Future options for the RNZN [Archive]

Lucasnz

March 23rd, 2006, 05:10 PM

With Project Protector fast coming to completion, the RNZN will have a force structure of

2 ANZAC Frigates, 2 OPV, 4 IPV, 1 MRV, 1 AOR (Endeavour), 1 Survey Ship, 1 Diving Tender, 1 Training Vessel / Diving Tender, 5 SH2G, 1 Survey Tender, 4 Small Sailing Craft. Of these the following will be due for replacement within 10 years: Endeavour (1988) - built to civilian tanker specs, Diving Tender (1988) and purchased 2nd Hand, Training Vessel/ Diving Tender (Kahu) - 1979.

What are the options for the future. As I see it...

The Diving Tender and Kahu should be replaced with the surplus Huon Class in Australia and modified to take a decompression chamber. This would give NZ a more capable MCM capability than at present. Endeavour would be replaced by something similar to what the Canadian Maritime command is building.

There is no doubt that NZ needs more combat capable vessels the question is does NZ purchase 2 more Frigates or buy 2 or 4 Corvettes to meet the low to medium level operations NZ is more likley to be involved in? Frigates under their traditional definition are the smallest ships capable of conducting independent operations. One definition of a Corvette that I have seen is a ship capable of conducting independent low to medium level operations. Looking at many of the corvettes currently been built and vessels like the French Floreal class it would seem that a corvette would be a more appropiate force multiplier with the ANZAC's acting as a "Squadron Leader". Yes I know the concept of Sqn's for navy' has died.

The Corvettes would have the Sea Keeping and Endurance of an ANZAC, Medium Gun to support the MRV, Limited ASW (Active Hull, Torp Tubes and Decoy), SURBOC, RAM and 2 x .50cal, plus full helicopter. Sensors would be limited to something similar to similar to the Floreal or Thetis Class.

Your thoughts and opinions:)

Whiskyjack

March 23rd, 2006, 06:19 PM

There are multiple problems with the RNZN at the present time (in regards to global capability).

The first is that the as a surface combatant the ANZAC is far from ideal at the moment. My understanding is the combat system cannot fire the 5 inch and sea sparrow at the same time (please feel free to correct me on this). There is only one eight cell VLS launcher.

My hope is that the RNZN will follow the Australian ANZAC upgrade, which will make them more capable. Combat persistence with a limited number of VLS tubes will always be a problem for the ANZACs if you want to go for medium range AAW etc..

I would prefer two more frigates than corvettes, but I do not see either happening. The cheapest way I could think to do this (post 2010) is to go to Korea, Spain etc and get one or two evolved MEKO hulls built and have them fitted out to the upgraded ANZAC standard, in Australia, which will provide for commonality.

Two more combatants will mean a crew of 300 odd for both. Not sure that NZ could train and equip this many people at the moment. Would also need 2-3 more Seasprites.

For the South Pacific Patrol Capability I think Protector will give NZ a fine patrol and EEC protection capability. I want to see the MRV dedicated to Army carriage/logistics. The idea that a vessel can be a Army logistics ship and a patrol vessel does not work for me

Another area I would like to sea improved is the replacement of the Endeavour with a combat support ship, that also has an ability to carry and transfer a greater amount of stores, including ammunition. With a limited ability to carry specialist units etc.. Also an ability to keep up with frigates. Endeavour is limited by speed. Another Korea job.

Not really thought through budget here, but as I said none of this is likely to happen.

Aussie Digger

March 23rd, 2006, 09:03 PM

I think for a future RNZN many things need to occur. Both ANZAC class frigates urgently need to be upgraded in a similar fashion to the RAN's ASMD and Harpoon II integration. The ANZAC's need at least "second channel of fire" installed, meaning a radar upgrade, whether they opt for the RAN idea of the CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT combo which will provide "multiple" channels of fire, I can't say, but from a capability perspective, it would seem to be the way to go.

Both ANZAC's need ESSM integrated into their existing VLS as a minimum. They need a surface to surface missile capacity OR an upgrade to their Mk 45 5 inch gun AND to acquire the extended range guided munition, to give them a reasonable standoff capability. Both ANZAC's need a new torpedo capability, whether it be the MU-90 that the RAN has chosen or the newer US lightweight torpedo (Mk 50 possibly?)

On top of these, I think the ANZAC class need a second CIWS system. Either MISTRAL, using the Tetral launcher or SeaRam would be fine. I think Phalanx's days of usefulness are numbered.

Other capabilities they require to be capable of the "independant" operations mentioned above, include a mine/obstacle avoidance system, an IRST system and upgraded EW and passive sonar capabilities. The SH-2G/Maverick combo should be fine for the next few years, but an upgraded EWSP kit and possibly an upgraded multi-mode radar (to provide OTH targetting capability) would provide a VERY useful enhancement for the SH-2G.

For the remainder of the fleet, a couple more OPV's would greatly increase RNZN's patrol capabilities, the 25mm gun is enough for a basic patrol boat and NZ having no intention to use them in higher level warfare scenario's shouldn't waste money on attempting to upgrade them for this role. Another major surface combatant or 2 would do far more for NZ's combat power, than any upgrades to these limited vessels would achieve.

For a future fleet, additional MEKO 200 vessels would round out the fleet nicely. I believe vessels of this class are still being made and commonality could probably be achieved to a fairly large degree, with their existing ANZAC's. A surface combatant force of 4 highly capable frigates, plus the MRV and a dedicated oiler/underway replenishment ship (Australia just bought HMAS Sirius for $50 mil, plus another $100 mil to modify it for RAN use) plus the patrol fleet would be about the best NZ could do I think.

As to the RAN's Huon's. NZ are not going to get them. 2 have been deactivated because of personnel issues, NOT because the requirement no longer exists. They have not been retired from service. If our recruitment situation improves, they will be brought back into operational status very quickly...

Sea Toby

March 23rd, 2006, 09:06 PM

The newer South Korean small replenishment oilers built after Endeavour have the required speed, much better diesels with the ships having two propellers instead of one. When its time to pay off the Endeavour, acquiring another newer small replenishment oiler from South Korea would be ideal. As I recall, when New Zealand purchased the Endeavour, the British were offering a used Blue Rover instead for approximately the same price as a new South Korean built, but the key was the double hull the new oiler provided. The environmentalist at work.

Since there aren't any new naval ships in their defense plans after Project Protector, I'm not expecting any new ships will be purchased by this government. I suspect a replacement oiler will be in the plans in five years, one could be purchased from South Korea for probably around NZ $50 million, small potatoes compared to the NZ $300 million for the two Anzac class upgrade which is in the Long Term Development Plan. Likewise a replacement diving tender, along the same route as before, probably for NZ $25 million.

I am not a fan of corvettes, unlike OPVs they don't have the range necessary and required in the Pacific. What seems likely if Labour stays in power is that another two undergunned OPVs will be purchased to replace the two Anzacs class frigates.

If National wins an election, a white paper will be developed. Hopefully they'll buy two new design frigates at the Anzacs mid-life point, increasing the fleet to four, and regun the OPVs with a larger gun. Its my opinion New Zealand should buy frigates in twos, 15 years apart, to avoid block obsolescent. Two new frigates will probably cost around NZ$ 1.2 billion, $600 million each.

The reason why frigates, or warships costs so much compared to a OPV is the combat data weapons control system, which in today's world run near NZ$ 300 million each. One thing is for certain, steel is cheap compared to it. The new MPV which is three times larger than a frigate displacement wise, but is running half the price of an Anzac class frigate.

As for the Floreal, New Zealand will soon have two very similar OPVs. About the only improvement the Floreal has is its 100-mm gun. For some reason the French had a requirement for a larger gun mount to support its marines. Of course, New Zealand don't have any marines, and was satisified with a fishery protection patrol boat 25-mm gun mount.

EnigmaNZ

March 24th, 2006, 03:43 AM

I don't think Labour is anti defence so much, as don't see a need for certain assetts at this point in time. Two of the monir parties they are in bed with, UF and NZF have stated a need for a larger budget and more capital spending, on the other hand, another minor party Labour relies on, the Greens, has Locke as their Defence spokeman, and I believe he would like everything to go except transport and patrol, and put the money into saving the enviroment, Locke is frequently seen complaining about sme point or another, particulary if the US is envolved.

