New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector". [Archive]

Aussie Digger

August 6th, 2004, 12:20 PM

Project Protector

(Source: New Zealand Ministry of Defence; issued Aug. 6, 2004)

The Ministers of Defence and Finance announced on 30 July that the contract had been signed between the Government and ship builders Tenix Limited for the construction of seven new ships to be operated by the Navy.

At a brief ceremony today held with Tenix, Ministers welcomed this next stage of the project. The Minister of Finance, Dr Michael Cullen, said the $NZ500 million project is part of the approved Long Term Development Plan for the New Zealand Defence Force.

The Minister of Defence, Mark Burton is very pleased that the project is now under way.

“It is planned that the Multi Role Vessel (MRV), two Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs) and four Inshore Patrol Vessels (IPVs) will enter service over the next 3 years.

“They will represent a significant increase in the Government’s capability to meet military and civilian responsibilities throughout New Zealand’s extensive EEZ, in the South Pacific and in the Southern Ocean.

“They will fulfil a broad range of requirements including personnel and cargo sealift, emergency response, fisheries and customs patrols and at sea training for the Royal New Zealand Navy.”

The Minister of Defence said a whole of government approach had been followed from the inception of the project and during the tender evaluation phase.

“The ships will be operated by the Navy and used for military purposes as well as meeting the needs of a number of other Government agencies.

Each ship will have designated facilities for staff from other agencies who will embark when required for different operations.

The MRV will have accommodation for up to fifty Army and Air Force personnel as part of the ship’s company and further space for up to 250 soldiers together with their vehicles and stores to carry them on operational deployments.

It will have the capability to carry an Infantry Company including its Light Armoured Vehicles and other equipment and will have the capacity to move New Zealand Defence Force equipment for operations like the recent Solomon Islands and East Timor deployments.

The ship will also be fitted out to enable humanitarian and emergency responses involving multi-agency personnel and equipment, in the South Pacific.

Both the MRV and the OPVs will be ice strengthened for operations in the Southern ocean and the Ross Sea and will also have the capability to embark Seasprite helicopters, which will enhance their ability to undertake maritime patrol tasks.

-ends-

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3637830.1082089861.QH9hhcOa9 dUAAAaJKqU&modele=jdc_34

What has not been announced is the armament thes ships will possess. The MRV is replacing the Leander Class Frigate currently operated by New Zealand. I would assume given it's role, it will be armed with a close in protection system and possibly a fire support capability such as a 5 inch gun. No announcements have been made however. Likewise with the OPV's I would assume being an 1800ton class ship (ie: Corvette size) they could possess a considerable armament to support NZ's current 2 ANZAC frigates. Again no announcements have been made...

Aussie Digger

March 4th, 2005, 09:26 PM

ADI Contracted to Supply MSI Gun Systems for Project Protector

(Source: ADI Ltd.; issued March 3, 2005)

ADI Limited (Australia) has been awarded the contract to supply the main gun systems for the New Zealand Ministry of Defence’s Project Protector program by the lead contractor, Tenix Defence Pty Ltd.

The systems are the MSI DS25M designed by MSI-Defence Systems, UK. This modern modular design enables a smaller calibre gun system to be configured in virtually any format to meet the full spectrum of potential naval configurations, from manned, with basic sighting, to full autonomous control by a ship’s systems or control at a remote station.

The systems for the Protector vessels will incorporate the ATK 25mm M242 Bushmaster cannon, common to the NZ Army’s light armoured vehicles, giving the navy commonality of ammunition and cannon training and support.

“ADI has chosen to continue collaborating with MSI to offer new supply and through life support for the MSI modular gun systems. Previously we produced six 30mm MSI gun systems for the Royal Australian Navy's Huon Class minehunters,” said Mr Lucio Di Bartolomeo, ADI’s managing director.

“ADI considers the MSI modular gun system as the best in the market. It is extremely well designed, very robust, while maintaining a lightweight footprint.

“Its marinisation is excellent. This is critical in achieving reliability and low through life costs. This has resulted in a system capable of withstanding the pounding from heavy seas and green water exposure while then continuing to deliver the best reliability and availability of the systems currently available in the market.”

MSI has well over a hundred units in service with a range of navies.

Tenix was awarded the Protector Project in July 2004 after an extensive competition involving over 25 shipbuilders worldwide. The Protector fleet will comprise one multi role vessel, two offshore patrol vessels and four inshore patrol vessels to be progressively delivered in 2006 and 2007. The MSI gun systems will be installed on the MRV and the two offshore patrol vessels. Tenix tendered the MSI gun in its baseline offer to the MoD and has been negotiating with ADI to conclude these contractual arrangements now in place.

ADI Limited is a major supplier to the Australian and New Zealand Navy and Army of small arms and medium and large calibre guns systems. It provides logistic support for the majority of the ADF’s gun systems. ADI is also the primary supplier of munitions to the ADF. It constructs and maintains naval ships; designs and integrates combat systems, aviation mission systems and naval communications equipment; designs and manufactures high mobility and protected military and emergency response vehicles.

MSI-Defence Systems is a major company within the UK based MS International Group with its head office and manufacturing facility in Norwich, UK and an important support establishment in Weymouth, UK. It plays a leading role in the design, development and supply of naval systems unrivalled in reliability, flexibility and performance.

-ends-

Well so much for the NZ MOD's stated desire to use these ships for military purposes. This armament will make these ships suitable for basic patrol duties only. They will apparently possess no other defensive armament other than machine guns, meaning even the MRV cannot be used in even a low threat zone... Some replacement for the Leander Class frigate...

nz enthusiast

May 31st, 2005, 11:36 PM

What alot of people dont realise is that between 1998 and 2000 be had a ship that was alot like what the MRV will be, it was called the Charles Upham, a pretty famous Nz soldier from world war 2. The problem was that when the ship was loaded it would have real balance problems, The Australian company that is making the multi role vessel said that it could fix the charles upham for under 100 million Nz dollars, the labour government which had to make the decision declined it. So that means in my view that the MRV is actually taking the place of the Charles upham giving the Nz military sealift capability. So if thats the case, what is really replacing the canterbury, two off shore patrol boats. (the 4 inshore patrol boats being purchased are actually replacing the current fleet of four).

amatsunz

June 8th, 2005, 09:54 PM

since when was a transport ship a replacement for a friget? and since when did costal patrol vessels have the same capibilites as frigets. I would like to say that the answer is more ANZACs but whats the point, the only offensive system on the boat is a 5inch gun, all that technology and cost to get 1 5inch gun to sea! no wonder the Auzzies get anoyed. Theodore Roosevelt once said "Speak softly and carry a big stick" I Think Helen Clark "Shouts loudly and runs to the Aussies to hide behind there stick"

Aussie Digger

June 9th, 2005, 12:20 AM

Amatsunz, do you know if NZ has any plans to equip it's ANZAC frigates with Harpoon missiles as Australia is doing now?

nz enthusiast

June 9th, 2005, 01:25 AM

Aussie digger, in a defence review done in the year 2000, there was the recommendation that New Zealands anzac class friagtes be armed with surface to surface missiles, a better electronic wafare kit, better torpedos and an upgrade of weaponary on the seasprite. NONE of this has happened yet, the government is pretty much saying we only want two hopeless frigates.
People need to understand that Helen Clark is very very strong pacifist (hates war so much that she doesn't care about her own defence). She hasn't actually purchased a single piece of weaponary while in power. When New Zelands skyhwaks arrived at the port in 1970 she was down there waving a communist flag. This is actually only a rumour but people say there are photos around to prove it.

All the weapons that have arrived in New Zealand to date were actually ordered in 1999 under a mass purchase scheme, the next mass purchase was supposibly 2002-2004 which included a frigate upgrade and the looking into of anothe frigate of the navy had the numbers.

Supe

June 9th, 2005, 05:59 AM

People need to understand that Helen Clark is very very strong pacifist (hates war so much that she doesn't care about her own defence).

Clark's sending (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=171&ObjectID=10328524) NZSAS on their third deployment to Afghanistan could hardly be described as the policy of a pacifist.

We should all abhor and hate war. War is waste. We also don't live in a perfect world and a government has to develop Defence policies that is sound, affordable and credible. Having said that, NZ government needs to obtain some teeth for their military. I think it was commented in another thread that the Orion fleet have little or no offensive capability. If correct, then it is something that needs to be addressed.

Aussie Digger

June 9th, 2005, 11:19 AM

The RNZAF P-3K's possess an air launched torpedo capability AFAIK, however the RNZAF (apart from the SH-2G Super Seasprites with the AGM-65 Maverick missiles) possess no air to surface weapons capability of any significance whatsoever.

The Torpedo's operated by RNZAF (Mk 46's I believe) are an obsolete design and are increasingly expensive to support and provide no standoff capability. The RNZAF aso possess no capability to provide fire support for it's ground forces and only extremely limited firepower for it's Naval Forces.

