Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[MrConservative]

Mr C, thanks for the comment regarding my suggestion on the AOR's, appreciated.

It's an interesting suggestion you are making, if I understand you correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong) you are suggesting, replace Endeavour with a new AOR and don't complicate it's design and construction by spending extra money on making it ice capable, but instead have another ship that was ice capable that could also take on the roles of Resolution too, true?

It's funny you say that, if you go back a few pages on this thread and have at look at my comments to Ng (#2966) where I said:




Would the replacement for Resolution be a dedicated Ice Breaker or are you suggesting the ship be Ice Strengthened only instead??

I suppose the next issue of course is money, is there enough in the 'pot' for two dedicated ships to fill those two distinct roles?

Sorry John I missed your prior post. It is exactly what I am thinking.

Would it be an Ice breaker? Nn - Ice strengthen and to a higher standard than 1C.

I think that the concept for the next endeavour is fine - however I have reservations over whether the Antarctic Ice dimension is plausible - it is a role too far.

If we deduct the IC Ice capability from the next Endeavour and put the savings towards a smaller vessel such as the one Assail proposed and sold the idea politically it would be doable. Selling to the NZ public and politicians an extra vessel for fisheries patrol and environmental protection with the added kudos that it supports the Antarctic Science if the cost is not prohibitive - well it is far easier than pretty much any other major defence acquisition.

 

[John Newman]

Ok, we are both on the same page, two ships for two different roles.

So the question is Mr C, is there currently a ship in service, something along the lines that Assail mentioned (an ice strengthened version of Ocean Shield for example) that will fit in with your suggestion?

Or would it have to be designed and built from scratch?

 

[Shanesworld]

Ok, we are both on the same page, two ships for two different roles.

So the question is Mr C, is there currently a ship in service, something along the lines that Assail mentioned (an ice strengthened version of Ocean Shield for example) that will fit in with your suggestion?

Or would it have to be designed and built from scratch?

Apologies if this is still not a very valid idea. I am not a marine engineer at all by the way nor have any experience managing any sort of procurement or capital engineering project.

But here is my thoughts. The best option if time, continuity and perception of money less of an issue the best direction would be a four or god forbid five vessel class of true multirole vessels. An apologies if you have heard this from me before but I think that takes the form of a flat top 8000 to 10000 ton design with a well dock mounting bow mounted sonar, CEAFAR/ SMART-L, VLS, two phalanx, a five inch and two triple tubes. (160m - 180m, 19-22m beam, draw 5ish metres and aim for a crew not exceeding 125 ish)
Flight deck/cargo deck with armoured fuels/liquids, armoured ammo modules moved into the deck when in a replenishment role, lane meters for taxiing army, and hangar space for 4 to 7 medium sized helos for sub hunting and capital ship harassment.
No one makes these really with that myriad of roles in mind I know and there is probably a good reason (I am probably naive in this) but when I think about this its the answer I keep comming back to.
Crewing is always an issue but the Canterbury for such a cheap and cheerful vessel is well automated and the formidable class is also a possible example to look at (although I imagine the Singaporeans are less likely to have to patrol as far maybe?).
It allows the right munitions to be carried into high intensity stuff with entry level sensors, has the flexibility to carry out other less than war roles with cargo space to burn, and respond to RENA type situations (I helped on something to do with that and can see a role there that this concept would have been useful) humanitarian event and still self escort with the option to bring the most effective sub and ship hunting assets - more helicopters.
If you could tell me where this is going wrong outside of the fiscal and political viability it would be appreciated.
Cheers Shane

 

[ngatimozart]

Trouble with the kiwi mentality is that we don't think we are 10ft tall and bullet proof - we know that we are. Anything bad is always going to happen to somebody else and with our nearest neighbours being the West Island, the pollies and general public think that all bad things start north of the Top End and stay there. The RNZN said recently that 99% of our trade is seaborne and Mr C, I understand what you are saying in your first post. I agree with you on the political and public perception dimensions. I'd actually forgotten about Resolution and the non replacement of that hull.

Resolution was partly used as a hydrographic vessel and from what I understand the multibeam echo sounders and motion compensators off Resolution were supposed to be transferred to the OPVs. Whether that is a permanent fitting, or as required I don't know, but permanent would be better because if it's temporary would really be a pain, as set up each time can be complicated. Given that, as far as I am aware, the RNZN no longer has the LINZ hydrographic contract and they have cut back on their scientific work (budget cuts to Defence Science), the only acceptable argument I can now see for an extra OPV or two is the fisheries patrol of the EEZ, Pacific Islands, Sub Antarctic Islands and Antarctic waters we claim.