The MRV and OPV were down for a 76mm originally, I believe the discision was made to can it to free up funds for the 4 IPV, which were probably a better bet in the long run. I would hope the MRV and OPV can be enhanced at some point, one of them could have been used in any low level Pacific event freeing up the Anzacs for medium level engagements such as the Gulf. Does it require a frigate to pull over a freighter to check it's cargo

The Government has said they are looking at the Australian Anzac upgrade and might climb onboard, I do think the harpoons should go in the original position designed for them, and Ram be installed in the position in front of the bridge, Mistral I feel is a bit light to take on a cruise missle, a 3kg warhead is going to be ignored by a 200+kg warhead on it's terminal last few seconds.

The extra 8 Mk 41 should have been fitted as standard, 64 ESSM with their 55km range and ability compares well with Astor 15 and SM-1 equiped ships.
Really a Anzac with 127/62, 2 MSI 25mm, 2 mini Typhoons 0.50 cal, 64 VLS ESSM, 21 Ram + reloads, 8 Harpoon Bk2 in 2 quad packs, 6 MU90 324mm torps in 2 x 3 launchers, Seasprite with Mavericks / Pengrin, torps etc plus a second fire control channel, mine avoidance sonar, makes a adequent ship for most missions that we have seen over the last few years, barring the heavy shore bombardment in the Gulf.

Rocco_NZ

March 24th, 2006, 04:28 AM

As I recall, when New Zealand purchased the Endeavour, the British were offering a used Blue Rover instead for approximately the same price as a new South Korean built, but the key was the double hull the new oiler provided. The environmentalist at work.

Endeavour doesn't have a double hull.

Realisitically, the only hope the RNZN has to increase the size of the force for the next 5-10 years is to replace Endeavour with a larger, more capable ship. Something like the Canadian Joint Support Ship project isn't out of the question, albeit without the C3I capabilities.

Depending on how heavily used the MRV becomes, there could well be an extra OPV added. The Maritime Forces review specief that 2 OPVs could cope with the present patrol requirement, but only if suplemented by 100 days of patrol from the MRV. If the MRV becomes as heavily used as I suspect it will be then this issue will need to be resolved.

The two ANZACs are scheduled for a combat system upgrade sometime in the future. I note a number of people on this board say the current equipment fit isn't adequate. What no one has explained is just what it isn't adequate for. The government maintains both ships for overseas deployment in support of multinational efforts. They have the luxery to pick and choose when and where they deploy. If the threat level is too high, they won't deploy.

It should be noted that once the Protector fleet comes online the RNZN will have a significant number of training bearths that it hasn't had for many, many years. The capacity to train new crewmembers will be greatly increased.

alexsa

March 24th, 2006, 06:23 AM

Endeavour doesn't have a double hull.

A quick clarification on the double hull issue. This does not apply to warships (or goernment ships for that matter). MARPOL apples to commercial vessl over 400 gross tonnes. Warships are exempt from its provisions. The fact that 'some' countries are are replacing ships is stated to be a move to a move environmentally friendly ship but another issue is that commercial hulls are normally only intended for a 25 year operating life after which their operting economics become less desirable. This does not mean some failry shoddy companies are not operating clapped out tonnage, they are.

In regards to double hulls not all parties are totally convined about the typical full double side and double bottom arrangement now employed noting a mid deck design is also permitted (double sides with a mid deck rather than double bottoms). In reality this is not used as you would have problems getting into the US but it does have distinct advantages over the double bottom arrangment in resistance to spills and damage stability (when double bottoms fill you lose stability that same is not true of broach a tank). Naval operators should really look at the options rather than rush to the double side/double bottom solution.

Sea Toby

March 24th, 2006, 09:59 AM

I agree. I also have concerns that New Zealand has slated 100 days of ocean patrol duties for the MPV, probably in concert with at sea training. Disasters can happen at any time. If the MPV was patrolling the Ross Sea, it could take a week to return to port to load up the army's equipment and troops.

Unlike the American navy, New Zealand did not purchased a prepositional ship already loaded with supplies. Some 90 percent of the time the MPV will be used as a training, ocean patrol ship, while 10 percent of the time the MPV will be used for tactical sealift. Of course the tactical sealift role will have priority in an emergency.

Therefore, purchasing a third OPV makes sense, freeing the MPV from Ross Sea duties. Since the MPV will more than likely have to sail a day or two to a port closer to load the army anyway, any training and ocean patrol near New Zealand won't delay its tactical sealift mission.

The army will want to practice loading and unloading this ship too, more than likely with the Australians in exercises in Australia and at home. Even if the ship arrives a week after a natural disaster, the ship will be welcomed. I doubt seriously whether the army's company will be ready to move much quicker anyway.

So there is a compromise. The ship must go to sea, must exercise, and must patrol. Its tactical sealift capabilities only surface in an emergency. Since the army isn't ready to move in a day or two, there are a few days to switch roles factored in.

robsta83

March 24th, 2006, 11:10 AM

In regards to the Upgrade of ANZACs for wither navy, can anybody, give a slightly detailed reason explanation why the SM-2 upgrade including the extra 8 cell didnt go ahead? I do not see how the addition of a the extra VLS system, and integration into the Fire Control System, The plans already include a upgrade to the Combat systems what was so hard about shooting SM-2's out of a launcher that is nearly purpose built, I mean for that and the Tomahawk, is it the radar system is unable to provide the range/power to engage Threats at medium range?
I completely agree with you Enigma on your plans for the ANZACs those specs would be ideal. In terms of another 1 or 2 frigates, One would at least give a regional option while 1 on International Dep, I think a third will likely be purchased under a different govt, however not till the Up FFGs are being replaced. THe $50 million would be about right as that was the same price paid by the RAN for the replacement of the Westralia, I think (correct if wrong) all upgrade price is $63 million, about what the RNZN will spend in 2014-15. I guess.
Alrighty, thats me for now

Sea Toby

March 24th, 2006, 12:04 PM

It all comes back to the combat weapons control system, doesn't it? The Celcius Tech system on the Anzacs support Sea Sparrow missiles, a more expensive system would have to be installed for Evolved Sea Sparrow which can be quad packed, and probably a even more expensive system would be needed for the newest Standard area defense missiles. The Anzacs costs around NZ$500 million each, notice that the new Australian air warfare destroyers will run up to A$ 2 billion each, a A$ 6 billion program for three destroyers.

The Evolved Sea Sparrow missile is a good all around missile with much more range than the old Sea Sparrow missile. Quad packing allows many more missiles to be carried, from 8 to 32, or with the second 8-cell Mk 41vertical launcher, up to 64 missiles. The newest Standard missiles cannot be quad packed, leaving the Anzacs with either 8 or at best 16 missiles. I prefer more missiles better than more range. With more missiles, a second channel for direction is vital.

As I noted before, steel is cheap compared to sophisticated combat weapons control systems. Notice that the New Zealand OPVs costs around 20 percent of an Anzac class frigate.

About the only expensive military program left yet to be approved for the New Zealand forces is the Anzac class upgrade. Considering some of the new Labour party opposed their purchase, and opposed the purchase of the third and fourth Anzac class frigates, I doubt whether Labour would ever purchase another frigate in the future, including any to replace the Anzacs currently in service. I also wonder whether Labour will purchase the Anzac upgrade program too.

Lucasnz

March 24th, 2006, 05:29 PM

Sea Toby: Regun the OPVs with a larger gun. Its my opinion New Zealand should buy frigates in twos, 15 years apart, to avoid block obsolescent.... About the only improvement the Floreal has is its 100-mm gun. For some reason the French had a requirement for a larger gun mount to support its marines. Of course, New Zealand don't have any marines, and was satisified with a fishery protection patrol boat 25-mm gun mount.

I would have thought that NZ has the same requirement in relation to landing troops from the MRV and Special Forces from the MRV and OPV, in needing a larger gun. Though its NGS capability is marginal I would prefer to see the 76mm fitted. The plans I've seen suggest there is still space and weight for the magazine etc forward. The need to acquire the IPV's (and we really needed to) meant there was no money for the 76mm on the larger vessels.

Rocco NZ said Depending on how heavily used the MRV becomes, there could well be an extra OPV added. The Maritime Forces review specief that 2 OPVs could cope with the present patrol requirement, but only if suplemented by 100 days of patrol from the MRV. If the MRV becomes as heavily used as I suspect it will be then this issue will need to be resolved.