Yes, the NZ Defence forces are desined for peace-keeing missions only (which is what Afghanistan has basically become) but the ability to "keep" the peace comes from an inate ability to "make" or enforce peace if necessary. NZ currently does not possess a combat capability significant enough to enforce peace anywhere besides an environment where the peace is disrupted by persons armed with small arms only, ie: (such as the Solomon Islands)...

If the situation were any worse than that NZ armed forces would require significant levels of assistance from other countries simply to be able to operate safely, let alone effectively. If there were any sort of air or naval threat whatsoever, NZ would be effectively sidelined until the "bigger" boys could sort the threat out. It's hardly a foreign policy that is going to ingratiate NZ with it's allies... I can only hope that reasonable politicians are elected in the near future. I'd hate to see NZ forces deployed on ops they just weren't up to, due to political imperatives at home...

EnigmaNZ

June 9th, 2005, 08:59 PM

Guess that what happens when one's senior leaders are all hard left woman, mind you, at least the NZ's forces are being upgraded, though losing the air combat role is annoying, as is losing 2 frigates, but having the defence budget fall below 1% when the world is entering a sustained period of instabilty is short sighted. Funny how fast the government moved to spend $NZ300m on 2 757's to carry them around, when $NZ500m for a frigate was deemed excessive.

nz enthusiast

June 9th, 2005, 11:48 PM

Yes and do you know what those two 757s do many....they transport Helen on her obsessive travels.

Supe

June 10th, 2005, 04:03 AM

I thought this opinion piece would interest folks here:

New Zealand's niche force is smart defence (http://www.theage.com.au/news/Hugh-White/New-Zealands-niche-force-is-smart-defence/2005/05/09/1115584905736.html)

Clark's decision was a realistic response to the simple economic facts. Even if NZ spent as much of its GDP on defence as Australia does, its smaller economy simply could not sustain a modern, operationally meaningful frontline combat air force. Nor could it afford an operationally independent fleet of modern warships. So it has made perfect sense to concentrate NZ's efforts on the key niches in which it thinks it can make the best contribution.

Do you think this guy has a point? Even if NZ defence budget was doubled would it be able to sustain a Four frigate Navy and a relatively modern airforce..assuming the Kiwis went with the F16's?

nz enthusiast

June 10th, 2005, 05:07 AM

I reckon the real problem for us isn't money it would be getting enough people wanting to be a part of the New Zealand military. There is a very negative atitude in New Zealand secondary schools against an army, navy or air force career and I know becuase I am a New Zealand secondary school student. A military job is thought to be a dumb job that the idiots do, also the pay of they avergae person in the defence force is real low.
You do know that the labour government promised to spend 3 billion extra before 2005, it has only spent 2 billion, in my view they are just a bunch of liars.
New Zealand government had a surplus of $7.6 billion last year we could afford to have F-35s when they came out if we want to, But that won't happen because we have an over vocal group of hippies who will do anything to stop us being a creditable partner to Australia.
In my view the problem isn't money its purely political. Labour is too narrow minded and selfish and they don't seem to want to fix the morale issue in the NZDF.

EnigmaNZ

June 10th, 2005, 05:18 AM

He has a point, depends whether one funds defence or social spending, left wing governments prefer the later. I agree with a lot of what Helen has done for defence, just wish it didn't mean winding up the areas that seemed to round out a proper defence force.
Scrapping the air wing was to save $NZ80m pa plus the cost of future capital needs, didn't seem a high cost to me, and the Skyhawks were supposed to suffice for another decade if we didn't take up the F-16 deal.
I still believe we need another frigate, the MRV will suffice for peacekeeping roles in the south pacific, but for areas with the higher levels of potential harm such as the middle east, a frigate is needed. The OPV will free up a frigate patrolling the southern ocean, good idea, but there are times when a frigate is out of service for up to 2 years durring refits where the one remaining is going to be insufficient to "deliver the outcomes the force is funded to carry out" Even with double crewing, using the crew from the ship in refit, and turning around the other as quickly as can be done.
Defence budget has fallen to about .9% of GDP, partly due to the defence budget being managed to cancel out the effects of inflation while real growth is around 5% pa, if the budget were fixed at 1% of GDP, in 5 years it would be about 27% higher in real terms, that I can live with. The NZ defence forces have a little less than $NZ4b in assets from which depreciation is allowed of about $NZ300m pa for capital needs, the government steps in to provide additional funding for higher cost purchases. There is also a capital charge currently of around $NZ600m, basically the government charges the DF for the use of the funds it ties up but pays the bill itself, which is a paper entry, but this can make the NZDB seem higher than reality. I mention this as defence funding here differs from all other countries iirc.With so much run down over the years, a great deal of the new funds will be needed just to bring assetts up to standard, eg provide modern housing and base infrastructure, a lot of the base housing stock is 1950's state house vintage with little done to them over the years, a lot of the base building stock also goes back to WW2.
Sorry for getting so far out off track people but thanks for the oportunity to express my thoughts on the matter.

Supe

June 10th, 2005, 06:57 AM

New Zealand government had a surplus of $7.6 billion last year we could afford to have F-35s when they came out if we want to

I would expect government surpluses to reduce or pay off its debts. It's not sensible policy to go on a spending spree based on one or two surpluses. The economy and Government fiscal responsibility is just as important to a nation's security as an appropriately equipped and trained military is.

EnigmaNZ: I thought these interviews that might interest you. link 1 (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1358774.htm) link 2 (http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2005/s1358766.htm). It appears that the Government realise that they will need to spend the dollars to retain NZDF's current capabilities vis a vis an increase in the budget...modest though it is.

MARK BURTON: It's about recognising that it's time to complete the job of reversing the decay of the 1990s.

Aussie Digger

June 10th, 2005, 11:41 AM

They're fine if standard words from Mr Burton their, but NZ is doing anything but developing niche forces to deploy on ops. They are in fact developing fairly basic if lightly equipped motorised infantry based forces in the army along with a minimal air mobile component.

They are also developing (or retaining actually) severely limited airlift and surveillance capabilities and refusing or at least procrastinating on decisions to acquire capabilities that can actually defend NZ. Relying on Australia to provide capabilities such as airlift and Air Defence is foolhardy. A may come where such support is non-existent. Australia is hardly blameless in this area, indeed IT barely spends enough on defence...

At least though we recognise the fundamental issue that forces designed for war are capable of operating at lower levels of conflict. The reverse however is not true... Hopefully NZ doesn't learn this lesson the hard way...

nz enthusiast

June 10th, 2005, 05:42 PM

Helen should get the boot this year and she will probably be replaced by national-new zealand first government. These two parties are kind of like defence nutters. New Zealand first has it in there policy to upgrade the frigates, purchase attack helis, purchase fire support vehicles, if possible purchase fighters and arrange for the replacing of the C130s and P-3ks. Nationals minister of defence said he liked NZ firsts defence policy and said 'don't be suprised if our policy is incredibly similar'.

EnigmaNZ

June 10th, 2005, 06:36 PM

nz enthusiast (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/member.php?u=4198) vbmenu_register("postmenu_42430", true); , there may be a surplus on paper of $7.6b but new spending is set at $9.5b as the government is having to borrow $1.9b over the next year, the surplus is cash left after last years spending, but out of that has to come inflation adjustments to departments budgets, new spending on heath, defence, the NZ fund, debt repayments, etc But the announcement of all that new defence spending over the next decade was a shock, a pleasant one though, though really it only takes the defence budget back to where it was a a couple of years ago, defence was closer to 1.5% of GDP in the 90's compared to 0.9% today ($140b GDP, $1.2b Df) The big ticket items for replacement are 10 to 15 years away, the C-130's in 15 years at about $US80m (2004) each and the Orions, ours are the hardest working I read recently, so 10 - 15 year max, new replacement is going to run into the billions.
Say just read this, interesting, kinda puts the role of peacekeeping into its true perpective, it is not just a ground operation.
http://www.vuw.ac.nz/css/docs/reports/NZIIAdun.html

Aussie Digger

June 11th, 2005, 04:43 AM

That article is basically a longer version of what I wrote... What it does omit though, that the RNZN ANZAC frigates are rapidly becoming outclassed with respective to other Navies within the Asia-Pacific region. It's only offensive firepower is it's Mk45 5 inch gun.

Defensively it's a tad better with Seasparrow SAM's and Phalanx CIWS. At present they are not capable of providing NZ (or anyone else) with precision strike capabilities and are actually only capable of being operated with a fair degree of risk in "high intensity" circumstances. They were only ever designed as light patrol frigates afterall with some room for growth...

The P-3K Orion upgrade as presently authorised will only upgrade it's comms, navigation and surface surveillance capability. There is no money as yet for an ASW upgrade, no money for any weapons, and no money for an EWSP kit, meaning that it too cannot operate in a high intensity environment without significant risk...

