Stuart Mackey
New Member
And deeply satisfying to any Kiwi given the issues the Aussies had with the Newports {hopes everyone forgets the Charles Upham debacle}Sea Toby said:
New Zealand awards contract for $500 Million Dollar Project "Protector".
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #222
Multiply 1735 sq. meters by 2 and you get 3470 sq. meters of cargo space. Multiply 382x 2 and you get 764 lane meters. Add this capability, plus the ability to carry 8 TT Helo's (which is likely to be as many if not more than NZ operates in total) and it makes ME damn proud to be an Aussie...Sea Toby said:
This is a silly argument. Miniscule capability enhancements in some areas, and signicantly less capability in others does not make for a superiour ship IMHO. Anyway who cares this argument will be totally irrelevant in 6-7 years.
Our LPD's will be one of the most capable vessels of their type, in the world then, not just the Pacific region...
All so true. Also keep in mind the Dutch and the Spanish purchased one Explorer LPD of 13,000 tons, which cost the Dutch $150 American, or in the vicinity of $250 million Australian around the same time. The ship was approved in May of 1993, ordered in April of 1994, and delivered in 1998, whereas the Australians didn't eventually get their Newport LPAs until 2000, after spending $400 million Australian in cost overuns and with delivery 4 years late.
The Dutch Explorer LPD of 13,000 tons carries 6 Cougar helicopters, which are larger than the NH-90s, with 510 square meters of hangar space, the flight deck having two landing spots. 903 square meters of internal volume, 885 square meters of docking well, plus 1340 square meters of helicopter deck, which adds up to 1788 square meters of volume using the well dock, 3128 square meters of volume using the helicopter deck too, not to mention the 510 square meters of hangar space. Carries 4 LCM-8s in the docking well, 30 Leopard 2 tanks, or 160 APCs. Has a crew of 113 plus 470 troops, plus 150 additional troops for short hops.
Brand new ships, which could have been built in Australia during the late 1990s. Yes, Australia attempted to get two LPAs on the cheap, converting two ageing vessels when they could have had better brand new LPD for the same price after the delays and cost overruns. Australia purchased the ships for $20 million each, was going to spend $120 million to upgrade both of them. The wet dream evaporated with the delays which led to massive cost overruns.
Its all water over the dam now, but I wonder if Australia would have been better off getting the two Newports unaltered, while building one of the Dutch Explorer LPDs at the same time.
The Dutch Explorer LPD of 13,000 tons carries 6 Cougar helicopters, which are larger than the NH-90s, with 510 square meters of hangar space, the flight deck having two landing spots. 903 square meters of internal volume, 885 square meters of docking well, plus 1340 square meters of helicopter deck, which adds up to 1788 square meters of volume using the well dock, 3128 square meters of volume using the helicopter deck too, not to mention the 510 square meters of hangar space. Carries 4 LCM-8s in the docking well, 30 Leopard 2 tanks, or 160 APCs. Has a crew of 113 plus 470 troops, plus 150 additional troops for short hops.
Brand new ships, which could have been built in Australia during the late 1990s. Yes, Australia attempted to get two LPAs on the cheap, converting two ageing vessels when they could have had better brand new LPD for the same price after the delays and cost overruns. Australia purchased the ships for $20 million each, was going to spend $120 million to upgrade both of them. The wet dream evaporated with the delays which led to massive cost overruns.
Its all water over the dam now, but I wonder if Australia would have been better off getting the two Newports unaltered, while building one of the Dutch Explorer LPDs at the same time.
Last edited:
It seems to me we would be better asking, can any military project be delivered on time and within the budget! While I know some are, they seem to be the exception to the rule. Politics, budgets and technology do not seem to be happy bedfellows!Sea Toby said:
New Zealand had a similar situation in the 1980's when it purchased Wellington, though without costs overruns. It took 4 years to bring the ship back into service after moderisation etc (I think the bill was 50million). When you take into account the cost of modernisation, purchase and increased operating costs over the navy's then preferred option of Korteners (excuse the spelling), the cost I image would work out about the same as buying new. I've become a skeptic on second hand purchases, where the ship needs extensive modernisation. Look what happen to the Monawai after it decommissioned (Purchased with plans to modernise, found to be too costly at 30 years of age and later scrapped)Sea Toby said:
A great example of acquiring used equipment is New Zealand's Resolution, a former US Navy Stalwart class T-AGOS. She was purchased less than seven years of age, and converted easily and cheaply into a hydrographic ship, AGOR. New Zealand acquired the cream puff cheaply, installed new off the shelf hydrographic technology on her, the echo sounding sonar, and for less than half the price of a new state of the art ship the Australians built, received a very nice and modern hydrograhic ship. Portugal was so satisfied with their similar conversion of their Stalwart, whose US Navy's T-AGOS mission became redunctant after the Cold War, they acquired another for oceanographic missions.
