Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Aussie Digger]

New Zealand only has a population of 4 million, and your wish list of 6 frigates is half of Australia's 12 surface warships, a nation of 20 million. The RNZN is having problems filling the crews of the ships they have now, where do you suppose New Zealand will find more crews to man 4 more frigates? Would you support a draft?

While frigates run in the neighborhood of NZ$500 million or so, operating the 2 Anzacs they have now run NZ$500 million per year. To operate 4 more frigates, New Zealand would need to triple that amount, to NZ$1.5 billion per year. That's a lot of money. Its not so much the original costs, which are significant, but we have to keep in mind operating costs too.

It costs even more to buy and operate fighters. And where are you going to find the crews to fly and maintain the fighters on top of finding the crews to operate the frigates? Would you support a draft?

We are talking a significant increase in personnel and their costs. But yes, there was a NZ$11 billion surplus this year. This does not mean that there will be a similar surplus next year. But with a NZ$11 billion surplus, New Zealand can afford to spend more on defence.

However, there are limits to personnel. Drafting military personnel to fill the ranks takes away from the civilian workforce paying taxes. You'll be surprised how quickly the surplus would disappear.

I concur, to a degree.

I think a 3rd frigate would add immeasurably to NZ's ability to deploy for extended periods. A 4th frigate would give NZ something impossible now, an ability to conduct sustained operations...

 

[Sea Toby]

I agree that there should be at least a third frigate for sustainment reasons. I also believe that adding two more frigates at the mid-life point of the Anzacs would be a wise investment, avoiding block obsolescence while stretching out the procurement programs. Please note I said two more frigates, not four. But I think at the moment the RNZN should concentrate its resources and efforts into filling out the crews of the new Project Protector fleet first, before acquiring more assets consuming more personnel.

With large surpluses, its easy to buy more new ships. Manniing them is another story.

 

[Lucasnz]

I concur, to a degree.

I think a 3rd frigate would add immeasurably to NZ's ability to deploy for extended periods. A 4th frigate would give NZ something impossible now, an ability to conduct sustained operations...

At the end of WWII the navy determined that 6 Frigates was the min number needed for escort etc. In the early 1960's the rising cost of warships saw the navy say the min number of Frigates needed would be 4. Given the modular nature of much of the equipment on modern vessels, that allows for 3 Frigates to be operational for more time than the old 4.

The key issue I have with a 3 frigate force is that the RNZN would be operating an orphan, with increased training and logistics costs (i.e similar to Southland where the ops crew had to be sent to the UK for taticial training). There would be a degree of commonaility for things like the MK41VLS or 127mm etc, but other systems such as radar, sonar etc may all be different. For a small navy the increased costs can't really be justified for one vessel.

I think I'd be more inclined for 2 vessels, with the sea keeping and range needed for the NZ environment thats not really acceptable. Given the increase in the capability of today's corvettes, maybe its time NZ considered buying 2 of these.

 

[Todjaeger]

I agree that there should be at least a third frigate for sustainment reasons. I also believe that adding two more frigates at the mid-life point of the Anzacs would be a wise investment, avoiding block obsolescence while stretching out the procurement programs. Please note I said two more frigates, not four. But I think at the moment the RNZN should concentrate its resources and efforts into filling out the crews of the new Project Protector fleet first, before acquiring more assets consuming more personnel.

With large surpluses, its easy to buy more new ships. Manniing them is another story.

Another thing NZ would be wise to do, prior to acquiring a third or fourth vessel, would be to start the upgrade of the current Anzacs. With the current systems, the NZ Anzacs are unable to engage a modern, hostile naval force.

Once the Project: Protector vessels are properly manned, and the upgrades started for the Anzacs, then I would say to turn NZ's attention to adding a 3rd or 4th vessel.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

At the end of WWII the navy determined that 6 Frigates was the min number needed for escort etc. In the early 1960's the rising cost of warships saw the navy say the min number of Frigates needed would be 4. Given the modular nature of much of the equipment on modern vessels, that allows for 3 Frigates to be operational for more time than the old 4.