NZ's currently policies mean that any future East Timor style operational deployments will probably have to be conducted once the situation is "benign", or else try and beg a "lift" from others who themselves lack or only possess small quantities of all the capabilities you might want...

Hopefully a new Government can correct these problems because NZ's forces have been VERY welcome in the past, they have been amongst the most capable forces I worked with, NZ Infantry in particular was renouned for it's toughness... It's a shame the "lefty" of this particular Government is hamstringing it's own forces...

EnigmaNZ

June 11th, 2005, 07:21 AM

Here is a site that covers most of the capital expenditure planned by the NZDF over the next few years. The ANZACS I believe are due for upgrading around the time of their refit in about 2010 I read somewhere.

http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/acq-proj-updates.shtml

http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/ltdp2004/9-proj-nec-avd-sig-risks-pol.shtml#ANZAC

I would like to think that the in the 2010 upgrade the Kiwi ANZACs will follow the Ozzies and backfit ASSM and the associated fire control systems, 2 harpoon quadpacks and searam on the raised area in front of the bridge with the phalyxn on the hangar. Then they will be half decent frigates, instead of big gunboats. If we are going to put them in harms way, we owe it to the crew to at least try and keep them in one piece.

EnigmaNZ

June 15th, 2005, 04:20 AM

Hmm, last I heard, the original brief for the OPV and the MRV was for a 76 mm, the oto melara prosumably, seen nothing since though.

Aussie Digger

June 15th, 2005, 04:38 AM

EnigmaNZ

June 15th, 2005, 07:00 AM

A contract has been signed for the 25 mm cannon for the MRV and OPV but as to that being their main gun, it doesn't say that. Here is the guidelines from the Ministery of Defence site.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/mfr/6cap-req-pol-gaps.shtml

EnigmaNZ

June 15th, 2005, 07:07 AM

My mistake, it does say "main gun'' :( Hopefully a case of "fitted for but not with" roll on the National government sheese. Still I suppose the thinking is the frigates handles any major confrontation, and the 25 mil keeps crew numbers and costs down.

Aussie Digger

June 15th, 2005, 09:19 AM

I'm not trying to be "superior" or anything, but this is a strange decision by the RNZN and NZ Government. This weapon system is limited to low level close-in self defence missions. It is not a replacement for a Phalanx type capability and will provide only extremely limited air defence and surface attack capabilities...

The RAN for instance has applied to the Australian Government for funding to allow for the same Typhoon 25mm gun mounting system to be fitted to ALL major RAN surface ships (ANZAC Frigates, FFG Frigates, HMAS Manoora, Kanimbla, Tobruk and Success and their eventual replacements) as a secondary weapon system to defend against USS Cole type attacks...

From the "artist" versions I've seen of the RNZN OPV's the 25mm gun is mounted on the front deck of the craft, much like the Australian Armidale Class Patrol Boats. Not sure about the MRV, but I'm not sure if a "main gun" system can be "fitted for but not with"? Maybe GF or someone knowledgeable about boats can answer this?

gf0012-aust

June 15th, 2005, 10:57 AM

From the "artist" versions I've seen of the RNZN OPV's the 25mm gun is mounted on the front deck of the craft, much like the Australian Armidale Class Patrol Boats. Not sure about the MRV, but I'm not sure if a "main gun" system can be "fitted for but not with"?

They're a non-intrusive system - so IMV it makes sense to fit the suckers to as amny boats as possible. Even if that just means fitting bases so that weapons can be shifted between hulls as necessary (eg Armidales/Customs etc...)

Logistically it makes sense to fit it to any hull that doesn't need hull/topdeck/structural changes. There isn't enough recoil in them to preclude them from a strengthened deck.

EnigmaNZ

June 17th, 2005, 01:24 AM

Published in Janes Navy International April 2002

Rear Admiral Peter McHaffie, Chief of Naval Staff of the Royal New Zealand Navy, talks to Richard Scott

The projected MRV will be ice-strengthened for maritime patrol operations in the Southern Ocean. Other requirements include long range, a limited tactical sealift capability (including transport of Army LAV III light armoured vehicles), support and sustainment for the deployed group for up to 30 days, and the ability to offload personnel and equipment without access to port facilities. The ship will also take over the training role currently performed by Canterbury.

Rear Adm McHaffie noted that “the MRV will be able to support disaster relief operations in the South Pacific as a major humanitarian role. For that, you will be using helicopters and landing sizeable amounts of equipment ashore in remote areas. That drives the requirement to land across a beach rather than through a port. That also gives you the ability to land army equipment and support army operations ashore.”

He added: “The funding available for the MRV is NZ$250 million. That of course will have an impact on the size and type of vessel. What we’re going to do is go to industry, tell them how much money we have, and then ask them to best satisfy our capability requirements. We’re not going to dictate the design solution to them – it will be cost and capability driven.”

With regard to the OPVs, Rear Adm McHaffie points out that a length of about 80m is regarded as the minimum to cope with the sea conditions encountered in the New Zealand economic exclusion zone. “That is driven by sea state and hull shape. But an advantage of having a vessel of that length is that we can then look seriously at helicopter operations from the vessel. If the OPVs can operate our new SH-2G helicopter then that is a definite plus. If there is some form of hangar facility available, than that’s even better.”

With the cost of the MRV taking half the budget on its own, plus the 2 OPV and the 4 IPV, probably a good idea to get hulls in the water while the will is there, the green members of government are a vocal lot when mention is made of weapons and anything military, gets the hulls built then quietly upgrade hehe, a new form of "stealth" eh.
There are pics of the MRV, OPV and IPV below.

EnigmaNZ

June 17th, 2005, 01:26 AM

Hmm, try pics again

EnigmaNZ

June 17th, 2005, 01:30 AM

Here are pics of what the MRV and OPV are supposed to be like.

EnigmaNZ

June 17th, 2005, 01:33 AM

Here is the IPV. I seem to be hitting some image limit. Well this is the site anyways.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/soi2005/part2-outcls-mgmtep.shtml

Jason_kiwi

June 18th, 2005, 02:21 AM

I think NZ is doing awesome!!!!!
we have got one of the best DF's for our size
I mean look at what we have purchased...
105 lavs
352 lovs
24 anti armour weapons
direct fire support weapons
12 NH90's
Air defence missiles
1 MRV
2 OPV
4 IPV
Upgraded c-130's and orions with missiles
Ans getting upgraded Frigates
Wow!!!
NZ is gettin good

Supe

June 18th, 2005, 07:29 AM

12 NH90's? I've not seen that confirmed. (I'd like to see the Kiwis get nothing less than 12 but we'll see) The MRV and OPV will be essentially defended by pop guns. As Aussie Digger has stated, the proposed main armarment "will provide only extremely limited air defence and surface attack capabilities..." Having something a bit more substantial firepower wise on these ships makes for great insurance. Those Typhoon's spell 'defence done cheap'.

Regarding the Orion upgrade. I see no mention of weapons upgrades... (link) (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=387931&C=airwar)

Under the deal signed by Burton, the Orions will get new radars and electronic sensors, communications and navigation systems

EnigmaNZ

June 18th, 2005, 08:23 AM

Hi Jason, good to see your enthusiam. Here are some images of the kiwi Mistals.
http://riv.co.nz/rnza/hist/local/mistral.htm
Prior to the Mistral, I think we fielded the Bofors Rbs 70 SAM, that was getting back into the 1980's and "90's. The Mistral we have had since 1999, but we only acquired the launching system, the new purchases are of the alerting and cueing system for the Mistral very low level air defence system (VLLADS) that finds the targets and ensures they are not friendly A/C.
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/vllad.shtml
Image of the A/C system
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/vllad-image.shtml
BTW, this properly belongs in Land Forces Jason :)

Aussie Digger

June 18th, 2005, 08:51 AM

Jason, it's good to see your enthusiasm but here's some facts; NZ doesn't yet have upgraded ANZAC frigates, (the project isn't even approved yet, let alone contracts signed), and only possessing 2 means the RNZN can't deploy a frigate for more than 6 months and still be able to rotate your forces.

It's Orions and Hercules have yet to be upgraded and no program has been announced to acquire a missile capability for the Orions, a Torpedo replacement program has been announced, but not yet approved.
The MRV, OPV and IPV's are going to be extremely limited capabilities. The MRV for instance, will only have a company lift capability...

The Mistral SAM's are NZ's first ever SAM capability IIRC. The alerting and cueing system will greatly improve their capability, which is basically stand alone at present... They bought them after the Brits got a bit uptight at having to provide basic low level air defence for NZ's deployed force to Bosnia.

Makes you wonder why politicians think other Countries won't have a problem providing for the capabilities that NZ has deliberately chosen not to acquire...