The key is the age of the equipment, in this case a ship, and how simple the conversion. New Zealand did the same with their diving support vessel too.
On the other hand Australia attempted to build a small LPD from a LST. In their case both ships were old, at twenty years of age, and the conversion was large in scope, although functional. While their LPAs today are very functional, the conversion programme ran into roadblocks, worn out thin steel hulls being the large culprit. The conversion project turned into a rehabilitation project, and by the time the conversion was completed 4 years late, 4 more years of labor had been swallowed in the cost overruns. So much, a new bigger better ship could have been built instead. It was a good move on the Australians part to pick up these LSTs as a stop gap for newer better ships, but they should not have done the conversion. Some ten years after they purchased the ships, and five years after their conversions, Australia will start building two new LHDs to replace these. The $400 million in cost overruns is water over the dam, its gone.
Notice that none of the other navies which acquired these used Newports bothered to upgrade them significantly, and many likewise are building or soon will build newer amphibious/logistic ships. For example, Spain acquired two Newports and will replace both with their LHD, which is the favorite of the RAN it seems over the French Mistral LHD, although both are still in the picture.
The key is the age of the equipment, in this case a ship, and how simple the conversion. New Zealand did the same with their diving support vessel too.
On the other hand Australia attempted to build a small LPD from a LST. In their case both ships were old, at twenty years of age, and the conversion was large in scope, although functional. While their LPAs today are very functional, the conversion programme ran into roadblocks, worn out thin steel hulls being the large culprit. The conversion project turned into a rehabilitation project, and by the time the conversion was completed 4 years late, 4 more years of labor had been swallowed in the cost overruns. So much, a new bigger better ship could have been built instead. It was a good move on the Australians part to pick up these LSTs as a stop gap for newer better ships, but they should not have done the conversion. Some ten years after they purchased the ships, and five years after their conversions, Australia will start building two new LHDs to replace these. The $400 million in cost overruns is water over the dam, its gone.
Notice that none of the other navies which acquired these used Newports bothered to upgrade them significantly, and many likewise are building or soon will build newer amphibious/logistic ships. For example, Spain acquired two Newports and will replace both with their LHD, which is the favorite of the RAN it seems over the French Mistral LHD, although both are still in the picture.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #227
There were problems with this project, it's undeniable. The ships the RAN chose, were not the best option, in hindsight. At least now they are providing good capability, and will do so until they are replaced by the far more capable and virtually "off the shelf" LPH acquisitions starting from 2013...Sea Toby said:
As to military capability being a un-deliverable "on time and on budget", it's a bit of a mixed bag. "Off the shelf" capability seems to be relatively straight forward (witness: M1A1, Tiger ARH, Armidale patrol boats projects etc for Australia).
It's when you decide you'll go your own way and upgrade or newly build platforms that no-one else has even attempted that things seem to go wrong (witness: Collins subs, Seasprite Helo's, LPA's, etc)...
Let's hope the AWD's bucks this trend, as it's a vitally important capability for the ADF, not just RAN...
Weapons development doesn't come cheap, the Americans know all to well. While America tends to keep the price of its equipment down, development costs are through the roof. Look at what's happening with American programs such as the F-22, F-35, C-17, DDX, and Virginia class submarines.
Orginally the F-35 was supposed to cost in American FY99 dollars, $23 million each, with development costs included $72 million each. And these figures have blown out. Frankly, I am of the opinion if the price per aircraft runs over $100 million, America would be better off purchasing F-18 E/Fs, we can get two of them for the price of one F-35. I find it astonishing how the Pentagon has convinced the American Navy to purchase a single engine fighter, the American Navy in the past has preferred two engines over the sea.
While America attempts to get other nations to share in development costs, nations the size of Australia and even smaller such as New Zealand shouldn't attempt to go it alone. While America may build hundreds if not thousands of aircraft, Australia at best will acquire only a hundred and New Zealand 20 at best.
Development costs have risen so much, the Europeans are sharing this costs among other nations too. The Eurofighter is a fine example. Even for nations the size of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, the going it alone era has passed.
Orginally the F-35 was supposed to cost in American FY99 dollars, $23 million each, with development costs included $72 million each. And these figures have blown out. Frankly, I am of the opinion if the price per aircraft runs over $100 million, America would be better off purchasing F-18 E/Fs, we can get two of them for the price of one F-35. I find it astonishing how the Pentagon has convinced the American Navy to purchase a single engine fighter, the American Navy in the past has preferred two engines over the sea.