The key issue I have with a 3 frigate force is that the RNZN would be operating an orphan, with increased training and logistics costs (i.e similar to Southland where the ops crew had to be sent to the UK for taticial training). There would be a degree of commonaility for things like the MK41VLS or 127mm etc, but other systems such as radar, sonar etc may all be different. For a small navy the increased costs can't really be justified for one vessel.

I think I'd be more inclined for 2 vessels, with the sea keeping and range needed for the NZ environment thats not really acceptable. Given the increase in the capability of today's corvettes, maybe its time NZ considered buying 2 of these.

Germany are still making Meko 200 frigates though (the base for the ANZAC class) and similar propulsion, sensors and weapons could be chosen, making the vessels VERY close indeed.

The proposed RNZN ANZAC upgrades could be tailored to match the new vessels closely and thus minimise costs...

 

[RubiconNZ]

Another thing NZ would be wise to do, prior to acquiring a third or fourth vessel, would be to start the upgrade of the current Anzacs. With the current systems, the NZ Anzacs are unable to engage a modern, hostile naval force.

Once the Project: Protector vessels are properly manned, and the upgrades started for the Anzacs, then I would say to turn NZ's attention to adding a 3rd or 4th vessel.

-Cheers

2013-14 would be a ideal timetable for introduction of a new frigate/design, Perhaps dependant on selection of the RAN vessel type a non Aegis with less VLS version of the F-100, its been constructed in Australia which means work available for NZ, the Gibbs cox design would probably be a bit big I think.
In terms of the OPV knowing nothing about engineering, is the space weight etc available on the OPV for extra weapons and related electronics, eg SEARAM and perhaps a smaller Anti Ship missile? this would concievable give it escort capabilites for the MRV in South Pacific ops, what could the MRV be upgraded with in space, SEARAM, 57mm gun?

 

[icelord]

the only real problem with adding more firepower to the MRV is that your making a requirment that is not really neccesary, your attacking a ghost navy really because you lose what you require, which is more room for transporting troops, vehicles etc. What would work, is the "sonic" weapon used by several passenger liners, including the ship that was attack by pirates near somalia(yarrr!)
The MRVs biggest enemy would be small, fast moving boats loaded with explosives, more so then a submarine. The Anzac frigates would most likely be tasked with escort duties for the MRV where ever it went, and perhaps a OPV in support.
I know the sea state capabilities would be bad for southern Ops, but a Littoral combats ship would go well for RNZN main AOR, being the pacific islands. But it will never happen. If another ANZAC was requested, Aus ship yards will by that stage have moved on to AWD, but as pointed out, germany is still making Meko 200, so a slight change for them may be possible to the Anzac standards.

 

[Sea Toby]

An updated Anzac could be built by Tenix since the AWDs will be built in South Australia. However, I would prefer building two new smaller frigates for the reasons I stated before.The twins should be something between the size of the OPVs and the Anzacs. Such a ship should include the ESSMs with the Mk41 VLS, a 76-mm gun, torpedo tubes, chaff countermeasures, Seasprite helicopter and hangar. I'm thinking in terms of 2600-3000 tons full load displacement. Any shipyard could built it. Of course this would require enlarging the size and scope of the RNZN, and increasing defence expenditures.

The OPVs can be upgunned with the 57-mm gunmount without much fuss. However, considering the split stack, it would be difficult to add a CIWS system. I consider the OPVs as cutters, not even the USCG is installing CIWS on their cutters, although room and space is being reserved for SeaRam. I do not consider the OPVs as warships, in my opinion it would be better to build two more smaller frigates.

The MRV can be upgunned similar to the OPVs, but I would install two CIWS port/starboard. Again, they are being planned to be used more as a training/patrol ship than a landing ship, although being a very capable sealift asset.

However, I am more concerned with anti-mine capability than I am increasing the RMZN surface warfare fleet of frigates. Adding just one minehunter in my opinion would be a great addition to the fleet. With a smaller crew than a frigate, it would be easier to raise its personnel, especially if this minehunter replaced the current diving tender.