If the Ready Reaction Company goes ahead in the future I see the need for a 3rd OPV, but would prefer a three crew manning system (one off two on), so that funds could be spared for addtional surface combatants and a proper MCM capability.

Agree with most of the comments here about the ANZAC upgrade following Australia - Reduced through life logistics etc. There was a mention of NZ joining an OHP FFG replacement program, as anything started on that?

robsta83

March 24th, 2006, 05:31 PM

Yeah ANZAC upgrade maybe in doubt, however the in power govt barely survived the last election :duel maybe itll be fourth time lucky for National, or if you want a new NZDF and poltical party with a defence strategy go NZ First, Send in the Marines! Yeah 64 ESSM's is quite a defensive line up to be sure even with out a shorter range missile system it would certainly protect what needs to be protected.

Sea Toby

March 24th, 2006, 11:00 PM

Sophisticated minehunters are the most expensive ships per ton as any ship in any navy. There are several different strategies in fighting mine warfare, and the most sensible for New Zealand has been what they have done in the past using small boats with the appropriate gear. As the Australians have noticed, leasing one or two fishing trawlers, or tugboats, or oilfield supply vessels with the appropriate gear will provide a useful mine warfare capability.

Since New Zealand doesn't have any neighbors with a mining capability, in my opinion it would be foolish to invest in a sophisticated minehunter. However, if the situation changed significantly, I would highly recommend adding minehunters to the fleet. Fortunally, New Zealand doesn't need a better mine warfare capability than what they have currently.

The six new Australian minehunters program cost was A$2 billion, the eight Australian Anzac frigates program cost was A$4 billion, although the Anzac frigates have four times the displacement.

Rocco_NZ

March 24th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Sea Toby made a reference to disasters. On that topic, one of the things that the Maritime Forces Review identified was the lack of a salvage-tug in New Zealand. Maritime Safety NZ has identified this as a significant risk issue for pollution control. It seems that this capability gap could be dealt with when Manawanui is replaced. A commercial design, similar to many of the offshore support vessels used in the oil drilling industry, could handle both heavy-tug and diving support duties. Deck cargo could also be carried in ISO containers. The commercial-spec route was successfully followed when Manawanui was purchased initially.

Regarding the ANZAC upgrade, it is in the current governments plans. There has been no suggestion by Labour to drop the project.

Sea Toby

March 24th, 2006, 11:42 PM

Rocco_NZ

March 24th, 2006, 11:49 PM

Yes, as New Zealand has done in the past, a small oilfield supply vessel can be converted into a wonderful diving tender, and with the appropriate equipment fit, can also be useful protecting the environment fighting oil spills. As I mentioned above, these small auxiliary vessels don't cost much either. Neither do the small patrol craft New Zealand uses for mine warfare. With the appropriate equipment fit, the new IPVs can continue to be useful for mine warfare.

Toby the issue identified by the review wasn't one of oil pollution control, it was one of preventing the spill in the first place. At the moment there is no shortage of assets that can transport oil spill control equipment. The problem is that there are no ocean going tugs within New Zelaand waters. Simply put, there is nothing in the country suitable to hold a large container/cargo/tanker vessel off the beach if it experienced mechanical problems. Combining an ocean going tug with the dive tender would therefore seem the logical step to continue to address the problems identified by the most recent government review. None of this is politically contentious, but it does significantly add to the public visability of the Navy, which has obvious recruiting benefits.

Sea Toby

March 25th, 2006, 07:33 AM

alexsa

March 25th, 2006, 08:07 AM

I have two minds about this. Many of the new oil/gas/juice tankers today have a bow thruster plus its main propulsion system, including HMNZS Endeavour. On the other hand many tankers don't either.

With legislation, New Zealand could force all tankers to have a bow thruster serving its ports, providing a secondary propulsion system on board the tankers, or as you mentioned, enable the civilian companies or its navy to have a large tug you suggested.

You would think the former would be cheaper method all around than the latter. There is no guarantee with the latter that the tug or tugs would arrive in time for an accident.

The vast majority of bow thrusters on merchant vessels are tunnel thrusters. These are not APU's and never will be given they can only provide lateral thurst at the bow. Furhter this capability is only available when the vessel is at slow speed.

Thrusters effectiveness is a factor of power of over size. For a thruster to act as an APU it must have the ability to azimuth and have sufficent power to move the ship against windage and seaway. Tunnel thrusters are extreamly limited in this resepct and as noted above on provide lateral thrust at the bow. Azimuting thrusters can do the job and are used on thr OHP FFG as an APU. It is worth noting that 'propulsion' thurusters such as the azipod type are being employed on large vessels as main propuslions (such as the Navantia LHD) but these ae not common on most merchant vessels and are rare on tankers and it is unlikely they would be used on large tankers except ice breaking double acting tankers.

http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/tempera/

If NZ wanted to mandate bow thrusters on tanker I would suggest it would be a retrograde step as it would effectively limit oil supplies to NZ being provided by a limited pool of small product tankers meaning all refining would have to be done overseas and the cost of tranport would be eye watering.

Rocco_NZ

March 25th, 2006, 04:15 PM

Alexsa is correct. Putting aside pipe-dream suggestions, the purpose of this thread is really about increasing the utility of the fleet we have at present. Obviously this has to be done within existing financial and manning constraints. One of the thins that would increase the utility of the force is the ability to respond to maritime emergencies. It is a matter of fact that we will need a new diving support ship in a short period of time. The sort of ships that often perform diving support duties also commonly perform tug duties (look at the North Sea for examples). Thus adding a tug capability while replacing the existing diving support ship would cost little extra - a cheap, efficient upgrade to the fleet capability matrix.

In the same vein, giving the replacement fleet support ship some extra capabilities would cost comparatively little. The Canadians are working on a design that includes a reasonable aviation capability (4 Sea Kings I believe), as well as several hundred lane metres of vehicle deck, carriage arrangements for 20-30 TEUs and an onboard medical facility. The ship isn’t required to perform all roles on the same deployment. If Endeavours replacement was something similar it could stand in for the MRV in a pinch, and could add a useful capability if it deployed in concert with other ships in the fleet. Deployed in its own right it could represent a useful contribution to coalition or UN operations.

Both of these ideas are 1 for 1 replacements for existing fleet units. They add little to the number of sailors required in the Navy. Both add utility for other government agencies, and increase response options for government. The Endeavour replacement fits nicely with the current governments world view, and is unlikely to be a contentious political issue. It’s win-win for everyone.

Sea Toby

March 26th, 2006, 01:38 AM

While multi-role ships are a wonderful way to combine two types of ships into one, a country must be very careful about costs when designing complicated platforms. For example, its been mentioned that a new South Korean replenishment oiler would probably cost around NZ$ 50 million or so. The New Zealand multi-role ship and Denmark's multi-role ship involved simply combining patrol with a sealift/transport roles.

On the other hand a complicated slightly larger German designed multi-role ship offered to Portugal involves combining replenishment assets to starboard with a sealift/transport assets using a vehicle deck above the stored oil. This 10,000 ton ship, with a helicopter deck for 4 helicopters amidships, instead of a helicopter deck for 2 helicopters aft, would cost in Euros 205 million, twice the price of New Zealand's MPV. While this design is interesting, I'm not so sure its a good idea to mix a lot of oil with a large number of troops and their equipment.

EnigmaNZ

March 26th, 2006, 09:01 AM

Super Nimrod

March 26th, 2006, 12:33 PM

While on the subject of second hand, would the NZ navy consider ex-RN type-23's ? These are after all modern and very new and were designed for global use so would be okay in the South Pacific or Southern Ocean. The Chileans have just been sold two (or was it 3?) at what appeared a very cheap price and I am sure when some more become available the UK govt would look on a NZ request for information very favourably.

Sea Toby

March 26th, 2006, 03:10 PM

A Labour government no, a National government maybe. The British frigates are larger and have different weapons systems than their Anzacs. If New Zealand were to acquire a used vessel, they would prefer to purchase a used Anzac from Australia. Australia may sell a used one to New Zealand using the proceeds to help acquire a fourth AWD. I don't see Australia building another Anzac, I am sure they would rather build another AWD.

Rocco_NZ

March 26th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Having tenix build a one-off ship similar to an Anzac wouldn't present any major problems. Tenix are happily working away on OPV modules and preparing to fit out the MRV shortly. In fact, Tenix NZ has the capacity to produce all the hull and superstructure modules itself. There is nothing unique or challenging about the equipment fitted to the current ships that precludes a one-off delivery.