While America attempts to get other nations to share in development costs, nations the size of Australia and even smaller such as New Zealand shouldn't attempt to go it alone. While America may build hundreds if not thousands of aircraft, Australia at best will acquire only a hundred and New Zealand 20 at best.
Development costs have risen so much, the Europeans are sharing this costs among other nations too. The Eurofighter is a fine example. Even for nations the size of the United Kingdom, France, and Germany, the going it alone era has passed.
chrishorne
New Member
I was really interested about this - how the hell it was going to protect itself. Actually I was thinking it might of been better to replace the Phalanx on one/both of the Frigates with Sea RAM (latest version with anti helicopter and surface abilities) and then free up a Phalanx or two for the MRV.Sea Toby said:
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree 100% as it seems the idea that Phalanx alone is an effective missile defence system has been well and truely refuted on this site. I think the term used was a 'hail mary' system.chrishorne said:
It would be nice to see Australian ANZACs with SeaRAM or Mistral as a second layer system under ESSM (hopefully with the 25mm typhoon in the latter case). If this gets off the ground it would be interesting to see if it carries over to the RNZN.
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Rnzn
In terms of capability, the only real reasons other than leftie or Green appeasment the OPV was developed to relieve the ANZACs from Southern Ocean, which is I think most can agree is overkil. Any realistic weapon upgrades would be Torpedo tubes, this would pack a punch on well anything, and in terms of Air Defence, well if Australia sent Manoora to the Gulf which was a war zone with Rbs 70s, then throwing a Mistral on the deck of the OPV isn't inconceivable, and realistically the only place they will go in deployments is the south pacific, which conisists of similiarly equipped patrol boats ie Solomons, Vanauatu, Samoa, Fiji etc.
With the MRV well, yes CIWS I would of thought would of come as standard in terms of protection of boat and the 350 personnel on board. Sea ram would be nice but the NZDF is not going to buy somethiong new for a single platform so Phalanx at least has impressive specs, even if in practise not so good. Ditto with the deployment of a mistral on the heli-deck for any hot zones.
This will give the RNZA the ability to lift nearly half of a Infantry Batt, which with the 757's and C130's to take up the rest, give the NZDF the ability to deploy its peace time/ low intensity conflict goal. The NZ deploying both Battalions would be like Australia depolying the JFHQ's and the Entire 1st Division slim to none except for invasion of either country really.
Two Anzacs is minimum but doable in terms of deployment 6 on 5 off. 2008-10 is slated ESSM date for Anzacs well, Im not holding my breath, and the NZ MOD is looking at Harpoons for Orions, (doubtful) and for the Anzacs, (hopefully) Other capability upgrades I think will only come with change of Government, maybe next time now Labour just won again.
Since this thread has gone into Airpower I will as well, I nearly had a heart attack when I heard that the Labour had dissovled the Air Combat wing, however in terms of Air Defence, perhaps for cost a land based upgrade would be better. MEADs sounds nice, but a CLAAWS capability would be closer. With the selection of NHR90 I hope the light helicopter will be seperated into two sections a Bell Ranger or similar for training and 12 light recon, fire support choppers such as the Little Bird or for a greater lift one of the Fennec AS 550 or similar, provide light ransport when required, and half decent fire support in terms of destroying a small millita outpost on a rocky crag. Or a heavy machine gun emmplacement. Heck it can pack Hellfires solve anti armor issues that 23 javelin launchers amongst total regular and TF infantry of what about 1400?
I mean sure in terms of CDR the NZ's should contribute perhaps 50-75% of the operating costs of a Fighter Squadron and have a Australian based Fighter Squad, with joint manning (p.c. term?) RNZAF/RAAN, most Kiwi pilots went to Aus once the Skyhawks retired, and 6 were based at Nowra so its not a stretch. NZ does not need F-35's, sure it would be nice but so would RAAF buying 6 B1-B's (ooh just think of the possibilities) unlikely however.
In terms of capability, the only real reasons other than leftie or Green appeasment the OPV was developed to relieve the ANZACs from Southern Ocean, which is I think most can agree is overkil. Any realistic weapon upgrades would be Torpedo tubes, this would pack a punch on well anything, and in terms of Air Defence, well if Australia sent Manoora to the Gulf which was a war zone with Rbs 70s, then throwing a Mistral on the deck of the OPV isn't inconceivable, and realistically the only place they will go in deployments is the south pacific, which conisists of similiarly equipped patrol boats ie Solomons, Vanauatu, Samoa, Fiji etc.
With the MRV well, yes CIWS I would of thought would of come as standard in terms of protection of boat and the 350 personnel on board. Sea ram would be nice but the NZDF is not going to buy somethiong new for a single platform so Phalanx at least has impressive specs, even if in practise not so good. Ditto with the deployment of a mistral on the heli-deck for any hot zones.
