Future options for the RNZN

[Lucasnz]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[RubiconNZ]

ANZAC Upgrade

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]

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]

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?

 

[RubiconNZ]

Upgrades

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]

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]

Disasters et al.

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]

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.

 

[Rocco_NZ]

diving

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]

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.

 

[alexsa]

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]

utility

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]

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.