 

[Todjaeger]

Somewhat off the wall idea

An updated Anzac could be built by Tenix since the AWDs will be built in South Australia. However, I would prefer building two new smaller frigates for the reasons I stated before.The twins should be something between the size of the OPVs and the Anzacs. Such a ship should include the ESSMs with the Mk41 VLS, a 76-mm gun, torpedo tubes, chaff countermeasures, Seasprite helicopter and hangar. I'm thinking in terms of 2600-3000 tons full load displacement. Any shipyard could built it. Of course this would require enlarging the size and scope of the RNZN, and increasing defence expenditures.

The OPVs can be upgunned with the 57-mm gunmount without much fuss. However, considering the split stack, it would be difficult to add a CIWS system. I consider the OPVs as cutters, not even the USCG is installing CIWS on their cutters, although room and space is being reserved for SeaRam. I do not consider the OPVs as warships, in my opinion it would be better to build two more smaller frigates.

The MRV can be upgunned similar to the OPVs, but I would install two CIWS port/starboard. Again, they are being planned to be used more as a training/patrol ship than a landing ship, although being a very capable sealift asset.

However, I am more concerned with anti-mine capability than I am increasing the RMZN surface warfare fleet of frigates. Adding just one minehunter in my opinion would be a great addition to the fleet. With a smaller crew than a frigate, it would be easier to raise its personnel, especially if this minehunter replaced the current diving tender.

It almost sounds like you're describing either the MEKO 360, or perhaps the MEKO A200 class as the 3rd & 4th vessels... I'm not sure, given the relatively few warships NZ has that having different classes in use would make things better or worse.

Here is a somewhat off the wall idea for dealing with the situation. NZ can sell the two Anzacs (would Australia be interested?) and replace them with 3 Absalon-type vessels. While the Absalon is larger than an Anzac (6,000t vs. 3,600t) the modular weapon containers can allow loading of armament more in fitting with what NZ feels it needs. It would also allow a bit more flexibility in operations since it would be able to be reconfigured rapidly. Granted, I don't think this idea is feasible, unless NZ could arrange the sale of the Anzacs and get the replacements built quickly. Hence, being off the wall.

As for MCM. yes, I would say NZ needs to have a better capability than they currently do. Which is to say an adhoc one. As mentioned in other threads, the USN is reducing their MHC fleet, so that would be a possible source. I would recommend against getting just one MCM vessel though, two would be better. Another alternative would be to have multi-role MCM vessels, like Canada's Kingston class MCDV constructed. That way, when not conducting exercises or MCM operations, the vessel can perform useful secondary functions.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

In a previous post you say its important to upgrade the current Anzacs, and in the last post you wish to sell them off and buy less capable vessels. Why?

The Canadians have not been happy with the performance of their Kingston class patrol vessels, they are too slow and they roll quite a bit. In fact, their present government is considering dumping them off to their coast guard and buying better OPVs, possibly similar to New Zealand's. But their coast guard don't want them either.

 

[Todjaeger]

In a previous post you say its important to upgrade the current Anzacs, and in the last post you wish to sell them off and buy less capable vessels. Why?

The Canadians have not been happy with the performance of their Kingston class patrol vessels, they are too slow and they roll quite a bit. In fact, their present government is considering dumping them off to their coast guard and buying better OPVs, possibly similar to New Zealand's. But their coast guard don't want them either.

I don't think that NZ is looking at the purchase of an additional frigate or two any time soon. Given that, and the current capabilities of the NZ Anzacs, I feel it more important to increase their operational capabilities. If (big IF) the RNZN does somehow become determined to increase their fleet to 3 or 4 warships a decision will need to be made on what class the additional ship(s) would be. Unless the Anzac assembly line could be restarted to make "Improved Anzac" class vessels where the Anzac upgrades are installed during construction (a difficult/costly undertaking but not impossible) then NZ is either going to be operating two different types of warships with different fittings and layout. As an alternative to that, I'd mentioned replacing the two NZ Anzacs with the desired numbers of Absalon-type vessels.

Keep in mind two things.

First, if this idea was to be done, it would be several years before the Absalons would see service. By this time, the Anzacs would have already passed the presumed mid-point in their service lives.