Another option would be to use the hull and machinery from the AWD and give it a FFH equipment fit.

alexsa

March 27th, 2006, 06:01 AM

There are a lot of second hand DS etc ships around.

Older but has all equipment including sub as Diver Support vessel.
http://www.ships-for-sale.com/dive_support_ship.htm

Modern tanker for $8.3M, 114,000 DWT probably a little large to replace Endeavour.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2317

Would have been a nice replacemnt for the Resolution. Big, modern, well equiped.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2198

A couple of these instead of the LCM8's on the MRV could have proved handy, 60 ton payload and amphibious, but without the huge price tag of the LCAC.
http://shipexpo.com/sales/vessel_detail.asp?FileNo=2174

Unlike old soldiers age does weary ships. One thing about old ships is the engineering sytesm are usually completley clapped out and the structuaral fire protection is less than ideal. I know of one operator trying to bring an old ship in a specilaised trade up to a 25 year old regulatory requirement of SOLAS (i.e. nowhere near the most current) and they are forking out about 15 million USD, half of which is going on structral fire protection.

The dive reaseach vessel was built in 1977 and subsequently rebuilt. The navigation equipment it carries is nothing to write home about (Decca in this day and age, what the!!!) and the radio equipment is very antiquated. I would hate to think what it is like under the paint.

A tanker of 114 odd thousand tonnes is a very large vessel displacing more that a US carrier at full load. A draft of 15.6m is pretty deep for a lot of ports and it is old for a tanker being built in 1984. This thing will be very well worn.

The research vessel was built in 1972 and it is interesting to note the GL class runs out this year. Bit curious about that, could be a bit long in the tooth for a credible classification society to continue with.

Now the large LARC is interesting but again built in 1969 and is one of a kind (in other words and orphan), surely the new ADI watercraft would be a better option.

I don't mean to sound harsh but old commercial tonnage (over 10 years buyer beware, over 15 it had better be cheap) is really going to be expensive to convert to anything useful. More to the point anything built before the 1st of September 1984 is have pretty ordinary strutural fire protection. Finally if your government decide your navy will conform to SOLAS and MARPOL the bring the vessl up to that standard will probably cost you more than a new hull which would more efficient to operate.

Sea Toby

March 27th, 2006, 06:33 AM

While the Endeavour maybe a small replenishment ship for the American Navy, she is ideal for the small New Zealand navy and useful for the Australian navy. The only thing not ideal is her slow speed. It was built to last 30 years or so, and she is less than 20 years in age. New Zealand probably won't purchase a replacement for another ten years, a replacement could probably be built in two years.

However, New Zealand's diving tender is 27 years in age, her end of life is upcoming. She could be replaced with another oil field support vessel, or possibly a salvage vessel, useful for towing and diving which has been mentioned above. It appears New Zealand could use a towing capability.

If one is going to purchase a used ship, I prefer to purchase such before or at its mid-life refit. Acquiring a used ship past its mid-life point is not ideal, although such a ship maybe very cheap.

Rocco_NZ

March 27th, 2006, 03:35 PM

Lucasnz

March 27th, 2006, 04:25 PM

I would need a lot of convincing to support a second hand ship purchase. There are only a limited number of circumstances where it seems like a good idea. Resolution was a rare and good find. I'm struggling to think of a recent purchase of frigates from the RN that didn't cause problems for the RNZN. The goverment is enjoying large surpluses, there simply isn't any need to be penny wise.

I agree. There is no need at present for New Zealand to penny pinch. NZ should buy 2 new vessels - One to replace Manawanui and the Kahu. Both would be diving capable and carry out the MCM roles currently assigned to Manawanui.

The purchase of Wellington and Southland by the Muldoon Government (National) was a short sighted one that reflected the state of the economy at the time. While there have been clear exceptions (Monawai, Resolution, Manawanui) I think NZ should avoid purchasing 2nd hand ships, where there is a requirement for significant modification/ refit (over and above activation costs) or the cost (both initial and operating) to the taxpayer is disproportionate to the life of the vessel when compared to a new ship.

EnigmaNZ

March 28th, 2006, 04:56 AM

I remember looking at the Hyundai site a few years ago, they had several tankers, the class of which the Endeavour is part of was the largest, and slowest. Can she be re-engined, I realise to get another 4-5 knots will mean doubling the horsepower, they should have specified an 18 knot cruise when they brought her. Prosumably the rest of the drive train would need to be modified as well. Apart from her speed and being light in the self defence department, she does the job.

There are a lot of big ticket items coming up in future years, This decade has been the LAVs and LOVs, varioue AD AT Coms etc for the Army, the Anzacs and Project Protector for the Navy, life extension and upgrades for the C-130s and Orions, the NH90s and light helos. A big shopping list. Add to that all the bases need a serious rebuilding program, there are still a lot of WW2 and prior buildings and '50s type state houses in the inventory. Next decade there is the Navies Anzac upgrade, replacement of the Endeavor, Manawanui, Resolution, the Armies light weapons and howitzrer replacements, the inshore maritine surveilance aircraft, I prosume something like the Kingair 350ER, and from the end of the decade the replacements for the Orion and Herc. I did hear rumours of another Army battlion as well for the future, I think it was Helen, due to the current workload with peacekeeping.

So the kitty is pretty much accounted for until the end of the next decade or 2, in fact, if we go with the A400 and Boeing MPA, the kitty is accounted for until about 2030, as the last 2 programs alone in todays money would run into the $NZ3 to 4 billion+ level, unless we downsize to the C130J / Casa 235 MPA level. Then from 2030, the replacement / upgrade cycle needs to restart as everything brought in the last few years reaches it's use by date. To get anywhere, we really could do with a increase in the Defence budget, or consistently high real GDP growth with Defence not falling under the 1% GDP level.

alexsa

March 28th, 2006, 04:28 PM

The bad new with tankers is that not many commercial tankers are designed with speeds up to and beyong 18 knots. the Power requried is not double but the fuel burn for the additional speed cannot be justified commerically as the cargo is not that time critical (unlike main line container trades).

The good new is that many owners have rushed in late for the current rate boom and have ordered at the top of the market (the smart guys have money and order when the marklet is on its back - and then sell some of the slots the the not so smart ones at inflated prices when the market lifts). Orderbooks are now full and there is a growing feeleing in the market that it is going to over suscribed again so there may be some good qualtiy new tonnage about at knock down pricies in the next 5 years.

DMO got a very good deal on the Delos/Sirius as far as I can tell. I understand they were offer more than they paid for the vessel to buy it back after the deal was done.

Rocco_NZ

March 28th, 2006, 06:38 PM

I remember looking at the Hyundai site a few years ago, they had several tankers, the class of which the Endeavour is part of was the largest, and slowest. Can she be re-engined, I realise to get another 4-5 knots will mean doubling the horsepower, they should have specified an 18 knot cruise when they brought her. Prosumably the rest of the drive train would need to be modified as well. Apart from her speed and being light in the self defence department, she does the job.

There are a lot of big ticket items coming up in future years, This decade has been the LAVs and LOVs, varioue AD AT Coms etc for the Army, the Anzacs and Project Protector for the Navy, life extension and upgrades for the C-130s and Orions, the NH90s and light helos. A big shopping list. Add to that all the bases need a serious rebuilding program, there are still a lot of WW2 and prior buildings and '50s type state houses in the inventory. Next decade there is the Navies Anzac upgrade, replacement of the Endeavor, Manawanui, Resolution, the Armies light weapons and howitzrer replacements, the inshore maritine surveilance aircraft, I prosume something like the Kingair 350ER, and from the end of the decade the replacements for the Orion and Herc. I did hear rumours of another Army battlion as well for the future, I think it was Helen, due to the current workload with peacekeeping.