EnigmaNZ

June 18th, 2005, 07:46 PM

The MU90 torpedo
"It is presently in mass production for Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland and selected, as single source, by Australia and New Zealand."
http://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/missiles/eurotorp/

I am sure I read recently that we had selected the same torpedo as the Australians, I remember being disappointed it was not the US mk 50, until I read the specs on the MU90. I am going to hunt it down. Will post when I find the article.

Jason_kiwi

June 19th, 2005, 02:23 AM

Back to the project protector ships the NZ ships haven't fired a shot in anger for ages so y spend so much money arming them??? I am sure if there was a threat they would army them.Plus the helecopters on board will provide great fire power.

The anzacs...well aussie has 5 times NZ's population so they should have 5 times the amount of frigates...they dont. The project of upgrading the anzacs is going to be decided soon.

The IPV's are perfect for NZ. The opvs have good enough armarment with there helis:25mm cannon,50 cals,missiles,torpedos,etc.

I think they will definately get 12 NH90's

The MRV is perfect for NZ's needs.

Jason_kiwi

June 19th, 2005, 03:15 AM

Please got to http://www.defence.govt.nz/public_docs/ltdp2004/contents.shtml

It will show you how commited NZ is to defence.

Please read most of it...all of the projects.

Supe

June 19th, 2005, 04:08 AM

Back to the project protector ships the NZ ships haven't fired a shot in anger for ages so y spend so much money arming them???

With that mindset, why arm them at all? You could have fake guns with little banners that say Bang! when you press the trigger. Lets go even further, why have ships at all? Ditto to to the new LAV's and anything else defence related. By your reasoning, you could conclude there is no need for them. Most here would know the folly of that but it appears that those responsible for such decisions in NZ clearly don't. Some lessons are learn't the hard way.

The opvs have good enough armarment with there helis:25mm cannon,50 cals,missiles,torpedos,etc.

I agree. Pefect platforms for RAMSI type operations where danger is slight. God forbid, they go anywhere near a high threat environment though.

Aussie Digger

June 19th, 2005, 05:10 AM

Actually Jason, Australia's current frigate force is at 12 frigates, so that's 6 times NZ's force and the difference in capabilities between Australian and NZ frigates is so vast as to be almost incompatible. 3 out of 6 RAN ANZAC frigates are already equipped with ESSM.

The 2 remaining ANZAC frigates that are to be delivered by June 2006 will have ESSM fitted as new and the remaining 3 ANZAC frigates will be equipped in due course.

HMAS Warramunga (ANZAC 05) has already been fitted with Harpoon Block II. The remainder of the RAN ANZAC fleet is to be fitted out by December 05. I could go on about the differences, but it's a pointless and rather childish game...

The point of arming a ship is to allow it to be used in an operational environment. If you want to be able to put your ships in harm's way they need to be able to defend themselves. If they can't defend themselves adequately, (which non-upgraded ANZAC's arguably can't), they are next to useless.

Neither the MRV, OPV or IPV are to be equipped with missiles, torpedo's etc. The 25mm and 50 cals are it. Not even the infamous "fitted for but not with" is being proposed for these ships...

I have read NZ's project list. The list of kit seems impressive, but most of the projects have yet to be approved and is the basic necessities of modern warfare, nothing more. Plus, you should never count on receiving defence capability until you have the weapon in your hands...

EnigmaNZ

June 19th, 2005, 06:38 PM

The truth of the matter Jason is that NZ has let it's Defence budget slip significantly over the years vis a vis Australia and other nations. Less money equals less bang. The IPV OPV MRV are possibly envisaged to have to shot at nothing more than the odd trawler in our fishing zone, they are armed as auxilaries, as is the Endeavour, which only has light arms. When the contracts for Project Protector were being tendered out, it was thought publicly that the NZ$500 million available would only be enough for the MRV and OPV, the Moa class were to be upgraded. There seems to have been a slight massaging of the budget, less bang but 4 more IPV hulls, the Moa with their 12 knots were never good enough to act as a deterent to a 20 knot trawler.
Part of the problem Jason, I feel, is the way the budget is broken down these days. Once the budget would have read "11 billion for health, $11 billion for education, $1 billion for defence and everyone was happy" Today it is read "an additional $50 million for 2000 more cataract operations, and additional $30 million for 500 more hip operations, an additional $7 million for low decile schools, an additional $4 billion over the next 10 years for defence" and people start complaining about health waiting lists, low benefit levels etc and how all the problems in their particular area could be solved with that obscene amount going on "toys for arm chair generals" We now have vocal Green MPs that make no secret of their desire to reduce defence to IPVs and OPVs only. It puts defence funding on the back foot, and politically unpopular,having to explain why money needs to be spent on guns instead of hip operations.
A lot of the new defence funding merely covers inflation, upgrading infrastructure that is long overdue, eg housing that is generally old and run down, bringing salaries up to the levels of those in the private sector, and bringing capabilties up to very limited standards so we can operate with others in peacekeeping.

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 12:57 AM

I said that they have helis which are armed with torpedos and missiles.

how many frigates will the aussies have when they finish decomishining the older ones???
about 8???

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 01:08 AM

THE NZ NAVY CONSISTS OF

2 FRIGATES
1 TANKER
1 MRV
2 OPV'S
4 IPV'S
1 SURVEY
1 DIVING
2 LCM'S
1 SMB

I think that is great for our size...we have to remember aussie is over 5 times as big as us...

gf0012-aust

June 20th, 2005, 01:08 AM

I said that they have helis which are armed with torpedos and missiles.

how many frigates will the aussies have when they finish decomishining the older ones???
about 8???

The major surface combatants will still be from 12-15 depending on launch times.

The Adelaides are being upgraded, so 4 will still be active. One of the six us sleighted for decom in November, the 2nd within 6 months of that (so far). The remaining 4 will be upgraded as their hulls are on average a min 3-4 years younger. Plus they've done less Indian Ocean work.

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 01:24 AM

i think they are perfect

better than the aussies 4x4's

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 01:26 AM

sorry wrong thread...oops

can you please tel me what ships they will be

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 01:27 AM

does anyone know what class the opvs will be in

Jason_kiwi

June 20th, 2005, 01:31 AM

The RNZN navy consists of 15 ships

2 frigates
2 opvs
1 tanker
1 survey
1 diving/mine
4 ipv
1 mrv
2 lcm's
1 smb

simple...perfect to defend NZ

Aussie Digger

June 20th, 2005, 04:32 AM

As I said mate, I wasn't interested in a p*ssing contest, but was merely trying to point out a few realities. Trying to justify not arming your warships because you're not currently at war is the province of politicians and those with a political agenda.

The fact is, that when you become involved in operations you have to fight with what you've got. It's impossible to significantly upgrade your forces in the short time frames that are normally available pre-deployment because there's more to it than simply shelling out the money for the kit.

It has to be available for starters. All the money in the world won't get you a new missile system quickly if said system has to be built from scratch. The equipment needs time to be integrated onto the platform, tested and the troops trained in the use of said equipment. For complex systems like warships, major systems simply can't be installed overnight, no matter how much money is thrown at them.

As for your helo capabilities? Well NZ only has 5 SH-2G Super Seasprite helo's to rotate betweeen 5 ships... It's a pretty threadbare capability if you ask me. NZ would not be able to deploy 5 helo's at sea and sustain them for very long... Plus this miniscule fleet provides for no attrition capability at all if, all platforms were to be deployed simultaneously...

Despite the 15 ship fleet you've described, it's one that possesses only extremely limited capabilities (even for the small size of your Country) and is being deliberately hamstrung by it's own Government...

Australia currently has a planned fleet of 12 frigates, plus 3 soon to be acquired Air Warfare Destroyers (only ship Hull type and weapons fit is to be decided and Defence recommendations are currently before the Australian Government's National Security Committee for these remaining decisions).

The 12 frigates will comprise the 8 completed ANZAC frigates and the remaining 4 upgraded Adelaide Class FFG Frigates. Both ANZAC's and FFG's are programed for replacement from 2020 with a new Frigate design.

Cheers.

Jason_kiwi

June 21st, 2005, 12:25 AM

Yea, when u replace yours ours will be replaced too.

Aussie Digger

June 21st, 2005, 02:58 AM

It would make sense for Australia and NZ to collaborate on a new Frigate design. Both Countries will require new Frigates at around the same time...

Jason_kiwi

June 22nd, 2005, 12:12 AM

yea i think thats true

nz enthusiast

June 24th, 2005, 02:14 AM

gf0012-aust

June 24th, 2005, 02:58 AM

There has actually just been a leaked a defence force document leaked to the public which is stateing the boat is having stability problems and may not even be water tight. The problem we have faced is that another company that made a proposal for the deal sued the government because a review of the tenders said there offer was better and more relible, yet we went with tenix.

matey have you go an NZ link for that? I wouldn't mind reading it. I'd hate to see NZ make the same mistakes as Oz, ie buy within the ANZ block just to keep local business in place - esp when there are some better bargains to be had off shore.