Secondly, as I had titled the post, it was an off the wall idea. While it has some merits, like that the Absalon vessels have more flexibility than the current Anzacs, or the ease of training and operations in a larger fleet of like vessels. I don't anticipate this is something that would come to pass. Now, if Australia suddenly decided that they wanted more Anzac frigates and would be willing to purchase NZ's, it might happen. I don't expect that though.

As for the Kingston MCDV. Yes, Canada is looking at replacing them and there are a few issues with them. Among them is that they use WWII 40mm/60 Bofors. Also, I believe that they were built to a commercial, not military standard. In terms of sea keeping though, I would say they aren't all that bad, when measured against comparable classes of vessels. A Kingston MCDV is 970 tonnes full load and only 55.3m in length. That's a good 600 tonnes and 30m smaller than many OPVs, and more inline with large MHC vessels. Trying to use a Kingston as an OPV is not going to work particularly well, but that is not what they were designed for. The Kingstons were designed to fufill training, MCM and Coastal Defence roles. Given a Kingston's ability to re-role between patrol, MCM, etc. with different mission packages, I think NZ could benefit from that flexibility, particularly since there is a limit to the number of hulls the RNZN can support both in terms of budget and personnel. The Kingston-like ship would be able to augment the IPVs when not training or conducting MCM operations. Also, if needed away from NZ, it would have the range to operate away (5,000 n miles @8 kt) though obviously not all that quickly. Then again, most MCM vessels have a top speed of only 15 kt as well. Basically, I would look at a Kingston or similiar vessel as a MCM ship, which we both agree NZ could use, that can also carry out patrols as well. I would not offer it in place of the OPVs.

-Cheers

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, ship construction in Australia is a long process, another foreign shipyard could build a frigate faster, possibly in half the time. Since the Anzac are slated for the ESSM upgrade in the LTDP, if New Zealand does fund the upgrade, its my opinion the two Anzacs should be kept until their end of life.

However, I would agree if their upgrade is not funded, an option to sell them might make sense if another class of frigates were acquired. Since an updated Anzac is most likely, I'd keep them and attempt to acquire another class of two ships. Such a class would not necessarily mean more support costs. A new class could use the same diesels, armaments, and sensors as the Anzacs.

What I cannot understand is the opposition to frigates in New Zealand. Its as if a frigate is as dirty a word as a boondogglle. A frigate is the minimum warship useful in UN operations abroad. Anything less won't be able to defend itself around the world. As you noted the Anzacs will need an upgrade soon to stay viable as a useful frigate.

New Zealand doesn't really need a large number of minehunters, 1 or 2 would suffice. Replacing the diving tender with a superior minehunter would be an upgrade. Adding a second minehunter wouldn't break the operational budget as much as adding another frigate. New Zealand wouldn't lose any diving capability. The naval reserve personnel are sufficient to man either one or both minehunters, freeing up naval personnel to man patrol ships and frigates. And yes, I would agree to the acquisition of the discarded American minehunters, or buying new minehunters.

Even if New Zealand never acquired a minehunter and decided again to replace the diving tender with another similar ship, I would let the reserves man this ship. Since New Zealand is having difficulty manning their new Project Protector vessels, it might be a good idea to man the diving tender with reserves today, freeing up her active naval personnel to man one of the IPVs. And if there is a squeeze for space at the Devenport naval base, this ship or the minehunter could be based in either Wellington or Christchurch instead.

I fully support using the naval reserves to man and operate mine warfare forces. Doing so provides the reserves with a mission which they can excel in within the minimum amount of time they serve. While the minehunters would be crewed with reserves, the divers should be kept as active naval personnel.

 

[Lucasnz]

What I cannot understand is the opposition to frigates in New Zealand. Its as if a frigate is as dirty a word as a boondogglle. A frigate is the minimum warship useful in UN operations abroad. Anything less won't be able to defend itself around the world. As you noted the Anzacs will need an upgrade soon to stay viable as a useful frigate.