You're back to front with your assumptions. Most, if not all, of the big ticket items have been paid for already (Protector, LAVs, LOVs, Orions, Hercs, NH90). The next 15 years is a relativley low cost period in terms of capital injections. By 2020 the Orions and Hercs will have reached the end of their extended service lives and both frigates will require replacement. Forget about rumours of another battalion - Army can't staff the two it has at the moment.

abramsteve

March 29th, 2006, 07:47 AM

Just a question, and I have no idea if what Im about to say is stupid! :)

Does the speed of the tanker matter that much? If shes not going to have to group up with other surface warships on an operational deployment (especially in the case of New Zealand) then so long as the tanker can intercept the ship that needs replenishment at a pre-determined location then its all good right?:confused:

EnigmaNZ

March 29th, 2006, 08:31 AM

They haven't all been paid for, as this treasury site shows. Notice the multiyear funding of larger items.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2005/estimates/est05defen.pdf

The Endeavour does appear to travel on it's own, shuttling back and forth from fueling depots to the vessel it is shadowing. If there is no hurry, I imagine them traveling together at 14 knotts, but if the Anzac is sent somewhere, then it would leave the tanker behind, as long as the tanker gets there before the Anzac gets to low on fuel, no problem i suppose. The MRV can cruise at 19.5, the Anzac at 18+, a future replentishment vessel 18+

The ROK AOE would be a suitable replacement for the Endeavour, at a better price than a european alternative, 20 knot, 9000 ton.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/rok/aoe-57.htm

Rocco_NZ

March 29th, 2006, 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=EnigmaNZ]They haven't all been paid for, as this treasury site shows. Notice the multiyear funding of larger items.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget2005/estimates/est05defen.pdf

Just what is that link supposed to illustrate? If you refer to the Defence Capability and Resourcing Review you will see that it reiterates my point.

Rocco_NZ

March 29th, 2006, 02:47 PM

Does the speed of the tanker matter that much? If shes not going to have to group up with other surface warships on an operational deployment (especially in the case of New Zealand) then so long as the tanker can intercept the ship that needs replenishment at a pre-determined location then its all good right?:confused:

The top speed doesn't matter so much. What matters is the economical cruising speed. It is certainly possible to send the AO ahead of the main body on deployments, but some situations will mean this is less than ideal. If we could deploy an 18kt AO it could cruise in company with the various frigates we operate with around the region much more easily. Of course the other advantage is simply that less time is taken to resupply away from the operational area.

For what it is worth I think we should be looking at an AO design that can embark, maintain and operate at least 4 medium sized helicopters. Having a capability to refuel helicopters of other ships is fine, but with the limited size of the RNZN the flexibility afforded by a larger helicopter capacity is a force multiplier.

Lucasnz

March 29th, 2006, 08:16 PM

I think speed does have some importance. At the start of East Timor Endeavour and a ANZAC were up in SEA. The ANZAC came back alone, while Endeavour sailed back with Indonesian warships shadowing it. The ideal would have been both coming back together at 18kts (Dash speed for a ANZAC). Given the importance Endeavour played later in supplying fuel to deployed forces, the slow speed was a vunerability in the intial stages of the operations.

Whiskyjack

March 29th, 2006, 09:46 PM

Its also not just about the fuel off-load, any new ship should be able to carry stores and ammunition mainly for RAS, but also for sustaining forces ashore and a role as a disaster relief ship.

A far as speed goes there is transit to consider, but also as Lucasnz says above, the replenishment ship is an important asset in its own right and may have to operate at the forward edge, which means it must be capable of keeping up with frigates, destroyers etc for its own protection.

Sea Toby

March 29th, 2006, 09:52 PM

As I recall, HMNZS Endeavour refueled the ships, HMNZS Te Kaha and HMS Glasgow before they departed Singapore, and caught up with them a few days later off East Timor. I didn't know that the Endeavour was being tracked by Indonesian warships.

Its not the end of the world having a slow replenishment ship, but a faster ship is nicer and worth the extra expense for a second diesel and propeller. The key is being in the same neighborhood with the rest of your deployed ships, either staging before or after the other surface warships.

Lucky for New Zealand, its Anzacs, the MRV, and the OPVs have excellent range and can steam for a long time between replenishments. Both the Australians and the New Zealanders have done well acquiring ships with long range, especially considering the distances in the Pacific.

When you consider that an Anzac frigate carries only 423 tons of fuel, the Endeavour's 7500 tons of fuel comes in handy not only for one or both of New Zealand's frigates, but for many other ships in a task force as shown by its endeavours at East Timor

With the new MRV coming very soon, by the end of the year, this ship will be very useful for disaster relief operations, being able to carry tons of supplies on its vehicle deck.

Stuart Mackey

April 1st, 2006, 05:54 AM

Sea Toby

April 7th, 2006, 01:51 PM

I have noticed that Estonia has purchased three new Sandown class minehunters from the United Kingdom today, April 7, 2006 for American $62.5 million. New Zealand could do the same, which would run around NZ $100 million for three minehunting ships. Sandown class ships have small crews, and would give New Zealand a better minehunting capability.

chrishorne

April 8th, 2006, 06:00 PM

RNZN? One for one replacements is what is needed, allthough I would want a salvage tug type vessel, as has been mentioned in this thread; Its worth remembering the Brit destroyer that had a wee accident a couple of years back.
The ANZACS need to have that upgrade and they need to get Harpoon.

I would want an extra two frigates, with similar/same plant systems and weapons as the ANZAC's, but that is a political choice that wont get a look in with any Labour government, and the Nats havent got their act together on defence policy {or many others, truth be known}

I do think we need a couple of other combat ready ships, however frigates aren't versatile enough perhaps. I have been reading with great interest info on the us navies Littoral Combat Ship (both designs) and i must say I'm quite impressed. The General Dynamics design especially looks like a cross between a frigate and the MRV. I'm quite amused the us navy calls them small! These are ships that can both carry a vast quanity of load (including the LAV IIIs it seems) and can look after themselves. The General Dynamics version can also carry a couple of NH90 class helios.

http://www.gdlcs.com/gd_opsCapability.html

I agree the ANAZACS need to be upgraded - ESSM at least, even better if Mistral/RAM (SeaRam?) were added as well and perhaps a 25mm canon for small surface threats. Harpoon however, I just don't know - it would be nice but I doubt a friagte and an Aircraft would get it in NZ service. In case only one could get it then I'd prefer air launced.

EnigmaNZ

April 8th, 2006, 10:03 PM

The Sandowns, I saw the same article, and was thinking along the same lines. Even 1 at $US22 would do, it does have a recompression chamber plus other diver support facilities and ROVs, plus a good late model ocean salvage tug/supply vessel for about half the above. For the IPV, a MSI 25mm on the bow would do, as had the version offered to the Oz navy for it's patrol boat replacement. Add 2 more to the Endeavour, on each beam, IIRC she only has a couple of .50 cal GPMGs, needed if a explosive ladden speedboat is heading her way. About $NZ60m all up. As far as MH goes in NZ water, I don't think really the Sandown would ever be needed to clear mines from NZ waters, the WW2 Orion was not typical., and at 52m, the size of the IPV, it is not going to be jaunting all over the ocean. It would do inshore hydrographic survey in peacetime, with the MH capacities there PRN. 3 would be nice but probably a waste of scare resources.

thegoldenhorde

April 8th, 2006, 11:15 PM

The most important thing for New Zealand is a strong ampihibious capability that would let it take over some island nation or something like that if need be. Therefore I would say New Zealand should go with the frigate/s to allow it to have a more helicopters in the area and to increase its fire-support capability. Minesweepers as well would be an excellent investment to support New Zealand's capability to execute operations like it did in the Solomon Islands in 2004.

Lucasnz

April 9th, 2006, 01:42 AM

I do think we need a couple of other combat ready ships, however frigates aren't versatile enough perhaps. I have been reading with great interest info on the us navies Littoral Combat Ship (both designs) and i must say I'm quite impressed. The General Dynamics design especially looks like a cross between a frigate and the MRV. I'm quite amused the us navy calls them small! These are ships that can both carry a vast quanity of load (including the LAV IIIs it seems) and can look after themselves. The General Dynamics version can also carry a couple of NH90 class helios.

From some of the information I read the LCS does not come cheap - Frigates are better, just as cheap (it seems), and can be perform across the specturm without reconfiguration, as a rule. While I would perfer frigates Corvettes seem more suitable for NZ situation - Ability to conduct low level operations independently, including NGS. Corvettes are also capable of operating in a medium level environment independently for most missions, but are more dependent on higher level assets for providing a clearer picture. I thinking something on like an ANZAC hull for seakeeping, range etc. Diesels only with 76mm, RAM and 2 x 25mm. Crew size would be about half, with the savings going towards extra helicopter capability (NH90) and special forces, raiding party capability. Sensors would also be more limited, reducing cost.
I see the need for frigates, given the inherent limitations of corvettes, but not more than 2, with the say 2 - 4 corvettes making up for the lost of the 2 frigates (netural manpower impact at this level).