I understand the issues of local economy, incentives, strat interests etc... but its not always relevant in procurement IMO.

nz enthusiast

June 24th, 2005, 04:23 AM

http://www.tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/593857/

The contents of the article:

Criticism over new Navy ship's safety
Jun 24, 2005
New Zealand Navy's new $250 million troop and transport ship may be sinking into crisis because of concerns about its stability and even how watertight it is.

Work has now resumed but critics aren't convinced the problems are over.

The vessle is the biggest of seven new ships being built by Australian company Tenix with a total cost half a billion dollars.

The so called multi role vessel will carry troops and equipment and accounts for half the cost of the contract.

Now a leaked Ministry of Defence report shows the government asked Tenix to suspend construction of the vessel because of safety and design concerns.

National MP Richard Worth says the document indicates that the vessel at the moment is not fit for its purpose in critical areas.

The report reveals serious concerns with the ship's stability during loading and also questions whether it's actually watertight in some conditions.

Builders Tenix told One News the concerns related to how the ship would manourvere when getting troops or equipment from ship to shore, which is Its main role.

It says work was stopped for two months but began again after designs were altered. It says no time or costs will be added to the project.

Defence Minster Mark Burton says construction was stopped to ensure the ship was being built to the right standard.

"A design modification phase was always going to be required to ensure that this vessel is fully compliant with New Zealand's requirements and the operational requirements of the New Zealand defence force and the other agencies that will use it," says Burton.

It's not the first set back for the project after the government signed with Tenix last year and an unsuccessful bidder took legal action.

The minister is confident the design concerns will be struck out and the ship will be ready by christmas next

Aussie Digger

June 24th, 2005, 10:24 AM

I thought the MRV was being built in the Netherlands, with Tenix Defence providing the project management side of this project?

EnigmaNZ

June 24th, 2005, 10:55 AM

Correct, because of the tight timeframes the MRV was contracted out by Tenix to Merwede Shipbuilders in the Netherlands, the OPV are to be mostly built in Australia with some input from NZ companies, and the IPV will be built in NZ.

"During February, RNZN officers attended the design review at Merwede Shipbuilders in the Netherlands, where the ship that is to be New Zealand’s Multi-Role Vessel is to be built. The MRV design is being adapted from a proven ‘Ro-Pax’ ferry design, the BEN MY CHREE of the Isle Of Man Steam Packet Company.
Ben My Chree is a combination passenger and freight ferry, providing the daily link between the Isle of Man and the north of England. [The Isle of Man, in the Irish Sea, is a major holiday destination, as well the venue for the Tourist Trophy Grand Prix motorcycle endurance races and other sporting events.] Although well served by airlines, the island requires regular, reliable sea transport. The Isle of Man Steam Packet Company has an agreement with the Manx government that allows it to have sole use of the linkspan in the port of Douglas in return for a guaranteed service to the island. The 12,500gt Ben My Chree makes two crossings a day during week days from the Isle of Man’s main port of Douglas to Heysham, near Morecambe, on the north-west coast of England. At the weekends she switches to a Douglas to Liverpool service (also served by a high-speed catamaran out of Liverpool).
Commodore Clipper sails the route between the UK and the Channel Islands of Guernsey and Jersey. The Jersey-based Commodore Group operates a number of ferries and high-speed craft between the UK, the Channel Islands and the northern coast of France. At US$48 million, Commodore Clipper - designed to carry freight, as well as passengers – is the largest single ship for maintaining the crucial link between the islands and the mainland. She can take six to eight hours to complete the crossing. The Channel Islands government granted an operating licence for the Commodore Clipper in 1998 on the understanding that full passenger accommodation would be available during the winter months (because weather conditions often do not allow the two fast ferries to serve the route).
DESIGN
The Commodore Clipper, a passenger and ro-ro cargo vessel (or Ro-Pax) was built at the Rotterdam-based van der Giessen de Noord shipyard in the Netherlands during 1998–1999. Commodore Clipper is constructed to meet the classification standards of Det Norske Veritas; the overall design is a continuation of the yard’s blueprint for ferries which it has built for three other companies: Norse Irish Ferries, Stena Line (UK) and Finaval.
Ben My Chree was built to Lloyd’s Register classification standards. She first entered service in summer 1998 but, following a series of customer complaints about on-board standards and facilities - passengers had also been disappointed that the initial design of the ship barred them from outside decks - the ferry company was forced to send her for a refit during her first winter to improve passenger accommodation. The ship has also undergone a £1.5 million refit in the January / February 2004 in which a new accommodation module was added, which greatly enhanced the ship’s passenger accommodation. In addition to the new accommodation section, the stern door was modified and the new livery including traditional steam packet stripes on the funnel were added.
FACILITIES
Commodore Clipper’s cargo capacity is up to 92 truck/trailer combinations and 279 cars. Space is provided for 500 passengers, 160 accommodated in 40 four-berth cabins. However, in summer operations when the wave piercers are also running, the vessel is restricted to 300 passengers. Crew accommodation is available for 37. There is a self-service restaurant, lounge, panoramic bar, VIP lounge and duty-free shop.
PROPULSION
Both ferries are powered by two MaK9M32 medium-speed diesel engines each developing 5,873bhp - a total of 11,746bhp – driving two controllable pitch propellers for an 18-19 knot service speed. For manoeuvrability in the small harbours that they use, the ships have bow thrusters.
Gross Registered Tonnage
BMC: 12,503 Commodore Clipper:13,456t
Passenger Capacity: 500
BMC: 420 in ordinary seating &80 in 20 four-berth cabins.
Commodore Clipper: 340 in seating & 160 in 40 4-berth cabins
Vehicle Capacity (Cars)
BMC: 275 Commodore Clipper:279
Service Speed 19 knots
Length Overall
BMC 125.2m Commodore Clipper:129.14m
Beam (both) 23.4 metres
Draught (both) 5.8 metres
Freight Capacity:
1235 lane-metres; 92 truck/trailers
Engine Type MAK 2 X 9m32
Year Completed:
BMC 1998 Commodore Clipper: 1999
Builders:
Van der Giessen de Noord(now part of Merwede Shipyards)Holland
Cost
BMC: US$39.5m Commodore Clipper: US$48M "

http://www.navy.mil.nz/rnzn/article.cfm?article_id=1661&article_type=discuss

EnigmaNZ

June 24th, 2005, 11:07 AM

Just having a look around and found this article that might be of interest. This compnay, which lost out to Tenix, made claims that aspects of the MRV design may be flawed, as it turns out, the problems the MRV project is having is just what was predicted by the competing shipbuilder, in sumary they questioned the suitability of the design, and the cost which they felt was grossly inflated for what is being provided. Note especially the paragraph between the ***....***

"2/8/04
Dutch shipbuilder Scheld Marinebouw BV says it has filed a legal claim seeking to overturn the Government's decision to award Australian firm Tenix a contract to build seven new ships for the navy.
Government ministers on Friday signed the contract with Tenix.A spokeswoman for Defence Minister Mark Burton said that had to be done by the end of July or the Government would have had to pay a penalty.
Schelde said Monday it had lodged a claim in the High Court in Wellington on Friday against the Ministry of Defence (as first defendant) and Tenix (as second defendant) for $55 million.
In April, Tenix was named as the preferred tenderer for the new navy ships under the $500 million Project Protector programme following what the Government described as "an exhaustive" tendering process.The project includes building a new 8000 tonne multi-role ship capable of undertaking tactical sealift and disaster relief operations in the Pacific.Tenix has contracted the Dutch shipyard Merwede to build that ship.The other new ships are two 1500 tonne offshore patrol craft and four 350 tonne inshore patrol ships.On Monday, Schelde said it was surprised the Ministry of Defence had concluded the contract for Project Protector despite being advised beforehand that a legal claim for $55 million was being prepared.
Schelde, as MoD's second preferred option for the multi-role vessel (MRV) has filed a claim in the High Court seeking to overturn the award of the Project Protector contract to Tenix Defence Pty Ltd, a spokesman for Schelde Shipbuilding said in a statement.Burton's spokeswoman and a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said no legal papers had yet been received.he Schelde spokesman said it was the actions of Ministry of Defence officials that were being questioned.
Schelde has no beef with fellow shipbuilder Tenix. But in our opinion Tenix has wrongly been awarded the contract through a fatally flawed tender process," the spokesman said.Tenix has only been nominated as a defendant because of New Zealand's legal requirements.

