This is a discussion on Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Todjaeger
Something which must be kept in mind for a deployment, is the potential threats faced and ...
Something which must be kept in mind for a deployment, is the potential threats faced and the capabilities needs to deal with them appropriately.
In the case of a RNZN deployment to the (Persian?) Gulf, while an OPV-type fitout might be currently appropriate, there remains the very real possibility that the tension would escalate. With that in mind, a general purpose patrol vessel capable of offensive and defensive operations could become needed. In that situation, an OPV would thne be completely inappropriate, since it would need a close escort able to provide air defence and possibility defence against sub-surface threats as well.
In that sort of situation, then something like an OPV becomes more of a burden then a benefit, since two ships would need to be deployed together to provide a reasonable amount of operational satety to one vessel. The alternative would be for the escorting vessel to just conduct the patrolling themselves.
Something which people really need to remember is that OPVs are Offshore Patrol Vessels, they are not intended as combatants. As such, the construction, fitout and manning is different from that of a vessel intended as a warship.
-Cheers
Agree if NZ planned to involve itself in the hot part of a Gulf conflict, that said even in that scenario (narrow/shallow coastal waters} a Khareef/KD Lekiu class type vessel would probably be as much use as a T26/ANZAC II. We are not comparing like for like on the numbers/money side, ie 2 frigates will be much less use than 4-6 OPV at patrol work (and remember maybe 4 v 6 helicopters?). Most of the work is likely to be partol work so you compromise the core mission for a very unlikely scenario
The point about working with allies is important, but the US looks for involvement for moral support, not to really add capability in reality it can undertake nearly everything on its own.
There is a lot of crossover between frigates/OPVs.
Agree if NZ planned to involve itself in the hot part of a Gulf conflict, that said even in that scenario (narrow/shallow coastal waters} a Khareef/KD Lekiu class type vessel would probably be as much use as a T26/ANZAC II. We are not comparing like for like on the numbers/money side, ie 2 frigates will be much less use than 4-6 OPV at patrol work (and remember maybe 4 v 6 helicopters?). Most of the work is likely to be partol work so you compromise the core mission for a very unlikely scenario
The point about working with allies is important, but the US looks for involvement for moral support, not to really add capability in reality it can undertake nearly everything on its own.
There is a lot of crossover between frigates/OPVs.
An ANZAC would survive in high intensity combat, if fully equipmed but I agree the Lekiu would be mincemeat.
From a patrol perspective 4 OPV might be better than a frigate, but frigates by their nature are more flexible in the roles they can preform. You are getting into the quality vs quantity debate. From an NZ perspective that means balancing the more common low end stuff with less common high end combat. I would suggest low end corvette capability is required with flexibiliy to upgrade is required for patrol operations.
In terms of the US wanting more moral support than equipment there has been, somewhere on the navy & maritime forum, discussion on the Argentine Navy MEKO 140 corvette deployement to the First Gulf War. There was some talk that the design was seen as a liability in the forward area and that they were assigned escort tasks in the rear. I would suggest that the US doesn't want units it has to baby sit, especially with the declining size of fleets.
The only area of cross over between frigates and OPV I can think of is endurance and seakeeping. Most OPV and even patrol frigates like the Thetis and Floreal class are built to commerical standard. They simply can not survive sustained damage in a high intensity combat, not to mention their top speed is not suitable for task group.
An ANZAC would survive in high intensity combat, if fully equipmed but I agree the Lekiu would be mincemeat.
From a patrol perspective 4 OPV might be better than a frigate, but frigates by their nature are more flexible in the roles they can preform. You are getting into the quality vs quantity debate. From an NZ perspective that means balancing the more common low end stuff with less common high end combat. I would suggest low end corvette capability is required with flexibiliy to upgrade is required for patrol operations.
In terms of the US wanting more moral support than equipment there has been, somewhere on the navy & maritime forum, discussion on the Argentine Navy MEKO 140 corvette deployement to the First Gulf War. There was some talk that the design was seen as a liability in the forward area and that they were assigned escort tasks in the rear. I would suggest that the US doesn't want units it has to baby sit, especially with the declining size of fleets.