As for the Sandown MCM capability - I'm slobbering at the very thought:D - if only Auntie Helen got a new job.

Stuart Mackey

April 9th, 2006, 02:06 AM

From some of the information I read the LCS does not come cheap - Frigates are better, just as cheap (it seems), and can be perform across the specturm without reconfiguration, as a rule. While I would perfer frigates Corvettes seem more suitable for NZ situation - Ability to conduct low level operations independently, including NGS. Corvettes are also capable of operating in a medium level environment independently for most missions, but are more dependent on higher level assets for providing a clearer picture.

Or NZ can have properly equipped frigates which can do more.

I thinking something on like an ANZAC hull for seakeeping, range etc. Diesels only with 76mm, RAM and 2 x 25mm. Crew size would be about half, with the savings going towards extra helicopter capability (NH90) and special forces, raiding party capability.

The MRV can do that, but would need RAM and a bigger pop gun.

Sensors would also be more limited, reducing cost.
I see the need for frigates, given the inherent limitations of corvettes, but not more than 2, with the say 2 - 4 corvettes making up for the lost of the 2 frigates (netural manpower impact at this level).

Three, preferably four frigates, properly equipped plus a battalion landing ship and all of a sudden NZ can do a lot more indepenently, without bludging of every other nation to do even basic tasks.

As for the Sandown MCM capability - I'm slobbering at the very thought:D - if only Auntie Helen got a new job.

Wouldnt matter, the Nats are so inneffective on defence that you could have Bozo the Clown running Labour and the Nats would still get a beating on defence.

Rocco_NZ

April 9th, 2006, 02:12 AM

Wouldnt matter, the Nats are so inneffective on defence that you could have Bozo the Clown running Labour and the Nats would still get a beating on defence.

I take issue with that. Aside from scrapping the air combat force, Labour has been very smart politically with defence. They have successfully avoided several audit office inquiries, a criminal prosecution and several employment law disputes with little fuss. Much of the blame has been squarley placed with the Ministry. Ultimatley this led to the Hunn review, which Labour initaited.

National, ACT and NZ First successfully called for inquiries in to troop conduct, equipment purchases and pay and service conditions.

Stuart Mackey

April 9th, 2006, 06:49 AM

I take issue with that. Aside from scrapping the air combat force, Labour has been very smart politically with defence. They have successfully avoided several audit office inquiries, a criminal prosecution and several employment law disputes with little fuss. Much of the blame has been squarley placed with the Ministry. Ultimatley this led to the Hunn review, which Labour initaited.

National, ACT and NZ First successfully called for inquiries in to troop conduct, equipment purchases and pay and service conditions.

Thats nice. Its also irrelivant, because Labour has consistantly set the debate on defence issues and that is what counts. What good is it to National, and the nation, if they cannot actually justify any thing they say on defence? Their defence of the established order pre and post 'Defence Beyoned 2000' was an unmitigated failure and amounted to 'we need X,Y and Z because...well, Just Because!' and stamped their collective foot like a petualant child. They have consistantly failed to present any alternative policy that actually makes sense or, indeed, that is rational.

Labour, on the other hand, has put forward a rational and detailed policy that they have effectivly, and successfully, argued to the satisfaction of the majority of voters. And that, in the final anlasyis, is what counts.

I stand by my statement above. National will be clobbered by Labour on defence untill it can actually come up with a policy that is more reasoned than meaningless genralisations that amount to no more than a reveiw, a reveiw that it prays will tell it what to do with defence, because they Havent. Got. A. Clue.

Rocco_NZ

April 9th, 2006, 04:44 PM

I stand by my statement above. National will be clobbered by Labour on defence untill it can actually come up with a policy that is more reasoned than meaningless genralisations that amount to no more than a reveiw, a reveiw that it prays will tell it what to do with defence, because they Havent. Got. A. Clue.

Thanks for that coherent, balanced analysis Stuart. National's 2005 policy was as detailed as it could be. It talked about pay and conditions, reducing the attrition rate amongst defence staff and working closely with allies. The reality is that without access to classfied OPRES information, budget projections and force development propositions Opposition parties, irrespective of which one, simply don't have the detailed information available to produce much more than this. Defence isn't like the health system - their aren't the same level of reports produced and there certainly isn't the same degree of transparancy reporting capability.

Stuart Mackey

April 10th, 2006, 06:55 AM

Thanks for that coherent, balanced analysis Stuart.

Hey, thanks for showing no evidence that I was wrong, and avoiding the point!

National's 2005 policy was as detailed as it could be. It talked about pay and conditions, reducing the attrition rate amongst defence staff and working closely with allies. The reality is that without access to classfied OPRES information, budget projections and force development propositions Opposition parties, irrespective of which one, simply don't have the detailed information available to produce much more than this. Defence isn't like the health system - their aren't the same level of reports produced and there certainly isn't the same degree of transparancy reporting capability.

With all due respect, but thats nonsense. It was not detailed at all a simple look at other parties policies shows this can be done.That opposition parties do not have access to the full range of information that government does, is no excuse for what I can only describe as lazyness. A counter point to Nationals defence policy is that of NZ first. it spells out exactly what they wish to do not only with force structure but also over all policy, here are some examples:

honour, maintain and build upon existing Defence agreements including the Five Power Defence Agreement and the Closer Defence Relationships with Australia. We will seek to strengthen relationships with the United States, Britain, France and all South Pacific Island nations with the aim of extending opportunities for military training at all levels;

# refocus the Infantry Battalions into three Marine Battalions (two regular and one territorial) capable of deployment by air, land or sea, by foot or by vehicle with their primary area of operations being the South Pacific and South East Asia but with the ability to operate with Coalition Forces anywhere;

# expand the size of the New Zealand Special Air Service and have them work more closely with British, Australian and US Defence Forces in order to improve their experience base and unit/force interoperability;

It is not good enough, in this day and age, to come out with what amounts to a promice for yet another reveiw.At the risk of sounding like an appeal to authority, here is Rodney hides comment on the Nats policy.

“New Zealand has been shirking its defence responsibilities for years. We now have the National Party shirking their responsibility to even produce a credible defence policy. It’s no wonder that National released its ‘no defence’ policy late on a Friday afternoon hoping nobody would notice. National’s clearly not proud of its policy, nor should it be,” Mr Hide said.

But lets not take his opinion, lets look at Ron Mark's opinion, remembering that he is a former army officer {QAMAR} Meaningless drivel was the description New Zealand First afforded National’s defence policy, which was released late yesterday.

Defence spokesperson Ron Mark said that surely after nine years in government and six in opposition, with the resources that were available to them, National could have come up with something better than this.

“At a time when concerns over national security have never been higher, the best National can offer is another review, proving that they lack even a basic understanding on defence matters,” said Mr Mark.

“Anyone who does understand knows what is needed.

‘This a ‘Clayton’s’ policy, which is a policy you have when you don’t have one. It’s pathetic and it confirms that National cannot be trusted to rebuild New Zealand’s defence forces.

Admittadly, they are other parties, but these are parties that the Nats should be able to turn to for support on defence issues, and they are rubbishing them!!

National has had ample time to come up with a viable policy and time spent in research would have provided them with this. There is a good chance that the Nats will be in government after the next election and promises of reveiws, after this amount of time in opposition, do not show that thay are capable of doing the job properly.
If they cannot come up with policy after all this time, how on earth will they be able to do it in government?

This is waayy of topic, in any case. My apologies to the staff.

EnigmaNZ

April 11th, 2006, 01:52 AM

I wonder if it is due to the fact that unlike posters here, and in similar forum elsewhere, and with the exception of Ron Marks, with his military background, there simply is noone in any party with a clue on military matters, even when they have a reveiw, it is done by somone who probably wouldn't know their RAM from their SLAM. I have to agree with Ron, with the small size of the NZ military, it should be more integrated along the lines of the US marines, ie primarily a ground force with air and sea support with a common command structure. Look at the tasks required of them, then what they need to accomplish those tasks in an efficient way, should lead to the correct choice in weapons and other assetts purchases.