This will give the RNZA the ability to lift nearly half of a Infantry Batt, which with the 757's and C130's to take up the rest, give the NZDF the ability to deploy its peace time/ low intensity conflict goal. The NZ deploying both Battalions would be like Australia depolying the JFHQ's and the Entire 1st Division slim to none except for invasion of either country really.
Two Anzacs is minimum but doable in terms of deployment 6 on 5 off. 2008-10 is slated ESSM date for Anzacs well, Im not holding my breath, and the NZ MOD is looking at Harpoons for Orions, (doubtful) and for the Anzacs, (hopefully) Other capability upgrades I think will only come with change of Government, maybe next time now Labour just won again.
Since this thread has gone into Airpower I will as well, I nearly had a heart attack when I heard that the Labour had dissovled the Air Combat wing, however in terms of Air Defence, perhaps for cost a land based upgrade would be better. MEADs sounds nice, but a CLAAWS capability would be closer. With the selection of NHR90 I hope the light helicopter will be seperated into two sections a Bell Ranger or similar for training and 12 light recon, fire support choppers such as the Little Bird or for a greater lift one of the Fennec AS 550 or similar, provide light ransport when required, and half decent fire support in terms of destroying a small millita outpost on a rocky crag. Or a heavy machine gun emmplacement. Heck it can pack Hellfires solve anti armor issues that 23 javelin launchers amongst total regular and TF infantry of what about 1400?
I mean sure in terms of CDR the NZ's should contribute perhaps 50-75% of the operating costs of a Fighter Squadron and have a Australian based Fighter Squad, with joint manning (p.c. term?) RNZAF/RAAN, most Kiwi pilots went to Aus once the Skyhawks retired, and 6 were based at Nowra so its not a stretch. NZ does not need F-35's, sure it would be nice but so would RAAF buying 6 B1-B's (ooh just think of the possibilities) unlikely however.
nz enthusiast
New Member
It is taking the NZ government a very long time to decide what is to replace the sioux, it was first looked into about 10 years ago believe it or not. There was also the time we were having a look at the blackhawk, but we missed the cut off date to buy withthe Australian order, the same for the third anzac frigate, collins class subs, F-18s, C-130Js etc etc etc. Basically if Australia buys something NZ gets offered the chance to join in and buy some. It is just our politicans always say no.
Another politician off the deep end of reality with a foot in his mouth. One of the National ministers criticized the MPV because it could use its landing boats in calm seas only. WRONG! The LCMs can be used in Sea State 3. The MPV can use its helicopters in Sea State 6.
The top limits of Sea State 3 is 11 feet. I don't know of any soldier who would want to be in a small boat in Sea States much higher. Its been my experience Sea States vary during a day as the wind subsides. Usually landing operations commence when the Sea States are good, not bad.
Even D-day was delayed by a forthnight. Tarawa was a mess because the tide wasn't high enough for the boats to clear the reefs.
The top limits of Sea State 3 is 11 feet. I don't know of any soldier who would want to be in a small boat in Sea States much higher. Its been my experience Sea States vary during a day as the wind subsides. Usually landing operations commence when the Sea States are good, not bad.
Even D-day was delayed by a forthnight. Tarawa was a mess because the tide wasn't high enough for the boats to clear the reefs.
I am not sure about overkill. I think there are a few in the Australian JOPC who would love to have a decent OPV (I am not making any claims about the capabiliyt of the RNZN OPV) to opertate in place of PBs or the chartered (and not enirely suitable) MV Oceanic Viking.robsta83 said:
It wouel appear that a good OPV design with minimum crew for the job, helo capability, very good seakeeping and a robust hull would be a better option for patrol work in the southern ocean than an ANZAC of FFG even if they were only armed with a 25mm and MG's.
I agree, Australia could use 4 OPVs similar to the New Zealand OPVs, two based on each coast with the ships operating in the Southern Ocean. The 78-meter lrish boats cost in the vicinity of American $35 million each, and it appears the 85-meter New Zealand boats may have cost a few years later a bit more, possibly up to American $40 million each.
The New Zealand MPV at American $110 million, the two OPVs $80 million, and the four IPVs $40 million; for a sum of American $230 million. I think these prices reflect American dollars.
Definitely, OPVs dont' cost near as much as a frigate, at most 20 pecent of a new frigate. Five can be built for the price of one frigate.
The New Zealand MPV at American $110 million, the two OPVs $80 million, and the four IPVs $40 million; for a sum of American $230 million. I think these prices reflect American dollars.
Definitely, OPVs dont' cost near as much as a frigate, at most 20 pecent of a new frigate. Five can be built for the price of one frigate.
Last edited: