMC went for multiple versions of the LAV-25 back in the 1980s (81mm mortar, fitter, C2, ambo, and a few for air defence) but the US Army has not - afaik - for its much larger order of Stryker/LAVIII. If it had, NZ could have simply purchased a few of those variants. Though the US does seem to be investing in a directed energy (laser) Stryker system for SHORAD...
danonz
Member
The Media actually mentioned the level of New Zealand's defense spending.
www.newshub.co.nz
I would not agree that it is rapidly expanding though, and I fail to see publication from the ministry of defense as hawkish
"After a steady decline from 3 percent of GDP in 1980 to a low-point of around 1.1 percent in 2015, New Zealand's own military spending has been increasing rapidly ever since.
It currently hovers around the same 1.5 percent level that Germany had until Scholz's new commitment.
Could New Zealand follow Germany's lead and seek to increase its military budget even further?
Both the recently-released Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States and New Zealand's own new hawkish defence assessment suggest that it might.
The two new blueprints openly identify China as a threat."
From economic sanctions to military spending, Putin's war gives NZ a lot to think about
We're playing a nuanced game, writes Geoffrey Miller.
www.newshub.co.nz
I would not agree that it is rapidly expanding though, and I fail to see publication from the ministry of defense as hawkish
"After a steady decline from 3 percent of GDP in 1980 to a low-point of around 1.1 percent in 2015, New Zealand's own military spending has been increasing rapidly ever since.
It currently hovers around the same 1.5 percent level that Germany had until Scholz's new commitment.
Could New Zealand follow Germany's lead and seek to increase its military budget even further?
Both the recently-released Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States and New Zealand's own new hawkish defence assessment suggest that it might.
The two new blueprints openly identify China as a threat."
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
The next sentences say:The Media actually mentioned the level of New Zealand's defense spending.
From economic sanctions to military spending, Putin's war gives NZ a lot to think about
We're playing a nuanced game, writes Geoffrey Miller.
I would not agree that it is rapidly expanding though, and I fail to see publication from the ministry of defense as hawkish
"After a steady decline from 3 percent of GDP in 1980 to a low-point of around 1.1 percent in 2015, New Zealand's own military spending has been increasing rapidly ever since.
It currently hovers around the same 1.5 percent level that Germany had until Scholz's new commitment.
Could New Zealand follow Germany's lead and seek to increase its military budget even further?
Both the recently-released Indo-Pacific Strategy of the United States and New Zealand's own new hawkish defence assessment suggest that it might.
The two new blueprints openly identify China as a threat."
So that's the second NZ security and defence analyst of late that I'm aware of now that is raising the issue of increasing defence spending (in previous years none of them appeared to have done so), so this is a welcome change.
With today's news of a nuclear reactor being shelled in Ukraine, I presume that the NZG/NZDF are gravely concerned about these turn of events.
We now have an unpredictable Russia. We also have Russian bases and assets on the Pacific coast. Even though we are far away from events in Europe, would the NZDF (and the ADF etc) now be thinking about both the Russian threat in Europe and potentially in the Pacific and will they be raising "alert levels" i.e. making preparations should the govt be considering response options (eg from deploying the SAS at short notice, putting Frigate Te Kaha & the AOR on notice to potentially sail into SE Asia, as well as the Orions and transport fleets etc. (If it hasn't been already).
Sure, "what we have now is all we got", whilst it may not be good enough that's not the issue at this point in time, the issue now is readiness and preparation for any new developments that may impact on security within the Indo-Pacific, surely?
And that's not to say that's all NZG needs to do, surely it needs to be thinking about securing additional resources right now (eg securing additional missile stocks for the Navy, ammo, fuel, crucial spares, Reservists on standby for training etc). Has the NZG funded and ordered the CWIS and defensive counter measures for the AOR yet? If not they better get their orders in (and order a few more as backups, as they are relatively inexpensive, even if not required for this point in time they could very well be needed next time).
Last edited:
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Would be interesting to see what would happen if a Chinese Warship was to do a circumnavigation of NZ(just outside of the EEZ of course) and they did the Laser treatment on a NZAF P-8A.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Yes indeed, it would be the wake call that our dopey govt needs as the public and media outrage (and crucially, govt private polling) would be deafening! But seriously, as others here have pointed out when we were discussing NZ & AUKUS the likes of the CCP (or anyone) could transit their warships thru Cook Strait (separating the North and South Islands) past NZ's capital city and it would be perfectly legitimate. (Potential there to lay mines or other underwater intel or explosive devices)!
And surely one wouldn't want to be the NZDF & MoD top brass now, awaiting instructions from our Defence Minister. But he seems to have gone missing again (a common complaint of our govt Ministers & PM even, sorry to be political). But according to the following Point of Order article (these journos are seasoned beltway insiders) our DefMin has, instead of outlining a position on Russia, has delivered speeches on his part of the covid health response and repeated previous govt press releases on (long awaited) infrastructure redevelopment programmes for the NZDF! Of all people our other "Disarmament Minister" (regarded as a nice guy but a bit of a clown or total clown) delivered a more robust critique of Russia, exactly what the MIA Defmin should have done.
I'm off outside next to find a nice brick wall to bang my head against! Perhaps Australia would like to consider invading NZ to "save us from ourselves"?
Henare seems fixed on fighting Covid – we had to wait for Twyford for words of concern about Putin’s nuclear threat
As Russian guns bombard Ukrainian cities and the world watches in horror, New Zealanders, too, are recoiling at Russia’s aggression. The threat of nuclear weapons being used compounds …
pointofordernz.wordpress.com
Yes indeed, it would be the wake call that our dopey govt needs as the public and media outrage (and crucially, govt private polling) would be deafening! But seriously, as others here have pointed out when we were discussing NZ & AUKUS the likes of the CCP (or anyone) could transit their warships thru Cook Strait (separating the North and South Islands) past NZ's capital city and it would be perfectly legitimate. (Potential there to lay mines or other underwater intel or explosive devices)!
And surely one wouldn't want to be the NZDF & MoD top brass now, awaiting instructions from our Defence Minister. But he seems to have gone missing again (a common complaint of our govt Ministers & PM even, sorry to be political). But according to the following Point of Order article (these journos are seasoned beltway insiders) our DefMin has, instead of outlining a position on Russia, has delivered speeches on his part of the covid health response and repeated previous govt press releases on (long awaited) infrastructure redevelopment programmes for the NZDF! Of all people our other "Disarmament Minister" (regarded as a nice guy but a bit of a clown or total clown) delivered a more robust critique of Russia, exactly what the MIA Defmin should have done.
I'm off outside next to find a nice brick wall to bang my head against! Perhaps Australia would like to consider invading NZ to "save us from ourselves"?
Henare seems fixed on fighting Covid – we had to wait for Twyford for words of concern about Putin’s nuclear threat
As Russian guns bombard Ukrainian cities and the world watches in horror, New Zealanders, too, are recoiling at Russia’s aggression. The threat of nuclear weapons being used compounds …
I have to agree with you post about New Zealand's "missing clown" of a defence minister who has his head buried somewhere the sun doesn't shine...
Also Geoffrey Millers article which is an interesting read the current govt will take no notice of what happening with the current state of affairs when from the PM, Cabinet ministers down... going "missing in action" for days!!
The time is approaching when world events are going to catch the NZ Govt "by surprise" and if the labour party is still in power then it will be nothing new!! and as a country we wont be able help with even the bare minimum an example would be protecting the sea lanes to and from NZ to Asia etc. If something kicks off in the next 6 months we have 1 frigate which can't be in 2 places at once!! due to the 2nd ship still in refit in Canada.
RNZAF P-8's that should have been ordered and actually in service... the major problem with those they are handicapped by lack of offensive armament.
I think the problem stems with the present govt, that the greens have too much say! and we have such a clown as the defence minister that he is just not interested in the state of our so called armed forces this includes the level of personal leaving the defence force around 1500 in the last 2 years, the frigate replacement going on the back burner, but to be fair former govts are also to blame as well delaying major capital projects.
The increasing the size of the army may happen in around 10 years which in all likelyhood going to be too late, and if it does happen by a miracle we dont have enough C130's ordered to move enough personal and equipement around NZ let alone the pacific or further afield.
I can also forsee that the LAV replacement will just quietly be dropped by this current govt and I can also see any new National Govt also placing defence in the too hard basket as they won't want to upset their voter base.
As an ex soldier I am now ashamed of that state of the NZ defence force that has occured over the last 30 years.
Last edited:
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Hey 99% agree (the other 1% is because I'm an optimist and believe that reality is starting, or will be starting to bite our pollies backsides (all of them) and we will actually see some meaningful change - our current defence settings are needing to catch up and I feel they will (albeit to what extent may be the question).
The two Frigates is what it is, we won't be able to magic up anything from elsewhere even within a few years so that's it (pity we didn't take up buying the last 2x RAN FFG's, their cost would have been "cheap" but we would have had to have spent something similar to the ANZAC FSU to update the radar system, CMS, counter measures etc.
I suggest the best thing the NZG could do would be to order 2x T26/Hunters/CSC's or Constellation Class now so that by 2030-ish NZ has a 4 Frigate fleet (2x ANZAC & 2x T26/FFG X), then replace the 2x ANZAC's in the mid/late 2030's with another 2x T26 or FFG X to give us 4. Chat over in the RN related threads is that T31 may be able to be obtained sooner, perhaps that could be in the mix if we require delivery alot sooner and operating alongside the 2x ANZAC's until they are replaced with eg T26/FFG X in the next decade. I suggest NZ shouldn't have an all T31 fleet, for the areas they need to cover which includes many unfriendly submarines (and unfriendly long range patrol aircraft and worse).
P-8's are (only) 1-2 years away so NZG should order LRASM's now (eg get into the queue).
Do we need to quickly acquire Harpoon for the remaining operational P-3's? How long would it take to receive them and modify/integrate them? As we've reduced the P-3 fleet to provide crucial spares for the remaining operational fleet, could any world tensions see us retain 3-4x P-3's a bit longer than anticipated to increase MPA numbers? If so, NZG please get on with a Harpoon acquisition!
Yes NZDF definitely needs more C-130J's, at least 3 more (RNZAF traditionally wanted 8, but if world tensions get worse then surely a few more on top. History shows the RNZAF needed dozens and dozen of transport aircraft in WW2 simply for Pacific theatre use)! They are not excessively expensive aircraft to purchase. But are vital workhorses. Alternatively would we better obtaining say A400M now rather than as an option in the later part of this decade (but even if ordered now it will take years and yers to reach FOC. C-130 would still be quicker).
Even if the NZ Government tomorrow decided to order 2 Type 26 or constellation class from any of the production lines I doubt you would be able to get the first in service before the mid 30s. The first Hunter is due to be delivered ~2030 and similar for the CSC. UK is a bit ahead but doubt you could jump a slot in the queue. Constellation may be possible quicker but still probably closer to mid 30s than not for first ship.
At that point probably just worth looking at a replacement class of 4 rather than 2 + 2 if you want 4.
Gracie1234
Well-Known Member
I think it is quite interesting that there are now multiple articles in the media clearly stating that the world has changed, the UN will not save us, so what should we do. It is positive that the question is being asked, how much do we spend on defence.
The govt will be looking at what is happening in the world with horror, this is not what they thought they would need to respond to. These were meant to be risks that were very unlikely to happen and therefore did not need to be thought about.
As for our Min of Defence, COVID will be over soonish (months) and that should free him up to do his job.
A decision will need to be made soon by our govt, and not making a decision is the same as making a decision. Just look at the pressure the USA is putting on India to denounce Russia. Walking the line between a choice is not acceptable to our ally and partners.
Does anyone know what the next steps are after the latest defence review? I was under the impression that a paper will need to be written on how NZ would respond....aka a white paper or some sort of strategy/capability document.
The govt will be looking at what is happening in the world with horror, this is not what they thought they would need to respond to. These were meant to be risks that were very unlikely to happen and therefore did not need to be thought about.
As for our Min of Defence, COVID will be over soonish (months) and that should free him up to do his job.
A decision will need to be made soon by our govt, and not making a decision is the same as making a decision. Just look at the pressure the USA is putting on India to denounce Russia. Walking the line between a choice is not acceptable to our ally and partners.
Does anyone know what the next steps are after the latest defence review? I was under the impression that a paper will need to be written on how NZ would respond....aka a white paper or some sort of strategy/capability document.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
Thank you, much appreciate your informative responses. Fully agree NZ won't be able to jump any slots no matter which option is taken. And although presumably another design, say for example from other European or Asian (eg South Korean) nations could possibly be built sooner (??), I suspect the RNZN would prefer commonality with it's closest partners (and less risk) so such an idea may also be a non-starter.