The only area of cross over between frigates and OPV I can think of is endurance and seakeeping. Most OPV and even patrol frigates like the Thetis and Floreal class are built to commerical standard. They simply can not survive sustained damage in a high intensity combat, not to mention their top speed is not suitable for task group.
OPV designs are getting bigger, more heavily armed and faster (25 knots would be ok), is not going to keep up with a US Carrier Group but I don't they would be asked to escort one. I reality not many ships even to a naval standard are going to be able to operate after a full anti ship missile strike. Most of the RN post 45 war light fleets were built to mercantile standard as was the current HMS Ocean? The US probably didn't need the ARA Meko because with 6 CVBG attacking a land based armed forces they didn't have a need for anything more; hey somebody has got to do escort tasks in the rear and a RNZN OPV could take on anti pirate duties releaving a Burke?
The US was very keen to have allies involved in GW2, regardless of the size, you should not underestimate the importance of the need to be the "Allies". In the 60s the UK was under enormous pressure to send troop to Vietnam. Apparently LBJ once said to the UK PM "I don't care if you just send a band"
Won of the finest things I remember during the Falklands was NZ offering a frigate to releave an RN warship, when many of our so called allies were lukewarm.
However you are right its a balance of numbers v quality. I am not sure a Lekiu is so inferior to a ANZAC, agreed ESSM is probably better than Sea Wolf.
Yes the Canterbury relieved the Amazon of its Indian Ocean Patrol back in 1982. However then Kiwi PM Sir Robert Muldoon did it more out of political opportunity than benevolence because the pay off was getting UK support for trade access for NZ agricultural goods into the common market. Muldoon was an awful manager of our domestic economy but he was the last NZ Prime Minister who knew how trade, politics and defence were interdependent amongst western allies. Under Muldoon we were still rock solid in our alliances in respect of the US and the UK and the relationship between the ADF and NZDF was far more balanced in capability.
Four General Purpose Frigates large enough to cope with a bit a of a flex-deck arrangement using OTS systems should sort the whole thing out for New Zealand. First one in the water in 2017 then the following ones due every 3 years - 2020, 2023, 2026. The last two replacing Te Kaha and Te Mana. Anzac II based or Type 26 based I dont care. I just want the Govt to just stop shagging around and do something.
While New Zealand is already concerned with upgrading their two Anzacs, the other available used ships are even older, from FFGs to Type 23s, to Karel Doormans. While I may support buying or leasing an Anzac from Australia, most likely already upgraded, by no means would I support buying or leasing an older ship. Frankly, I prefer buying another new Anzac to commission 10-15 years after the others to avoid block obsolescence down the road...
I am not convinced buying a new ship design is required. I would wait for Australia and other nations to develop their next designs before committing New Zealand to a new ship design. New Zealand in my opinion isn't ready for an independent ship design. I prefer New Zealand bought off the shelf designs whereby support will be provided by numbers of ships even from another country...
Chances are any 2nd hand frigate would more than likely be older then our current ANZACs as it would be hard to find someone willing to sell one of their newer frigates unless they were surplus to requirements, not likely in these days. Even if we could get our hands on an ex RAN FFH(which would be the best bet for commonality, useability and interoperability with our closest neighbour and our current fleet) then it would likely be their first build, HMAS Anzac I think which is only slightly older then our first. Agreed this does put us in the position of having to replace all three around the same period therefore a hard financial pill to swallow when the time comes.
The only other options would be to source another frigate which leaves us with a 2 type frigate navy that would more than likely bring different sensors, weapons, characteristics and all its other little headaches associated with different maintainence and operability and probably no one in our immediate region to share expertise with. Yes the most ideal scenario would be to tag onto the UK/AUS schemes and buy new but that is awhile off yet and in the mean time we are still a frigate down and whats to say when replacement time comes we don't just one for one and remain in our current position (if that). I do like the idea of new ANZAC type now to avoid replacing all at once later and spread the burden however I was being optimistic with 2nd hand as usually cheaper and therefore easier to sell to the bean counters. I suppose all this alternative frigate talk is moot unless we upgrade our current fleet to a credible standard that can safely take them into the future.