***Schelde said its claim questioned both the safety of the proposed ship-to-shore transfer system and whether the Ministry of Defence could lawfully have chosen it.It suggested the proposed MRV could easily turn out to be another HMNZS Charles Upham.That ship, which has been described previously as a lemon, was sold because it was considered too costly to upgrade. Schelde said that aside from carrying a landing craft, the MRV's roll-on roll-off design provided little additional capability notwithstanding its likely price tag of up to $250 million. Other shipbuilders were probably capable of meeting the full operational requirements within the US$100 million ($NZ158.75m) originally indicated as being available for this project.***

Schelde was part of the Damen Shipyards Group employing 11,000 people worldwide, with 30 yards delivering more than 160 vessels a year and an annual turnover in excess of one billion Euro ($NZ1.92 billion), its spokesman said.Burton's spokeswoman said the contract with Tenix had been signed after final ministry negotiations that were supported by legal and technical advice.A spokesman said Defence Secretary Graham Fortune could not comment because the ministry had not yet received any legal papers from Schelde"

Aussie Digger

June 24th, 2005, 12:04 PM

Here's what the Merwede shipyard website has to say about the MRV:

Merwede Shipyard, a full subsidiary of the stock listed IHC CALAND is proud to announce the contract award for the design, engineering and building of one Multi-Role Vessel, for Tenix Defence PTY,Ltd. Of Australia.
Functionality: The Multi Role Vessel meets or exceeds all operational requirements of the New Zealand Ministry of Defence, including those for cargo and troop carriage, speed, endurance, helicopter operations and the secondary role of Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) patrol and response.

The vessel has the following main particulars:

Main dimensions and Charactaristics:

Length over all 131,2 metres
Length between perpendiculars 115,1 metres
Breadth moulded 23,4 metres
Design Draught moulded 5,6 metres
Deadweight 2925 tonnes
Maximum speed 19,6 knots

This Multi-Role Vessel is part of a total of seven vessels that will be supplied by Tenix Defence to the Ministry of Defence of New Zealand. The building period for the Multi-Role Vessel is 22 months.

A computer generated image of the MRV can be found here:

http://www.merwede.com/images/uploaded/582004155151.jpg

All above info can be found at www.merwede .com

As people can probably see, all thoughts that the MRV will be an 'actual" combat vessel, are gone. It will only be lightly armed, and not likely to ever carry more significant armament than the 25mm cannon and 0.50cal machine guns it will be fitted with from the outset.

Jason_kiwi

June 27th, 2005, 12:43 AM

gf0012-aust

June 27th, 2005, 12:52 AM

What you dont see is that when the mrv and opvs have to be deployed into dangerous circumstances they will have there seaspit helis which are armed with mgs torps depth charges homing torps and minstril missiles...that is fire power.

When it sees an enermy frigate the heli takes off launches homing torps and minstril missiles while the mrv or opv are lobbing 25mm bullets at them.

That may well be the case in a benign environment. But the vessels either provide meaningful air defence via organic ewarfare or they act in concert with a skimmer that has a meaningful air warfare role.

without that the sprog is at risk.

the very reason why the Oz ANZACs are getting new warfare suites and toys is because they were about as useful as a big USCG Ocean cutter.

A lone frigate is a target of opportunity - it's not a substantial threat delivery platform.

against NZ's likely threat matrix, they are more than sufficient for current roles. However, the day that they are required to work as a complimentary asset in an expeditionary role, they will need to be paired up with an AWD platform. RNZN knows that as well.

Aussie Digger

June 27th, 2005, 06:45 AM

Jason,

The 25mm Bushmaster cannon, has a range of about 2.5k's. That's it. It would be the closest naval engagement in modern history if it could actually engage another warship... Any warship that is likely to be considered a threat is probably going to be equipped with a more capable gun than the MRV, meaning that the RNZN is going to have to rely an awful lot on it's Seasprite helo's.

Let's hope this enemy ship is not also equipped with Surface to air missiles, the Seasprite is going to find this very environment very difficult otherwise...

I'd also be very surprised if the RNZAF has acquired air to air versions of the Mistral missile for the Seasprites too. It would be a world first and would probably have attracted quite a bit of attention. The New Zealand Army operates a troop of Mistral surface to air missiles in it's 16 Field Regiment but that's the only Mistral purchase by NZ as far as I'm aware. I'd be happy to be proved wrong on this point though.

Did you mean Maverick air to ground missiles possibly? Either way, the Seasprite cannot realistically operate each of these weapon types on a single mission, and the Seasprite has a relatively limited range even by helo standards and you are also banking solely on the reliability of the helo. All this means that the combat options for the RNZN are very limited with this ship...

alexsa

June 29th, 2005, 06:14 AM

The 25mm Bushmaster cannon, has a range of about 2.5k's. That's it. It would be the closest naval engagement in modern history if it could actually engage another warship

Actually, just to be cheeky, the HMS Belfast engaged a German destroyer at point blank range in the North Atlantic in very misty conditions. In saying this the German vessel did not have an effective radar and thought Belfast was one of it own .... twleve 6" shells dispelled that illusion pretty quickly and with fatal results. I doubt a 25mm cannon really falls into that category.

In so far as lauching homing torpedoes at a ship I would not want to be on that helcopter even is the ship was equiped with a 76mm and half decent fire control to be perfectly honest.

Aussie Digger

June 30th, 2005, 03:58 AM

I meant, but did not state "since WW2" in my last post. I think my point is valid though. The 25mm gun is not designed to be engaged in gun battles with other surface combatants. Too little range and hitting power. The gun is designed as a last ditch self defence weapon and to enable a ship to engage "non-combat" vessels, ie: type 3 illegal fishing boats, etc. I wouldn't want to be on said helo either. If the Seasprite is attempting to engage a warship with a Maverick missile or a Mk 46 torpedo, then there is a fair bet that said warship is probably going to have some sort of SAM system. Helo's generally do not fair particularly well when SAM's are fired at them. Particularly helo's with next to no EWSP systems, just like NZ's...

Jason_kiwi

July 1st, 2005, 09:16 PM

Hi
Could anybody tell me how much the aussies spent on the upgrades for just one anzac frigate???

Jason_kiwi

July 1st, 2005, 09:24 PM

Also here are built models of the PP ships

RNZN OPVs(getting 2)
http://www.ads345.com/adView.aspx?requesturl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.defencemod els.com.au%2FProjects%2Fimages%2FDSC09752lrg.jpg&mac=386e10e9&Segment=1
RNZN IPV's(getting 4)
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09853med.jpg (http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09853lrg.jpg)
RNZN MRV(getting 1)
http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09900med.jpg (http://www.defencemodels.com.au/Projects/images/DSC09900lrg.jpg)

Aussie Digger

July 1st, 2005, 11:52 PM

It's a bit hard to establish a price for the upgrade of a single ANZAC because they are being upgraded in a series of rolling upgrades, some of which (such as MU-90 and Harpoon II) were paid for quite a while ago. The ANZAC anti-ship missile defence (ASMD) upgrade program recently announced is costing $250 Million just for phase 1, which includes radar and fire control upgrades, the incorporation of and infra-red search and track system and a "second channel of fire" for the fleet (8 ships).

Given the Harpoon II missiles for the ANZAC frigates cost $64 million, plus upgraded Harpoon weapons control systems were acquired for an unknown sum and the MU-90's are being acquired for an unknown sum, plus the programmed phase 2 of the ASMD upgrade being another $250 million worth, plus the new towed sonar array, mine avoidance systems, additional Mk 41 VLS and ESSM missiles etc, you're probably looking at not much change out of $500 million per ship...

EnigmaNZ

July 2nd, 2005, 12:47 AM

Ah, they are going with the 16 cell VLS on the Oz ANZACs, kewl, all ESSM's or a mix, hmm, tactical and they already have harpoon in the box launchers, so all ESSM's prosumably, equivalent of 64 SM-1's, nice.

alexsa

July 2nd, 2005, 12:56 AM

Ah, they are going with the 16 cell VLS on the Oz ANZACs

The ship is certainly fitted witht he space for 16 cells but the information I have suggested the addition 8 cells have not yet been funded in the up grades taht are happening.

As a matter of interest I have seen a early GA plan of these ships in their 'intended' final configuration (intended when first being contracted). In those drawings they had all 16 cells, the additiona fire control system, 2 CIWS (one where the harpoonnow is and one on the hanger) and harpoon behind the mast. Looked very nice I have to say.

There are those that know much more about this that me but it seems likley that other upgrades will happend before the other 8 cells are fitted (if at all)although it would be a useful increase in capability.

Supe

July 2nd, 2005, 04:05 AM

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 04:08 AM

Can anybody tell me of any short/medium range patrol aircraft???

And does any body anything about how the NZ government is thinking about gunships???

thanks

alexsa

July 2nd, 2005, 04:12 AM

Regarding the RAN ANZACS: I think it's crazy they don't have a CIWS mounted on those ships. Is this to be rectified?

This project (http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1448/sea1448.cfm) makes vague mention of anti-ship missile protection.

A close in weapons system/anti missile system is included as part of future upgrades. I am not sure if these systems have formal funding approval at this stage (I don't think so) but they are certainly are part of the project being considered.

It may not be gun based system but I not SeaRAM and Mistral have been mentioned.

Supe

July 2nd, 2005, 04:16 AM

IIRC the Huey's the Kiwis employ has a latent gunship capability but it's not in the same league as a helicopter designed and dedicated to that role. I don't see the Kiwis purchasing any gunships, at least not with the defence budget available and the government mindset.

Edit: Huey gunship (http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air-support/vietnam/gunships.htm)

Oh and if you like miniguns: click me (http://www.big-boys.com/articles/iraqfootage.html)

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 04:29 AM

Do you know any short/medium range patrol aircraft???

gf0012-aust

July 2nd, 2005, 04:40 AM

Do you know any short/medium range patrol aircraft???

Are you talking full maritime patrol or search and rescue?

if the latter, then Oz uses a Dornier 328.

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 04:46 AM

more coast guard type

gf0012-aust

July 2nd, 2005, 04:53 AM

more coast guard type

Aircraft types vary from Fokker Friendships (Indons), Dash 8's, Dornier 328's (Oz), Orions, Nimrods, Atlantiques, IL-38's, Falcon 900's and Hercules.

Some of these aircraft types might double up as ASW and/or AEW&C depending on the military.

Aussie Digger

July 2nd, 2005, 05:33 AM

CASA C-235/295 aircraft also come with modular martime patrol, ASW packages as well and can double up as transport aircraft...

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 04:17 PM

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 04:42 PM

The MRV will be very capable
can carry a combany of troops and fighting vehicles
2 landing craft
5 NH90 helis
1 seaspite heli
arms: 25mm vulcan rapid cannon,4 50cal mg's

The OPV will be armed with 25mm and 4 50cals (25mm bullet are about 30cm long and a 50cal is about 12cm)

This is why the IPV's are much better than the old Moa class IPVs

The old inshore Patrol craft have served us well, but the four new Inshore Patrol Vessels will be more than twice the size and speed capability of the vessels they replace and will have a range of more than 3000 nautical miles, more than double that of the old craft. They will accommodate 36 crew and will be armed with three .50 calibre machine guns compared with the IPCs' one.

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 05:03 PM

Here is an article on NZ's poor little rich military

In reality, Defence has had vast amounts of taxpayer money earmarked for its use by this government. Despite the huge surpluses that Finance Minister Michael Cullen has chosen to amass, the health system has not enjoyed the instant gratification given to Defence, virtually from the moment that the Clark government took office.

Since the Defence Ministry's annually upgraded Long Term Development Plan was announced in 2002, 22 major projects have proceeded, totalling some $3 billion over the next decade – with roughly 40 percent being spent on the Air Force alone. Yes, the Air Force did lose the old Skyhawks, but its new expenditure includes:

$352 million for the upgrade of the Air Force P-3 Orions

an estimated $100-200m for the purchase and modification of two Boeing 757s for transporting VIP personnel and cargo

an estimated $400-$550m for the replacement of the current fleet of Iroquois utility helicopters

an estimated $11m to replace the Sioux training helicopters

an estimated $8m upgrade of Ohakea Air Force Base.

As for the Army, its new big-ticket items include:

$93m for a new fleet of Pinzgauer light operational vehicles to replace the Army's Land Rovers

$672m for a fleet of LAVs (light armoured vehicles) to replace the old M-113 tracked vehicles. The additional operational costs for these vehicles will rise from $12.9m this financial year to an estimated $15.21m in 2007/08

$26.8m for 24 Javelin medium-range anti-armour weapon systems

$120m for the so-called TMCS (tactical and mobile communication system) radios

$10m for an identification, alerting and cueing air defence missile capacity to complete our current Mistral VLLAD (very low-level air defence) system.

And the Navy hasn't missed out. Its checklist includes:

$500m for the Protector project that involves the acquisition of a new multi-role vessel, two 85-metre offshore patrol vessels and four 55-metre inshore patrol vessels to enhance military and economic security within our exclusion zone

the review of the Crown's long-term ocean-based research needs, and how the Navy can meet them.

In addition, the first phase (estimated cost: $10m) of the joint command and control system (JCCS) was completed in October 2003, and Cabinet approval is being sought for the next phase.

The bureaucrats haven't missed out, either. Their bounty includes:

a new $58.3m Defence HQ building in downtown Wellington, to be surrounded by an anti-terrorism security zone that will exacerbate the city's parking problems.

And for the troops? The 2004 Budget allocated a $20m pay rise for the armed forces – their fourth in four years – plus an additional $16m to enhance Air Force recruitment. In mid 2003, Defence Minister Mark Burton noted that the pay increases for 2003 alone "will equate to an increase of $1000 to $5000 per annum for the majority of personnel".

None of these figures includes the multi-million cost of the deployments in Timor Leste, Afghanistan and Iraq. True, the huge amounts cited above are spread over several years – yet, if anything, the sums are understated, in that most do not include project-creation costs, operational costs and inflation adjustments due after 2005/06.

Yes, Defence (like the health and education sectors) has been underfunded for years. It is also true that the Navy's Protector project will have economic and biosecurity benefits. By the same logic – presuming that national security is the rationale for the spending spree – the $70.2m in police anti-terrorism funding also belongs in this tally, as does the extra

$14.8m allocated to create dedicated police national security teams.

Can such massive expenditures possibly be justified, given the social and infrastructural needs evident elsewhere in New Zealand? The armed forces do face recruitment and retention problems – but then, so do the health and education systems, without being blessed with such a slew of new, ameliorative projects.

In election year, the government will be pointing to its 2004 Budget package of $1.2 billion for families in need. Very welcome, no doubt. It will be up to Labour to explain why it first ensured that the Army and Air Force had each been allocated similar levels of support. Odd priorities, some might think, for a centre-left government.

Jason_kiwi

July 2nd, 2005, 05:12 PM

I think the NZ Army is great...105 fighting vehicles,352 LOV's,24 anti armour weapons,mistril sam,unimog trucks,reconaccance vehilces,support vehicles,carl guistaf,81mm morters,105mm artillary,etc

The Navy is good except short 1 frigate,2 frigates,2 OPV's,1 MRV,1 Replemish,2 survey,1 diving/mine,4 patrol,2 LCM's,2 training.

The airforce is good except needs 20-30 fighters,7 transport,12 helis,3 short range patrol,new medium range patrol being considered,6 orions,5 seaspites,16 stunt/training,etc

all we need is 1-2 more frigates and some fighters

nz enthusiast

July 2nd, 2005, 08:04 PM

Jason_kiwi , will all the weapons you listed fit on the OPV, and if so why dont we just have them on there anyway and call them corvettes?. I think two corvettes sounds more impressive than two OPV. Its just another letter combination i need to remember along with lav, lov, ipv, mrv etc

alexsa

July 3rd, 2005, 12:11 AM

Hi Jason

You have me confused. First you state

Can such massive expenditures possibly be justified, given the social and infrastructural needs evident elsewhere in New Zealand? The armed forces do face recruitment and retention problems – but then, so do the health and education systems, without being blessed with such a slew of new, ameliorative projects.

then we get

The Navy is good except short 1 frigate,2 frigates,2 OPV's,1 MRV,1 Replemish,2 survey,1 diving/mine,4 patrol,2 LCM's,2 training.

The airforce is good except needs 20-30 fighters,7 transport,12 helis,3 short range patrol,new medium range patrol being considered,6 orions,5 seaspites,16 stunt/training,etc

all we need is 1-2 more frigates and some fighters

If you think they are spending too much now 23 to 30 fighters (even if you get ex RAAF HUG F/A18s) along with all the other goodies (1 to 2 frigates, new patrol air craft etc) will really blow your budget.

Jason_kiwi

July 3rd, 2005, 12:18 AM

That first quote was from an article on how NZ has a poor little rich military.

I think every thing is good exept we need an air strike force and possibly 1 or even 2 more Frigates. that would only cost about 2 billion...not to bad for 2 120m frigates and 28 F-16's.

nz enthusiast

July 3rd, 2005, 12:29 AM

and what about the hurcleus and orions which always seem like they are going to fall from the sky, do you agree they should be getting these pathetic upgrades.
What about the army they have been waiting for fire support vehicles nw for eight years.
and the navy, they are still using armament from the 1980's, would you prfer two good well armed friagtes or three useless ones, and what about endevour (the tanker), the survey ship and the diving boat. They are all coming up to replacement time too, what would you do about them?

alexsa

July 3rd, 2005, 01:15 AM

Hi Jason

The cost of actually buying the hardware is only half the issue. Training maintenance and intergration swallow up a whole lot of money as well. the problems is the hardware will never be effective unless the money is spent on training, maintenance and intergration.

An issue that will confront NZ should they decide to expand their forces or add new weapons systems is the time and cost assocaited with learning the skills. The vessels included in project protector could be operated by a crew with a much lower level of training (they could be managed by a 'competent' merchant navy crew) than that required to effectively operate something like an AWD.

The impact of lost skills cannot be understated. If NZ allows itself to become a patrol craft navy the cost impliations of trying to ramp back up to a higher capability level will be considerable.

Slightly off thread but this will certainly also be the case if NZ re-establishes it Air combat capability.

Australia is certainly not immune from this and I suspect that if we ever decide to put F35Bs on the amphibs (we can only hope) we are going to have a very steep learning curve if we don't do some preplanning.

Supe

July 3rd, 2005, 06:28 AM

That first quote was from an article on how NZ has a poor little rich military.

In future, please provide the original source by pasting the link. (It should be fricken mandatory!)

Edit: Going by these articles,I'm beginning to wonder if there is any balanced reporting on defence affairs going on in mainstream NZ newspapers. Spending all that money on defence... how horrible! Any decent journo would know the reason why NZ is having to spend that money and that is obsolence and spiralling costs in maintaining such old equipment. You can't put off upgrades indefinitely as the price to pay may be that of significantly reduced capability and in the worst case, loss of NZ personnel lives.

gf0012-aust

July 3rd, 2005, 07:29 AM

General word of advice.

Can people please merge posts rather than run them one after the other.

In the past we have just deleted posts that could have been merged as it becomes a bit irritating after awhile.

I've had to edit quite a few in the last few days.

Also, if you are replying to a post - then quote that person. It makes it very difficult if people have to try and backtrack what you are replying to.

Aussie Digger

July 3rd, 2005, 11:42 AM

In future, please provide the original source by pasting the link. (It should be fricken mandatory!)

Edit: Going by these articles,I'm beginning to wonder if there is any balanced reporting on defence affairs going on in mainstream NZ newspapers. Spending all that money on defence... how horrible! Any decent journo would know the reason why NZ is having to spend that money and that is obsolence and spiralling costs in maintaining such old equipment. You can't put off upgrades indefinitely as the price to pay may be that of significantly reduced capability and in the worst case, loss of NZ personnel lives.

Journalists usually know nothing of defence. Even those asked to report on it. Those that do aren't interested in reporting truth, because it doesn't sell. Fantasy does... If this journalist new anything of defence, he would know that NZ spends bugger all on defence compared to most countries. NZ currently spends around 0.8% of it's GDP. Basically every other "Western" Country spends well over 1.0% of it's GDP. Australia for instance spends around 1.9% (which is still too low...)

He whines about NZ's massive expenditure and states words to the effect that NZ education and Health have no such investment programs. That's more than likely because they are maintained properly. Health and Education are such big Vote winners, no politican can afford to skimp on them. Defence is not so lucky. If there's no actual war on, most people consider defence a White elephant. If he were interested in fair reporting he might compare the respective annual budgets provided to Health and Education as opposed to defence. Of course, it probably wouldn't support his sensationalist argument though...

In Australia defence is well behind Social Security, Health, Education, transport, infrastructure and probably several other Government programs. You simply can't get enough votes by investing in defence. Other than in war time that is, when under-funding of defence is ALWAYS dramatically exposed by you losing and your soldiers being killed...

Aussie Digger

July 3rd, 2005, 12:06 PM

There current proposed armament is
25mm vullcan rapid fire cannon, 50 cals
Seaspite helicopter armed with mavrick anti ship missiles,torps,depth charges,homing torps and mg's

I think the opvs hav a fine armament for now. If they were to go onto combat I think they should arm them with

A twin 60mm Cannon
2 25 mm vulcans
2 triple torpedo tubes
1 mistril SAM site
4 50cal mgs

The OPV's are currently being equipped with a Typhoon 25mm gun on the front deck. A cursory glance at said shows that the ship is not large enough to mount a much bigger gun than this. It is being designed for patrol duties, NOT combat duties.

Possibly a Swedish Mk 3 57mm Naval gun, here is a pic: http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123_mk3_pic.jpg (http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNSweden_57-70_mk123_mk3_pic.jpg)

the specs are here: http://www.boforsdefence.com/eng/products/nav3_57mmmk3.htm

such as that being fitted to the US LCS could be fitted, which would greatly improve the utility of these vessels in higher level combat situations. I doubt a 76mm gun could be fitted into the OPV's, too intrusive into the ships hull. I'm not aware of any current generation 60mm guns.

The Mistral or SADRAL as it is known when it's fitted to Naval vessels is a possibility.

Specs are here:

http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=164

This system is being proposed as the CIWS for the Australian ANZAC anti-ship missile defence upgrade. If the space on the OPV's is not sufficient, SIGMA also manufactured by MBDA might be an option. This is a combined 25mm Typhoon gun and 3x Mistral missile combination used from the same MSI mount as the simple 25mm Typhoon gun already being fitted to the OPV's...

Jason_kiwi

July 4th, 2005, 01:17 AM

Yes they should go through with the orion upgrades and they will probably arm them with anti ship missiles. I would replace all the ships u mentioned and arm them with a 25mm. The army has its new 105 fighting vehicles which are better than what the oz's have.

Aussie Digger

July 4th, 2005, 09:00 AM

EnigmaNZ

July 4th, 2005, 05:56 PM

Lol, aussie digger, never argue with a patriotic teen, facts just get in the way, you can never win the debate hehe.
Most probably we will have a Brash led National government with a Peters led NZ First as a coalition partner, so any plans from 2006 on are fluid, existing capital expenditure plans should proceed but anything new or any role changes are really mute at this point. Brash is promising billions in tax relief so the kitty is going to be tight. Brash is an economist first, use to head the Reserve Bank, Peters is more your "tell them what they want to hear and bask in the popularity" type politician.
My own view is, as we do not have the ships to play escort to our auxilaries, they should have a more capable self defensive fitout. The MRV and OPV are intended to be used outside of NZ waters, though in the case of the OPV, probably only as far as our Pacific neighbours, but the OPV is the size of a light frigate, and if armed as such, could participate in low level peacekeeping operations in the wider region. I just hope they are capable of being upgraded later. The only way I think the government is going to get shaken from their "peacenik" way of thinking is for a Cole like incident to happen to one of our vessels. I just hope loss of life in such a situation is minimal if at all.

alexsa

July 4th, 2005, 10:45 PM

Originally Posted by Jason_kiwi
I would replace all the ships u mentioned and arm them with a 25mm.

Sorry Jason, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about in regards to this comment.

Jason_kiwi

July 5th, 2005, 12:34 AM

Sorry Jason, I haven't got a clue what you are talking about in regards to this comment.

you mentioned the replemish,mine/diving and survey ship are due for replacement. I said if I could do anything I would replace them and arm them with a 25mm cannon and several 50 cals.

Except we've got 264 of ours... :p:

you have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat. We have no threat and we are 5 times as small as you..does that explain anything...

gf0012-aust

July 5th, 2005, 01:02 AM

Jason.

I've tidied up your posts. Please note the following:

Merge posts where possible so that we don't end up with a run of one liners or short responses following each other.

Please quote whoever you respond to - it makes things difficult to sort out for other readers

re your last post and numbers of LAVs. I think you'll find that AD was talking the mickey out of you - hence Enigmas follow on response.

Aussie Digger

July 5th, 2005, 08:21 AM

you have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat. We have no threat and we are 5 times as small as you..does that explain anything...

Relax my son, breath in, breath out... I only meant my previous comment as a joke. Please don't take offence.

Jason_kiwi

July 6th, 2005, 12:55 AM

So you realise my comment was true

"You have 264 we have 105...you have 5 times our population and a threat...we are five times as small as you and have no threat. so you should have atleast double what you have...the aussies are gettin behind...hehehe

and you guys reacon we are behind...sheese

gf0012-aust

July 6th, 2005, 01:32 AM

Jason, this is the last time I'm going to ask you. Please merge your posts rather than add one after the other. I've spent the last few days following behind tidying up - I don't want to keep on doing it.

In future you run the risk of having them deleted.

Aussie Digger

July 6th, 2005, 12:46 PM

At the risk of starting a "mine is better than yours type" futile argument, I'd like to point out Jason, that the Australian Army ONLY uses it's (264) ASLAV's for recon and Cavalry purposes NOT troop transport, (despite current ops in Iraq)...

We use Bushmaster Infantry mobility vehicles (299) and M113's for that, (350) of which are being upgraded to a new AS3/AS4 standard and are to be delivered from 2006 onwards. In addition our new M1A1 Abrams tanks (59) in total are also to be delivered from 2006 onwards.

In total Australia will be receiving around 970 (or around 9 times NZ's TOTAL) new or vastly upgraded armoured vehicles during the 2005 - 2010 period.

NZ by comparison has 105 armoured vehicles. Who do you really think is getting left behind?

Btw, who is a threat to Australia?

Jason_kiwi

July 7th, 2005, 02:25 AM