New Zealand doesn't really need a large number of minehunters, 1 or 2 would suffice. Replacing the diving tender with a superior minehunter would be an upgrade. Adding a second minehunter wouldn't break the operational budget as much as adding another frigate. New Zealand wouldn't lose any diving capability. The naval reserve personnel are sufficient to man either one or both minehunters, freeing up naval personnel to man patrol ships and frigates. And yes, I would agree to the acquisition of the discarded American minehunters, or buying new minehunters.

Even if New Zealand never acquired a minehunter and decided again to replace the diving tender with another similar ship, I would let the reserves man this ship. Since New Zealand is having difficulty manning their new Project Protector vessels, it might be a good idea to man the diving tender with reserves today, freeing up her active naval personnel to man one of the IPVs. And if there is a squeeze for space at the Devenport naval base, this ship or the minehunter could be based in either Wellington or Christchurch instead.

I fully support using the naval reserves to man and operate mine warfare forces. Doing so provides the reserves with a mission which they can excel in within the minimum amount of time they serve. While the minehunters would be crewed with reserves, the divers should be kept as active naval personnel.

The main reason people in NZ are opposed to frigates is that during the Anti Nuke debate of the 1980's the frigates were demonised as been part of a US fleet with the sole focus of hunting USSR subs. The navy was unable to rebuke this because the government of the time put the clamps on. The other issue was cost at a time when hosptials etc were being closed. I think times have moved on since them and people now accept that defence has a high captial outlay in terms of cost (lack of opposition to things like the LAV program which nearly cost as much as two ANZAC's).

I would agree with the number of MCM vessels suggested. Replacing Manuawuni and Kahu with two dedicated vessels would be ideal. The advantage is that the Regulars are alreadly manning these vessels so the impact on overall navy manning would be minimal.

While I agree that assigning MCM to the reserves is a good idea the last two defence said the exact opposite and questioned why the navy had a part time force operating a key defence capability.

 

[Sea Toby]

Well, I don't agree with these defence ministers, politicians who weaken our defence forces. If the navy is short on personnel, allowing the reserves to excel in mine warfare helps solve the shortage problem.

Its easier for the reserves to do the mine warfare role than it is for the reserves to do quality ASW, or AAW. With the boats they receive its a wonder whether they can sufficiently handle ASuW. New proper minehunters will allow them to concentrate on the two roles in which they can excel, even with the minehunters it will be difficult for the reserves to excel in ASW and AAW.

 

[Gibbo]

The October edition of Navy News (refer link below) has an interesting article on the delivery voyage of the new MRV 'NuShip Canterbury' out to Aussie. She sounds like a very stable & sturdy vessel.

The HMNZS Charles Upham which was the previous failed attempt at sealift rolled like a cork when lightly loaded. Canterbury had about 260tons deck cargo but was otherwise lightly loaded and she handled big seas very well - guess the RNZN breathed a sigh of relief over that!

Have a read... lots of other info as well.

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/navy-today.htm

 

[Gibbo]

The September edition of Navy News (refer link below) has an interesting article on the RNZN's 5 year strategic plan. It's an interesting article as it fairly clearly spells out the Navy's got a lot of rebuilding to do (as does the whole NZDF).

I think it's clear from this that we shouldn't hold our breath with regard to new frigates, MCMV etc in the short - medium term. The RNZN it would seem are barely able to support introduction of the 7 'Protector' vessels.

I give credit though to the Navy's seniors as obviously they're open about this and have what I think is a balanced and realistic plan in place to try & reverse the rot. Granted they haven't always done themselves any favours.

Not being ex-Navy one thing I've always wondered about is the way RNZN vessels can be away for 5-6 months! Is this likely to be a factor in struggling to crew vessels!?! Surely shorter but more frequent deployments would be a better option - say 2-3 months twice a year!?!

I guess the IPV & OPV fleets may bring this to a head - if the RNZN find half the Frigate crews clambering to join the patrol fleet with their generally shorter deployments they might find crewing even 1 frigate difficult. That'll then be time for reviewing frigate deployments.

Totally agree RNZN needs to rebuild then seriously look at a 3rd frigate, 2 x dedicated MCMV to replace Dive tender. Another question also touched on as part of the extra funding initiatives is replacement of the tanker Endeavour. Hidden away discreetly in a document I saw an initial allocation of $300m to replace this but it didn't suggest when - just the reference to needing a double hulled tanker to meet reg's. Interestingly it doesn't rate a mention on the LTDP.