There is IMHO very little likelihood that NZ will be invaded, or attacked from the air. There is a small liklihood that a aircraft or train may be takened and flown into a public place, either by a terriorist, someone angry at the government, or a nutter. There is a greater likelihood that NZ shipping will be interferred with by pirates as they pass through the SE Asian waters, that NZ forces sent overseas will be threaten by land, sea and less likely, by air. The latter is less likely as any task force is likely to include air assetts from a major power. So we need to be able to operate against opposing land forces with surface to surface weapons, against subsurface marine threats like mines and diesel/electric submarines, against surface threats from small high speed, explosive filled suicide craft, against RPGs and similar. Back in NZ we need to cope with illegal ocean going trawlers and whalers, and against the rare unarmed aerial threat.

So we look for weapons to minimise these threats, trading cost for efficiency where expediant. If the threat analysis changes in the future, the operational and weapon mix will be tweaked as necessary. At this present time the only possible future threat on the horizon, is radical islam getting hold of disaffected young maori, the biggest growth in islam in NZ is in the prisons amongst maori at present. Something to keep an eye on only at this stage.

There you go, only a synopsis, but considering Quigley got paid millions to present his analysis, where do I send the bill, lol.

Supe

April 11th, 2006, 03:40 AM

This is waayy of topic, in any case. My apologies to the staff.

Interesting comments actually. Now that you have described opposition party defence policies, I'd be interested in your opinion of what should constitute a sound defence policy for NZ.

Rocco_NZ

April 11th, 2006, 04:58 AM

With all due respect, but thats nonsense. It was not detailed at all a simple look at other parties policies shows this can be done.That opposition parties do not have access to the full range of information that government does, is no excuse for what I can only describe as lazyness. A counter point to Nationals defence policy is that of NZ first. it spells out exactly what they wish to do not only with force structure but also over all policy, here are some examples:

Go to the website and look at it - it specifically detailed the items I mentioned

It is not good enough, in this day and age, to come out with what amounts to a promice for yet another reveiw.At the risk of sounding like an appeal to authority, here is Rodney hides comment on the Nats policy.

Well gee Stuart, what possible reason do you think a minor party would have to run down their main competitor for votes? Do you think they just agree in advance which votes to conceded between one another? The only place ACT is can look for votes from is from National supporters.

But lets not take his opinion, lets look at Ron Mark's opinion, remembering that he is a former army officer {QAMAR}

So what? Wayne Mapp was too. Richard Worth was a Captain in the RNZNVR. It doesn't mean a thing. Governance is not the same as commanding troops. Decisions are even less clear.

NZ First have never detailed their planes beyond what the bullet points say, nor have they ever been required to account for where they spend money. Minor parties don't have the same level of accountability for spending promises National and Labour do. The reason - the National and Labour ignore them to starve them of oxygen.

Promising specific defence widgets is not how good public policy is created.

Rocco_NZ

April 11th, 2006, 05:04 AM

Mercenary

April 23rd, 2006, 11:09 PM

I believe what the RNZN needs is a purpose built, ocean capable (not coastal), conventional Attack Submarine. Either an advanced, larger Collin's class or an extended dimensional Type 214 German built with the latest AIP and combat info. system's installed, the latter...not Aussie made but German or Swedish. :)

The design of said Attack Submarine would be of sufficient size for patrols lasting 30-days at a time. Torpedo capacity doubled to at least 24 total weapons including tube launched Harpoon ASM's and dual role torpedoes of an advanced type maybe European design for the latter.

Just the thought of knowing there is an Attack Sub around is cause for worry of any surface warship commander...period.

The RNZN could procure say 3-Attack Submarines for long-range EEZ recon. and to support Special Warfare troops similar to the USN currently does using swimout underwater vehicles. During peace time one Sub would always be out on combat patrol, another out for training, and the last in port for refit.

The best solution to Anti-Submarine Warfare is having another Attack Submarine to counter it.

New Zealand cannot afford to just let their ASW capabilities and training go to waste on a couple of ill-suited ANZAC Frigates when Attack Submarines are superior. Conventional Attack Submarines are proliferating all over the world. The Royal New Zealand Navy needs to get smart and invest in a Submarine program.

Sell the 2-ANZAC Frigates to Australia and supplement them with 3-to-4 enhancedTHETIS class missilearmed ice-capableFrigates.

The THETIS class GM Frigate is designed to operate in ice where the hull design can punch through one-meter thick important because there is a requirement with the RNZN for a warship that can routinely operate in the Southern Hemisphere around artic waters. Something the ANZAC class is ill-equipped for. www.naval-technology.com has a link for the Thetis classes' outstanding capabilities.

Range is in the order of a modern Offshore Patrol Vessel = an impressive 8,500-miles at 15-knots plus a 20% fuel reserve. Multi-role.

Enhanced would mean a Thetis Frigate armed with a 16-cell Mk 41 VLS amidships loaded with 32-ESSM SAM's (quad packs), and 8-Harpoon ASM's; A position a 5" light weight gun, Y position (hanger roof) 20mm Phalanx, and about 6-.50cal HMG's on stabilized, low angle, lt. wt. armored mounts spread throughout the warship forward, amidships and aft near the stern. Internally retractable Mk 32 triple tubes with ASW torpedoes would complete the armament.

Helicopter would be a navalized NH-90 in the future with containerized, removable ASW, OTTH, and ASuW combat and sensor systems so the Helo' could also perform medium range SAR, armed assault and special forces support missions where these latter roles require large amounts of space inside for specialized equipment not to mention alot more personnel, i.e., survivors, medics/doctors, fully equipped/heavily armed SF troops.

A Rotterdam or an Endurance LPD with 'floodable' stern well and a large enough hanger to hold 4-NH-90's would be ideal. One 5" DP gun (shore bombardment), 2-Phalanx CIWS, an 8-cell MK 41 with 32 ESSM, plus 6-.50cal Sea Typhoons would be about right.

Anytime the RNZN would commit itself to an out-of-home EEZ's deployment it would always be in a joint mission role with the Royal Australian Navy so the latter's more capable surface warships would be providing the long-rangeoffensive and defensive weapon's coverage that the RNZN does not need to acquire such as expensive Standard SAM system's, etc.

Thee Royal New Zealand Naval Inventory I'd like to see would be:
3-ATTACK SUBMARINES

4-THETIS Multi-Role Missile Frigates

1-Missile LPD

3-Mine Hunters (Licence built GAETA or ex. RN HUNT class),

8-Coastal, multi-role FLYFISKEN class Fast Patrol Boats which offer excellent electronics outfit, good armament capabilities (anti-ship/anti-aircraft/anti-terrorist, etc) and a posses both a high speed and good range as well. Licence build 'em.

Too bad there is NO funding nor any Naval planners that have the insight to think outside-the-box for what is right in the long term for the Royal New Zealand's Navy.

Lucasnz

April 23rd, 2006, 11:54 PM

Aussie Digger

April 24th, 2006, 12:42 AM

Thee Royal New Zealand Naval Inventory I'd like to see would be:
3-ATTACK SUBMARINES

4-THETIS Multi-Role Missile Frigates

1-Missile LPD

3-Mine Hunters (Licence built GAETA or ex. RN HUNT class),

8-Coastal, multi-role FLYFISKEN class Fast Patrol Boats which offer excellent electronics outfit, good armament capabilities (anti-ship/anti-aircraft/anti-terrorist, etc) and a posses both a high speed and good range as well. Licence build 'em.

Too bad there is NO funding nor any Naval planners that have the insight to think outside-the-box for what is right in the long term for the Royal New Zealand's Navy.

I'm sure the RNZN leadership would like to see this as well, but consider a few points. NZ has a Government which despises military forces, even those totally devoted to defence, and woud, IMHO, if they could see a way round it, totally dispose of ALL defence capability.

This ideology flows on into capital acquisition projects for the NZDF. The MRV was initially to be equipped with a 76mm super rapido gun system, giving it a greater defensive AND offensive capability. This was canned in favour of the extremely limited 25mm gun being fitted.

The F-16 program was to cost NZ only $20 million a year (plus operating costs, probably $4-5m a year per aircraft) for a Fleet of 28 F-16A Block 15 OCU aircraft. That was canned and the whole RNZAF air combat force was scrapped and has now been sold (except I think for the Macchi's which have not yet found a buyer).

The P-3K Orion fleet was supposed to get an ASW and ASuW upgrade. The ASW upgrade was canned (Government wouldn't even fund the sensor upgrade), the ASuW offensive part was canned (no maritime strike weapon to be purchased, which would have slightly offset the loss of the A-4K fleet).

Other projects continue to have an un-certain future, such as the ANZAC ship upgrade (un-certain upgrade start date, un0-certain upgrade options etc) ...