We are talking about intergrating with US forces. When will this training for this to happen take place? Not just any ship and crew can turn up and fleet it with the big end of town. Why should the US waste resources (resupply of fuel, food, sealift, coms, etc) with a vessel that is a liability (slow, undefended, not suitable). While the US may extend an olive branch to some rather important nation on a continent that it needs strong connections with that does not mean NZ will get the same treatment. Turning up to a warzone in a slightly modified ferry or simular is not what allies need, it would actually be better if they just got their own under their direct command (Jarvis Bay style).
While it is extremely possible and likely the NZ will work along side US forces, I would say it far more critical when working alongside a taskforce lead by Australia. Now Australia is certainly not going to be able to waste resources carrying NZ around. This is where intergration, compatability, training is going to be more important. This has already happened in Timor, and its definately going to happen again. Even in these types of situations a OPV isn't going to cut it. Interfet was completely flat out screening of USS Mobile Bay, a very worthwhile asset to screen for, we(as in this region) need assets that can escort and screen for other ships, not require protection themselves.
Australia has taken the lessons to heart. E.T was from all accounts a big lesson for AUS and what we are going to be required to do in our region and that the US isn't some big wish machine that will make everything ok. The US response was not exactly what Australia wanted and the US was slow to move on the issue. Hopefully at high levels AU and NZ are in agreement, the fact that NZ is in the loop about ANZACII and T26 reads to me that they are. Either of those two would be great options for NZ and seem more appropriate than anything else.
The ANZAC is pretty much the minium spec you want for high intensity stuff, you would want it loaded before going in but this can be done given notice. The fact Australia runs the same vessel and can train, service and pay for the upgrade should not be forgotten. NZ should not go down the OPV is a combat ship or the corvette route, they are not suitable for her region and needs.
Its entirely possible that RNZN vessels will have to handle being fired apon, shadowed by submarines, threatend by air and be placed into potentially high intensity zones in our region with out overwhelming US support as part of a mishmash force.
We are talking about intergrating with US forces. When will this training for this to happen take place? Not just any ship and crew can turn up and fleet it with the big end of town. Why should the US waste resources (resupply of fuel, food, sealift, coms, etc) with a vessel that is a liability (slow, undefended, not suitable). While the US may extend an olive branch to some rather important nation on a continent that it needs strong connections with that does not mean NZ will get the same treatment. Turning up to a warzone in a slightly modified ferry or simular is not what allies need, it would actually be better if they just got their own under their direct command (Jarvis Bay style).
While it is extremely possible and likely the NZ will work along side US forces, I would say it far more critical when working alongside a taskforce lead by Australia. Now Australia is certainly not going to be able to waste resources carrying NZ around. This is where intergration, compatability, training is going to be more important. This has already happened in Timor, and its definately going to happen again. Even in these types of situations a OPV isn't going to cut it. Interfet was completely flat out screening of USS Mobile Bay, a very worthwhile asset to screen for, we(as in this region) need assets that can escort and screen for other ships, not require protection themselves.
Australia has taken the lessons to heart. E.T was from all accounts a big lesson for AUS and what we are going to be required to do in our region and that the US isn't some big wish machine that will make everything ok. The US response was not exactly what Australia wanted and the US was slow to move on the issue. Hopefully at high levels AU and NZ are in agreement, the fact that NZ is in the loop about ANZACII and T26 reads to me that they are. Either of those two would be great options for NZ and seem more appropriate than anything else.
The ANZAC is pretty much the minium spec you want for high intensity stuff, you would want it loaded before going in but this can be done given notice. The fact Australia runs the same vessel and can train, service and pay for the upgrade should not be forgotten. NZ should not go down the OPV is a combat ship or the corvette route, they are not suitable for her region and needs.
Its entirely possible that RNZN vessels will have to handle being fired apon, shadowed by submarines, threatend by air and be placed into potentially high intensity zones in our region with out overwhelming US support as part of a mishmash force.
I think your post is a little bit condescending. The US does not need any material support from any nation; there is a difference between being helpful and needed.
The Protector project was about giving NZ some degree of independent operation, I think to a degree it has achieved this, and provides NZ with more capability than another ANZAC I would have.
We don’t know exactly what the T26/ANZAC II will look like, but from what we do know the size is being driven by requirements that are completely unsuited for NZ requirement. Had it been for a flex deck such as the Absalons this would have been of value maybe, potentially enabling the replacement of both the Canterbury and ANZAC Is (I was only suggesting the OPVs as escorts/scouts to such a larger self escorting vessel)? However the ANZAC II size appears to be driven by the need to carry large numbers of VLS for: either ABM capability (RAN) or land attack cruise missiles (RN) RNZN will end up with big hulls for limited benefits. An 8 cell VLS giving 32 ESSM (actually 16 would do) is more than sufficient to deal with the likely threat.
Simply being about to provide 2 frigates as additional ASW escorts for an RAN expeditionary taskforce does not serve NZ well.
You cannot expect NZ to maintain meaningful numbers of top tier assets, this is a country that has already abandoned fixed wing strike jets and now you are asking it focus a huge proportion of its defence spend on 2 frigates (forget the idea of 3).
Chances are any 2nd hand frigate would more than likely be older then our current ANZACs as it would be hard to find someone willing to sell one of their newer frigates unless they were surplus to requirements, not likely in these days. Even if we could get our hands on an ex RAN FFH(which would be the best bet for commonality, useability and interoperability with our closest neighbour and our current fleet) then it would likely be their first build, HMAS Anzac I think which is only slightly older then our first. Agreed this does put us in the position of having to replace all three around the same period therefore a hard financial pill to swallow when the time comes.
The only other options would be to source another frigate which leaves us with a 2 type frigate navy that would more than likely bring different sensors, weapons, characteristics and all its other little headaches associated with different maintainence and operability and probably no one in our immediate region to share expertise with. Yes the most ideal scenario would be to tag onto the UK/AUS schemes and buy new but that is awhile off yet and in the mean time we are still a frigate down and whats to say when replacement time comes we don't just one for one and remain in our current position (if that). I do like the idea of new ANZAC type now to avoid replacing all at once later and spread the burden however I was being optimistic with 2nd hand as usually cheaper and therefore easier to sell to the bean counters. I suppose all this alternative frigate talk is moot unless we upgrade our current fleet to a credible standard that can safely take them into the future.
Most European countries have big budget deficits, and are looking agressively at defence spending, I wouldn't be surprised if you offered the UK a reasonable sum for the last T23 (only 8 years old) you would get a yes answer, we did sell 3 which I think were even younger at the time? The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them. They are virtually brand new.
Most European countries have big budget deficits, and are looking agressively at defence spending, I wouldn't be surprised if you offered the UK a reasonable sum for the last T23 (only 8 years old) you would get a yes answer, we did sell 3 which I think were even younger at the time? The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them. They are virtually brand new.
Wouldn't it be more likely that the Dutch would cut back on the two Karel Doormans. The two still in service are not that much older than our Anzacs.
I have to acknowledge that if we are going to replace the Anzacs we would be a Navy that would be operating two types of frigate anyway for quite a period. It is something we have lived with before and will have to live with again.
The De Zeven Provinciën class are probably beyond the manning capability, but again the Dutch have a habit of over building numbers to keep their yards in business and 4 looks a lot for them.
A lot? But they and the last two M-class are the entire front-line fleet! Those four ships have taken over the combat role of eight older ships.
I reckon the Dutch would be far more likely to keep their shiny new DZPs & sell off van Amstel & van Speijk, if they want to save operating costs. They give far less bang per euro on operating costs than the DZP, & for anything short of all-out warfighting, the new Holland class will be able to do it cheaper.
A lot? But they and the last two M-class are the entire front-line fleet! Those four ships have taken over the combat role of eight older ships.
I reckon the Dutch would be far more likely to keep their shiny new DZPs & sell off van Amstel & van Speijk, if they want to save operating costs. They give far less bang per euro on operating costs than the DZP, & for anything short of all-out warfighting, the new Holland class will be able to do it cheaper.
I think your right, I am very surprised how fast their fleet has contracted. Also a AWD would be a lot more than NZ needs or wants or probably could operate. But since you mention them 6 Holland class and 2 Absalons would be ideal for the RNZN.
I don't know what sums you get for 2nd hand ships, but I bet they would only get c£20m for a M Class whereas a DZP prehaps £200m? As soon as the Holland class are finished there will be pressure to build more ships?
I think your post is a little bit condescending. The US does not need any material support from any nation; there is a difference between being helpful and needed.
The Protector project was about giving NZ some degree of independent operation, I think to a degree it has achieved this, and provides NZ with more capability than another ANZAC I would have.
I apologise if it came across condescending, that was not my intention I am merely stating a view and am interested in other points and arguments. While Protector does give NZ some capability that it did not have before, and honestly I think is something they need. Protector shouldn't direct otherpurchases that fall outside its specific criteria. Protector is not a frigate, and will not perform the duties of a frigate and was not designed nor intended to. It gives capability that NZ did not have before in strategic sealift that it needed. Comparing it to an ANZAC is a bit silly, but then again rereading my post I alluded to something simular accidently.
Quote:
We don’t know exactly what the T26/ANZAC II will look like, but from what we do know the size is being driven by requirements that are completely unsuited for NZ requirement.
Well maybe not. Australia's requirements are fairly simular to NZ requirements, in the past the UK, AU and NZ have operate the same class of vessels and suited the purpose fairly well.
Taking Timor as an example, the NZ government was completely in agreement with Aus govenment thinking. NZ was able to play a very important role in the operations because of common training with US, UK, Singapore, Aus and French units. With out a "frigate" NZ policy would have only been in words because they would have been unable to commit any tangable combat naval assets.
Quote:
Simply being about to provide 2 frigates as additional ASW escorts for an RAN expeditionary taskforce does not serve NZ well.
It wasn't just a RAN expeditionary taskforce. It was a UN sanctioned action carried out my a multinational taskforce with political and material support from the US and the UK and lead by Australia. It wasn't about Australia flexing its muscles, it was a real attempt to stop attrocities and genocide in our collective region. These are the sort of actions nations have defence forces for, to be able to make decisions on. I think it stands as an execellent example of why you spend money on military forces for noble and peaceful gains. It was also an example of which nations are able to meaningfully contribute to an operation and who gets in the way, it cemented tighter ties between commonwealth assets (UK, AU, NZ, CA) in a suprising way.
NZ naval commitment would also assist NZ army commitment, allowing NZ troops to work through NZ assets atleast a signficant portion of the time and not dependant on other nations resources, commitments and assets to deploy NZ ground forces.
While NZ can't offer a top tier asset, they can offer purposeful ships that pull their weight. While this may mean not choosing ANZAC II, or Type 26 it does mean something able to look after herself in simular situations.
A type 23 if avalible might be more suitable. But T26/ANZACII do not have to have its VLS loaded with TLAM and PAC3. At which point it may not cost much if anymore for NZ over competiting offers. NZ is also limited by the ANZAC hull with upgrades, Absalon is the same size as the preposed T26/ANZACII and not much larger than the T23 (~15m longer an ~2m wider but shallower draft).
Trade issues and defence issues are directly linked, Without proper EEZ patrols your fisheries will be raped by others. Without proper warships to partake in allied operations, one risks having no allies...
The US tried the isolationists path, but found neutral merchant shipping being sunk off its coasts, A merchant ship doesn't fly any colors proclaiming its next destination, only its flag host....
One thing that I don’t think we have given much thought to is that the C1/C2/Type 26 won’t happen until post 2020 and the Anzac II possibly in the middle of next decade. Thus we are talking about at least a 10 year or even 15 year timeframe before we see the first vessel.