Former DefMin Wayne Mapp then appears to have become the (only?) public voice of reason by advocating for the NZG to bring forward the ANZAC replacement programme and order them now.
Agree then it makes better sense then to order 4 of the same (or whatever number is chosen), and at the same time.
Or could another option that could possibly hasten deliveries is perhaps look at something else like the Type 31 (as in a couple of vessels to complement the 2 ANZAC's, not as 4 full replacements)? But that also means a mixed fleet (and not necessarily the same capabilities). Well perhaps unless NZ wants a couple of lower-end escorts and 2 or more higher end war-fighting vessels to replace the ANZAC's?
(And I'll acknowledge the political reality is it may be difficult to make this particular GOTD "do something now", any so-called early decisions could be a year or two or more away)!
Yes the current Govt needs to respond and commission a white paper to sort the stratgic/capabilities needed in the very near future. Then they actually need to make a decision and order the required purchases, not just a decision about another decision on something that's already announced, which the minister has done in the last speech he made regarding buildings and infrastructure and people yet again... it shows that he really doesn't have a clue about what's required... he is most looking like the most inept defence minister NZ has had in the last 30 years, which is saying something as we have had some pretty average ministers in that time! and not he is interested according to several people I know still in the NZDF.
Also the lack of leadership from our PM is appaulling when things are not going her way she just disappears, seems to be regular thing!! also includes other ministers as well!
The UN is a toothless tiger in the case of the Ukraine and if an incident happens regarding a certain asian country in the northern hemisphere in our sphere of the pacific, help won't arrive in a timely manner for example say an incursion in the Cook islands occured and the RNZN's 1 current frigate is on fisheries patrol in the south of NZ it's going to be days before they are on station... alot can happen is 2 or 3 days, the same goes for the lack of maritime patrol aircraft!! again to little to late!!
The army gets involved again to few numbers to sustain for more than a few months!!
The minister needs to start doing his job on behalf of NZ defence force personal who have to go and do the hard yards!! with outdated, limited number of platforms and any loss of major equipement example ships/helicopters/aircraft etc means huge problems in tasks that can be achieved.
The RCN CSC has AEGIS, SPY-7, CEC, ESSM II, SM-2, Sea Ceptor, Mk-54 LWT, and the LMC CMS330 for its CMS. The RAN Hunter class has the CEA radars, AEGIS, CEC ESSM II, SM-2 and the SAAB 9LV for its CMS. So both have commonality with the USN where it matters.
WRT the RNZN it doesn't have to be a Type 26 hull. The RCN CSC capabilities can be fitted to another hull as long as that particular hull type has the required dimensions, buoyancy, LO, freeboard, range, crew, and speed. The important parts are AEGIS, sensors, CEC, weapons, and CMS. That's why the RCN sensors, weapons, and CMS are the attractive option. The RNZN now uses the LMC CMS330 with Sea Ceptor and Mk-54 LWT being integrated into it. The rest of the CSC weapons & sensors plus AEGIS, CEC & SPY-7 radar will be integrated into it as well, so it makes sense for the RNZN to go with that set up.
However I believe that we can acquire and build another hull cheaper than the T-26 hull and that way afford three or four new frigates. Western Europe, North America, and Australia are the three most expensive regions to build ships and we need to build elsewhere and be creative at the same time to ensure the best possible build quality and VfM (Value for Money). Maybe we could look at overseas hull builds and machinery installations with fitouts being done here in NZ. That way some of the acquisition costs can be clawed back through taxes and indirectly through the increased economic activity. We don't require any offsets with our defence acquisitions and maybe it's time we started. This could be one way of doing it.
As some on here will know For the past eight or so years I have kept a spreadsheet on acquisition costs required to update NZDF to a fully viable, capable, self reliant, and credible defence force. The latest guestimate is $55 billion +/- 10%. It's quite difficult obtain defence costs that are close to reliable and trying to standardise is an exercise in trying ones patience. That's why I use the term guestimate but it does give us an idea of what the actual costs look like. Remember this is just the acquisitions of capabilities.
I spread the acquisitions over two periods, 2023 - 32 and 2033 -38 so a total of a 15 year period.