As you can probably see there's a re-occuring thread here. Any projects which will significantly boost NZ's offensive capability, are very unlikely to be approved...

Hence, your submarine idea, whilst probably a good idea, is realistically, VERY unlikely. NZ won't pay for options which will balance their current force, (like a 3rd frigate for instance) additional projects have next to no chance...

Supe

April 24th, 2006, 02:58 AM

I'm sure the RNZN leadership would like to see this as well, but consider a few points. NZ has a Government which despises military forces, even those totally devoted to defence, and woud, IMHO, if they could see a way round it, totally dispose of ALL defence capability.

The deployment of NZSAS (arguably its most potent asset) to Afghanistan does not fit into that assessment of a Govt despising the military. I do think the Kiwis should be investing in a decent maritime capacity - upgrades to Orions (weapons/sensors) would be cost effective boost to NZ defence and committments.

I was watching abc2 last night and it featured a tidbit on China's influence in the South Pacific vis a vis payments to PI govt's for political purposes (ala recognition of Taiwan) but also political 'consideration' for access to resources. The last few years have seen the larger powers shift almost into overdrive to guarantee access to resources to grow their ecomomies - and by the looks of it, the Pacific is no neutral zone.

If the scramble for resources heats up, then this could have ramifications for NZ and how it views Defence.

Sea Toby

April 24th, 2006, 03:37 AM

What the RNZN will have in 2008:
2 MEKO 200 frigates: Te Kaha, and Te Mana
2 OPVs: Wellington, and Otago
4 IPVs: Taupo, Pukaki, Hawea, and Rotoiti
1 MRV: Canterbury
1 AOR: Endeavour
1 Diving tender:Manawanui
1 Survey vesse;: Resolution

A 12 ship fleet. No more, no less. Labour does not appear willing to buy another frigate, whereas National blew their chance to use their option for a third frigate at FY 1988 prices.

I can see the Naval Reserve using any additional ships for minehunting. America is decommissioning some of their not so old cream puff Osprey class minehunters. I can see New Zealand acquiring two at the right price, their crews aren't overly large.

Since New Zealand did not take up its options on a third Anzac class frigate, if Nationa stll wishes a third frigate, currently they would be better off acquiring 2 new frigates of a different and more modern Class coming into service at the mid-life point of the Anzacs.

New Zealand could have chosen a small Dutch Enforcer design, but chose the Tenix/Merwede ferry instead. New Zealand could have chosen a Thetis design, but chose an improved Irish Rosin design instead.

Any warship that is deployed outside the region for UN peace keeping roles should have a combat data weapons system installed, similar to the Anzacs. There is no point in deploying half way around the world without the ability to defend yourselves in a potentially hostile air and sea environment.

Aussie Digger

April 24th, 2006, 05:05 AM

The deployment of NZSAS (arguably its most potent asset) to Afghanistan does not fit into that assessment of a Govt despising the military. I do think the Kiwis should be investing in a decent maritime capacity - upgrades to Orions (weapons/sensors) would be cost effective boost to NZ defence and committments.

I was watching abc2 last night and it featured a tidbit on China's influence in the South Pacific vis a vis payments to PI govt's for political purposes (ala recognition of Taiwan) but also political 'consideration' for access to resources. The last few years have seen the larger powers shift almost into overdrive to guarantee access to resources to grow their ecomomies - and by the looks of it, the Pacific is no neutral zone.

If the scramble for resources heats up, then this could have ramifications for NZ and how it views Defence.

That is true, NZSAS and PRT have been deployed to Afghan to assist in re-construction and "other" missions.

There is little doubt about the NZ Government's defence policies though. Projects such as the F-16 and 3rd ANZAC ship acquisition and full Orion upgrade project are well within NZ's resources, should they decide to devote those resources to those projects.

That they didn't is an indictment on that Government's policies, not NZ's wherewithal to carry them out. In addition to the other recent acquisition projects (NZ-LAV, Javelin, B-757, Hercules upgrade, NH-90 etc) they would have provided with REAL strategic weight within the South Pacific, and to a lessor degree within the wider Asia-Pacific region. Wasn't to be though, and is unlikely it ever will...

Sea Toby

April 24th, 2006, 09:51 AM

Aussie Digger

April 24th, 2006, 10:21 AM

New Zealand is also a small nation of only 4 million people, even though it has a very large EEZ. Critics of New Zealand defence acquistions have to understand that most of these dollars being spent are going overseas without much or any positive effects on its economy. Defence spending for new equipment is like a giant sucking sound of money leaving the country.

However, New Zealand has made great strides. There used to be a time in the not to distant past when all of their warships came from the United Kingdom. In the recent new naval construction, New Zealand has been offered offsets, constructing many of the Anzac class frigates modules in New Zealand, not for just its two but for all of the ten Tenix build ships. Likewise, with Project Protector New Zealand is building modules for the OPVs, and are building entirely the IPVs, although many of the weapon and sensor systems are built abroad. New Zealand is seeing over a billion dollars of offsets with the Anzacs, more than the cost of their two frigates, and is seeing over a hundred million dollars of offsets with Project Protector, significantly reducing the sucking sound.

With the upgrades of New Zealand C-130s and P-3s, while foreign corporations are bidding on the contracts, much of the work is being done in New Zealand although most of the parts were build abroad.

There is a big difference using defence acquistions to boost your nation's economy and having a giant sucking sound as these dollars go abroad....

Unfortunately defence in any country is not a money making business for the Government. Nearly all Countries (except possibly Russia and the USA) purchase the bulk of their military equipment overseas.

Through life support, systems integration, occasional module/component builds, are about the best most defence industry companies in Australia/NZ can achieve.

It is not a justification for refusing to spend on your own defence however. Nor is it a reason to ignore international obligations by deliberately limiting your own capability.

NZ IS a small Country and it's defence contributions are always relatively minor. It is a wealthy Country proportionately however and could easily increase it's defence spending and effort, should the politicians be so inclined.

By Western standards it's defence spending is extremely low. a relatively minor increase in budget would allow a massive increase in capabilities (NZ$20 million a year plus, $4-5M a year support costs per aircraft, would give it a fleet of 28 F-16's for example).

An extra $900m a year (roughly) would would be available for NZ defence, if she were to spend what Australia does, as a percentage of GDP, (1.9%, even though Australia is a relatively low spender, herself).

This would provide a massive lift in available funding for the NZDF, and would allow the acquisition of just about everything, even the most ardent NZ defence supporter could want....

Sea Toby

April 24th, 2006, 12:35 PM

With the large surpluses lately, yes, New Zealand can afford to spend more.If I were the government I think a good goal would be to increase this to 1.5% GNP, half again as much more than they are spending now. However, the current government has reorganized its forces and its wants to sustain what they are spending now, around 1% GNP.

Notice recently the difficulties in the Solomon Islands. Fortunately the forces needed were small, capable of being airlifted in quickly.

But as I noted on other threads, while New Zealand could afford more and better equipment, the size of its forces cannot grow much because currently unemployment is considered low. Yes, unemployment can go lower, and there is some room for increasing the size of its forces. Unfortunately this government hasn't shown any signs of willing to increase their size.

EnigmaNZ

April 25th, 2006, 01:31 AM

National and NZF both have indicated that the defence budget is too low, so wait for the next election. (fingers crossed)

It's not so much that the government has decreased defence spending durring it's time in office, it was about 1.8% of GDP back then, but that economic growth has been surging ahead of inflation year after year, while defence has been inflation proofed only, so has fallen in % terms.

Last year about $960M was spent on O & M from a GDP of about $130+B. Last budget defence was altered in that they can now claim depreciation on assetts, to go towards future aquisitions, about $250M on assetts of about $3,500M, as the new purchases come through, both those fiqures will rise, it will put about 20% aside each year for capital spending, the gov has stated that this will need topping up for large projects. Overall then about 1% of GDP now, this needs to be locked at so when the economy increases in real terms, so does defence, while remaining at 1% to please the greenies, who want a transport and coastguard force only.

The military has always been a place to mop up unemployment, most new recruits I believe come from the lower social economic groups, with unemployment around 3.5%, down from almost double that a few short years ago, it is harder to attract suitable recruits, other departments have similar trouble, same problem as is occurring in a lot of other western countries with similar levels of unemployed. Who wants the deprivations of the army at $12 an hour, when you can get $15 driving a bus.