Lets say if the NZ government makes a commitment to be a partner in the Type 26/ Anzac II (to whatever degree and to whatever level of kit) to replace the current Anzacs, it still leaves a heck of a long time in which things could change adversely in a geo-political sense.
We might find that just 2 frigates puts us operationally even at more risk and we might quickly have to require two more. If this is the case then we would have to have a Plan B. In my view this could more likely than not likely as I think this decade will be as difficult and suprising as the last.
Plan B may involve us having to buy into a class of two new frigates this decade and two more the next. Problem with that is it enters us into a significant commitment which has the possibility of ending any UK/OZ frigate replacement programme in the following decade. Or Plan B may involve us having to do what we did in 1983 and buy two used frigates. Then we bought the Southland and Wellington. Both had had a fairly hard life as we know and those of us with greying hair will remember the grumbling. However a couple of things they were cheap when in the early 1980’s the economy was tight (In fact we were worse off then than now if the truth be told) and secondly the NZDF was well aware that within a decade a new class of frigates was on its way. The White Paper of 1983 iirc mentions this. So the Southland and Wellington were essentially purchased as stop gaps. We really did not have much choice at the time and in the end they did get the job done. A two frigate navy from the mid 1980's would have been a disaster for us.
If we need a Plan B (which we do of course) do we enter into a new long term commitment that sees us with 4 new vessel which are not Type 26 / Anzac II based or do we for example grab a couple of cheap Type 23’s or Karel Doormans to hold us over for a decade or so?
Last edited by MrConservative; August 30th, 2010 at 01:16 AM.
Reason: Tidying it up a bit.
I'd imagine no change to the present 2 Frigate structure 2010-2015.
Although it is expected the remaining various ANZAC Frigate upgrades are to be completed in this timeframe. (Defence Whitepaper to confirm this aspect soon etc).
Will most of this work be done concurrently (to minimise ship/personnel downtime)? If not, would it then make sense for the Govt to acquire a second-hand, third Frigate (eg to ensure Govt Outputs are met, 2+ crews, and 2 Frigates instead of 1 will always be available etc)?
Possibilities could include ex-USN FFG7's (if available - I thought I read 2 more were sold recently). Or possible an upgraded HMAS Sydney might become available post 2015? With the RAN ANZAC's being upgraded now I'd doubt any of these might be sold off in the next few years etc.
But post 2015 and as the RAN AWD's join their fleet perhaps it may be possible to acquire ex-RAN vessels (if the Pollies think it prudent to lock NZ early into a 3x ANZAC II replacement programme post-2025 etc)?
In the meantime (2010-2015) best NZ concentrate on upgrading their existing ANZAC's to be relevant to Australian (etc) taskings.
There's some interesting reading/planning/thinking in the RNZN Strategic Plan 2008 (obviously pre-change of Govt and Defence Whitepaper) but interesting nonetheless.
Eg see Maritime Military Capability (MMC) pages 23-27, then see Annex A – RNZN Strategic Journey Maps (pages 38 onwards).
Eg timelines and costs to upgrade the ANZAC's (although some projects are clearly 1-2 years behind schedule). Conduct Future Naval Combat Force Capability study was slated as 2012-2015, Acquire Future Naval Combat Force was slated as 2016-2024 etc (probably meaning commission date 2024 at the earliest etc).
Mention of small/medium UAV's, Seasprite upgrade/replacements 2014-2016, upgrades to sensors, tactical data links and ISR eg GCCS-M, FIAC counter measure upgrades, even the fitting of CIWS and torpedo defence to HMNZS Canterbury, OPV FIAC protection and 25mm gun arcs upgrades (as in more 25mm guns perhaps)? It does state that some of this is "aspirational" and the new White Paper will probably reset some priorities, but at least especially for our cuzzies over the ditch there's clear thinking on the roles of Frigates versus Patrol ships, and it appears the patrol ships will be upgraded in terms of ELINT, ESM, radars for helo tracking and some self-defence countermeasures against FIAC etc. I wouldn't expect OPV's to be sent to the Gulf, but from this perhaps they could join anti-piracy/counter-terrorism activities in SE Asia or northern Australia/SW Pacific etc?