I'd like to see the Endeavour replaced with something similar to (but obviously on a smaller scale) as Canada's planned Joint Support Ship with tanking / RAS capability; dry stores & ammo etc; helicopter carrier (for 2-3 transit only) and limited vehicle transport (say 10-15 vehicles) - maybe even a single LCM. I guess this is unlikely given the potential budget - but given that this may realistically prove to be the next new platform RNZN can expect then you never know!

Select Sept06 Navy News from link below to see the plan...

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/navy-today.htm

 

[Lucasnz]

I give credit though to the Navy's seniors as obviously they're open about this and have what I think is a balanced and realistic plan in place to try & reverse the rot. Granted they haven't always done themselves any favours.

Not being ex-Navy one thing I've always wondered about is the way RNZN vessels can be away for 5-6 months! Is this likely to be a factor in struggling to crew vessels!?! Surely shorter but more frequent deployments would be a better option - say 2-3 months twice a year!?!

I guess the IPV & OPV fleets may bring this to a head - if the RNZN find half the Frigate crews clambering to join the patrol fleet with their generally shorter deployments they might find crewing even 1 frigate difficult. That'll then be time for reviewing frigate deployments.

Totally agree RNZN needs to rebuild then seriously look at a 3rd frigate, 2 x dedicated MCMV to replace Dive tender. Another question also touched on as part of the extra funding initiatives is replacement of the tanker Endeavour. Hidden away discreetly in a document I saw an initial allocation of $300m to replace this but it didn't suggest when - just the reference to needing a double hulled tanker to meet reg's. Interestingly it doesn't rate a mention on the LTDP.

I'd like to see the Endeavour replaced with something similar to (but obviously on a smaller scale) as Canada's planned Joint Support Ship with tanking / RAS capability; dry stores & ammo etc; helicopter carrier (for 2-3 transit only) and limited vehicle transport (say 10-15 vehicles) - maybe even a single LCM. I guess this is unlikely given the potential budget - but given that this may realistically prove to be the next new platform RNZN can expect then you never know!

Select Sept06 Navy News from link below to see the plan...

http://www.navy.mil.nz/know-your-navy/official-documents/navy-today.htm

I think the current problem does not rest solely with the length of voyages, but the lack of ships are pushing crews and equipment. Perviously this wouldn't have been so bad has personnel rotated regularly, but with the reduction in manpower throughout the navy the replacements just aren't there.

First I've heard about Endeavour, but excellent news. Something similar to the Canada's doing would be nice but it would be a long shot. Hopefully a national government will insitute a generous defence reviewnfloorl:

 

[Gibbo]

....Another question also touched on as part of the extra funding initiatives is replacement of the tanker Endeavour. Hidden away discreetly in a document I saw an initial allocation of $300m to replace this but it didn't suggest when - just the reference to needing a double hulled tanker to meet reg's. Interestingly it doesn't rate a mention on the LTDP....

Finally found it - although it doesn't mention the budget, nor is it any form of committment to actually doing anything...just a vague mention. Sure i saw $300m figure mentioned somewhere, but not much to get excited about!

Try the link below and then select 'appendix 2' at bottom of page.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/reports-publications/dcarr/contents.html

 

[Sea Toby]

I have also read somewhere that the RNZN was very happy with the condition of the Endeavour during its last drydock. Being in great shape, the navy was considering keeping the ship an extra 5 or more years before replacing her. While I am not certain, it is probably why the tanker replacement does not appear on the current LTDP.

I would think another small new South Korean tanker would cost less than NZ$ 200 million today. Their size and sensors package are very similar. Of course, inflation and exchange rates will increase the price 10-15 years in the future.

 

[blueorchid]

New tanker for NZ Navy

Sea Toby, you can certainly get a new tanker from Korea for less than $200M.NZD.

The Ran's new tanker purchased from Korea was for $50m.AUD then they spent another $60M on enhancements, this ship was for 37,000 tonnes so a smaller tanker should be less than that.

Cheers.