Figure 1 New Zealand Military Spending / Defense Budget - Historical Data. Source: New Zealand Military Spending/Defense Budget 1960-2022 | MacroTrends
Historically NZ defence expenditure over the preceding 60 years has dropped as a percentage of GDP. If a trend line was inserted in the graph in Fig. 1., it would support this assertion. The most consistent decline can be seen from 1991 with the expenditure rise in the late 2010s being because of the required replacement of existing platforms rather than an overall deliberate increase in defence capabilities. With the new capabilities that are required and the subsequent increase in the size of NZDF its annual OPEX (Operational Expenditure) budget would have to be increased significantly. Based on the data above it is around NZ$3.5 billion and in the interim it is suggested that it be increased to $6.0 billion from the 2023 / 24 FY (Financial Year). The CAPEX (Capital Expenditure) budget has to be included and with the suggested acquisition list, this is $3.6 billion per annum. Therefore it is suggested that each year this sum plus inflation be allocated to NZDF CAPEX. NZDF should be exempted from the Treasury Capital Charge because it is negatively impacting upon NZDF’s ability to support the government’s policy directives. Hence the annual allocation would be in the vicinity of $10 billion. What monies allocated that are not spent would be retained in the appropriate budget and carried over. They would not be deducted from the following year’s budget as a claw back by Treasury.
From the 2023 / 24 FY the NZDF budget / funding allocation methodology should move away from the current % GDP and government political capital expenditure model to what the NZDF actually requires to be a reliable, reputable, capable, credible, and functional defence force capable of operating in a high threat environment alongside our ally and coalition partners, defending NZ and its interests across the maritime, air, land, space, and cyber domains in geographical areas that are of importance to NZ, its people, security, and economy.
This is what I have been thinking about for the last few years. Note that the much vaunted $20 billion wouldn't even keep NZDF at the current capability levels. It's just over 1/3rd of the actual sum required.
recce.k1
Well-Known Member
After some thought I might be able to answer my own question above about the suitability of the T31 (in the early 2030's) working alongside the ANZAC's (until those are replaced later in the 2030's).
No, due to different Conops!
ANZAC's need to "fight" (and defend) against threats underwater, on the surface and in the air.
The T31 doesn't cover all of these spectrum's equally well (it was never designed to).
So MoD & NZDF planning to replace the two ANZAC's carries on (timeframe mid/late 2030's).
Speculating now, perhaps the NZG could be persuaded to bring forward the acquisitions (possibly seeing 2 replacements operational mid-2030's-ish instead, alongside the two ANZAC's if a larger fleet is still required (due to tensions) until they are either withdrawn from service or also replaced with a further two more of the same type. This is all dependent on the state of worldly affairs at the time. But a bit of early foresight now could pay dividends in another 10 years or so (particularly if the likes of the CCP establishes a presence in our wider region etc).
More speculating, this time on a new initiative (which alternatively could actually be options within the planned OPV replacement programme). Defence could make a case for the likes of the T31 to fulfill a requirement to acquire a number of Escort/Patrol Vessels.
Their duties would be to maintain a presence in the "gray zone" (for example within the Pacific where potentially dozens (if not hundreds) of (cough, cough) "fishing vessels", factory ships, "coast guard vessels", secretly armed merchant ships (and maybe the odd lurking sub) could be going about their business (good or bad, like laying mines) and monitor and seek intelligence on these vessels. (And if these need taking out, the T31 would work in with say P-8A Poseidons, combat vessels, or allied airpower to do the long range striking, not necessarily the T31 itself unless there is no option but to do so, in that case that's where the versitility of the Mk41 VLS comes in, it may carry some new generation SSM's etc).
Defensive armament is mostly all that is needed and the T31 largely fits the bill with its 57mm, CAMM, Mk41 VLS & CMS, but with added countermeasures such as MASS, torpedo defence, torpedo/missile/depth charge armed helicopters (with dipping sonar if feasible). Perhaps also towed array.
Their other roles would be escorting "high value targets" (oil tankers, crucial merchant shipping, ordnance supply vessels etc) and with the T31's long range it could operate well into the Indo-Pacific (where NZ trades and where NZ keeps most of its strategic oil reserves in places like Singapore).
And operating in the Tasman Sea providing escort to military or commercial vessels taking Army vehicles/munitions/raw products and the like to and from Australia.
In WW2 NZ followed allied initiatives to arm several large merchant vessels to assist with escorting duties (and troop transport etc). Nowadays NZ does not have these merchant vessels on hand. The T31 or similar could be invaluable.
This frees up the ANZAC's to forward deploy into hotter areas (and partake in escorting duties when the need to have higher-capability assistance is required).
Curiously enough the top end of the OPV programme funding (for replacments in the early 2030's) appears to cover the baseline costs for a T31 type vessel, so perhaps RNZN is thinking across the spectrum of lower-end OPV to something a lot more capable. If so that would be perfect.
Interestingly enough on the Aussie forums here some posters had been discussing up-arming their new OPV's (and is a sensitive discussion topic), I wonder though whether thought should be to instigate a new programme to bring into service sooner something more capable as described above, for pretty much mostly similar reasons?
No, due to different Conops!
ANZAC's need to "fight" (and defend) against threats underwater, on the surface and in the air.
The T31 doesn't cover all of these spectrum's equally well (it was never designed to).
So MoD & NZDF planning to replace the two ANZAC's carries on (timeframe mid/late 2030's).
Speculating now, perhaps the NZG could be persuaded to bring forward the acquisitions (possibly seeing 2 replacements operational mid-2030's-ish instead, alongside the two ANZAC's if a larger fleet is still required (due to tensions) until they are either withdrawn from service or also replaced with a further two more of the same type. This is all dependent on the state of worldly affairs at the time. But a bit of early foresight now could pay dividends in another 10 years or so (particularly if the likes of the CCP establishes a presence in our wider region etc).
More speculating, this time on a new initiative (which alternatively could actually be options within the planned OPV replacement programme). Defence could make a case for the likes of the T31 to fulfill a requirement to acquire a number of Escort/Patrol Vessels.
Their duties would be to maintain a presence in the "gray zone" (for example within the Pacific where potentially dozens (if not hundreds) of (cough, cough) "fishing vessels", factory ships, "coast guard vessels", secretly armed merchant ships (and maybe the odd lurking sub) could be going about their business (good or bad, like laying mines) and monitor and seek intelligence on these vessels. (And if these need taking out, the T31 would work in with say P-8A Poseidons, combat vessels, or allied airpower to do the long range striking, not necessarily the T31 itself unless there is no option but to do so, in that case that's where the versitility of the Mk41 VLS comes in, it may carry some new generation SSM's etc).
Defensive armament is mostly all that is needed and the T31 largely fits the bill with its 57mm, CAMM, Mk41 VLS & CMS, but with added countermeasures such as MASS, torpedo defence, torpedo/missile/depth charge armed helicopters (with dipping sonar if feasible). Perhaps also towed array.
Their other roles would be escorting "high value targets" (oil tankers, crucial merchant shipping, ordnance supply vessels etc) and with the T31's long range it could operate well into the Indo-Pacific (where NZ trades and where NZ keeps most of its strategic oil reserves in places like Singapore).
And operating in the Tasman Sea providing escort to military or commercial vessels taking Army vehicles/munitions/raw products and the like to and from Australia.
In WW2 NZ followed allied initiatives to arm several large merchant vessels to assist with escorting duties (and troop transport etc). Nowadays NZ does not have these merchant vessels on hand. The T31 or similar could be invaluable.
This frees up the ANZAC's to forward deploy into hotter areas (and partake in escorting duties when the need to have higher-capability assistance is required).
Curiously enough the top end of the OPV programme funding (for replacments in the early 2030's) appears to cover the baseline costs for a T31 type vessel, so perhaps RNZN is thinking across the spectrum of lower-end OPV to something a lot more capable. If so that would be perfect.
Interestingly enough on the Aussie forums here some posters had been discussing up-arming their new OPV's (and is a sensitive discussion topic), I wonder though whether thought should be to instigate a new programme to bring into service sooner something more capable as described above, for pretty much mostly similar reasons?
Last edited:
Absolutely. I'm looking forward to seeing the final configuration of the two Indonesian Arrowhead 140s. It sounds like they could be quite capable vessels. That two ship contract is for US$720m. It also shows Babcock are happy to license their design to a third party builder.
With Poland also selecting the A140, it could become a popular platform to modify to a country's specific requirements.
The problem with the UN is the 5 permanent security council members with veto powers, remove them as permanent members and there veto powers and the UN would have some teeth.