I think we might be getting "hung up" on the ice issue with the MPSC. I may be wrong, but I would think that the reason for the ice strengthening is so they can use the vessel to carry diesel fuel and aviation kerosene, to McMurdo during the summer months. In my view using a 20,000+ tonne AOR /amphib support vessel for fisheries protection is an expensive and inefficient option, if that was all it was tasked to do for one mission. However if it was returning to DNB from a fuel drop off at McMurdo and were to undertake some fisheries work that is another story.

After Rena I was thinking that maybe instead of the NZG investing in two dedicated oil spill vessels, as suggested by some that modules could be designed to fit on the OPVs and they be used for such work. I think the size of the OPVs are about right and I would have to ask elsewhere about their handling and sea keeping etc., but I think that they could be the basis for a new OPV with better design, because we should have learned some lessons.

If I combine one of Mr Cs and one of Johns comments and ask how do we justify the expense of a sea going ice breaking "salvage" tug? Who is going to operate it? Mr C commented on us not having anything to tow a vessel in trouble in open waters. John suggested an icebreaker; I've just combined the two into something which might be something more viable. Then you have an icebreaker that can take the Endeavour replacement to McMurdo as well as tow / salvage a stranded container vessel, tanker etc., across the open sea. Secondly it saves the USCG sending one of their icebreakers down each summer. The US NSF possibly would be happier as they wouldn't have to bear the cost of the vessels transit from the US Pacific Coast to Hobart and back. Make it a bit larger and yes it could support Antarctic science, but don't forget NIWA have their research vessel Tangora and they could (and do) operate that a fair ways south.

You could possibly sell the MPSC and another OPV with spill kit to the general public on environmental and fisheries protection grounds and maybe even an icebreaker /salvage / Antarctic patrol vessel. The RNZN got a lot of coverage using the Endeavour to take the off loaded fuel from Rena during the salvage, so even the greenies might accept the idea.

 

[John Newman]

Apologies if this is still not a very valid idea. I am not a marine engineer at all by the way nor have any experience managing any sort of procurement or capital engineering project.

Shane, I'm not a marine engineer either, but it sounds like you are describing a 10,000t 'helicopter carrier - amphibious - anti-submarine frigate - air warfare destroyer' hybrid ship all in one.

Somehow I don't think that NZ is going to be looking for such a ship, let alone four or five of them, as you have suggested.

I'll leave further comment on your suggestion to Mr C and Ng who would both have a far better knowledge of what NZ needs than I do and more importantly what it can afford to do too.

 

[Shanesworld]

Shane, I'm not a marine engineer either, but it sounds like you are describing a 10,000t 'helicopter carrier - amphibious - anti-submarine frigate - air warfare destroyer' hybrid ship all in one.

Somehow I don't think that NZ is going to be looking for such a ship, let alone four or five of them, as you have suggested.

I'll leave further comment on your suggestion to Mr C and Ng who would both have a far better knowledge of what NZ needs than I do and more importantly what it can afford to do too.

Yeah it does sound abit silly and I have no idea regarding the volume/power/coolant/mass constraints of any of those systems but with a flat top vessel it does give abit of volume and if you have the volume it gives abit of fleixbility. What if we looked at it as a GP frigate with "enlarged helicopter facilities",a small capacity well dock and generous cargo capacity would that work?

If they can act as say frigate, then re role for replenishment or amphib duties wouldn't that address afew training, support and spares issues?
But your right it is abit silly. If there is any merit A) we can't afford B) nobody wants it and C) our navy is to small to generate to experiment with say $5-7b (NZD) in a punt. I'll leave it there.
Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Yeah it does sound abit silly and I have no idea regarding the volume/power/coolant/mass constraints of any of those systems but with a flat top vessel it does give abit of volume and if you have the volume it gives abit of fleixbility. What if we looked at it as a GP frigate with "enlarged helicopter facilities",a small capacity well dock and generous cargo capacity would that work?

If they can act as say frigate, then re role for replenishment or amphib duties wouldn't that address afew training, support and spares issues?
But your right it is abit silly. If there is any merit A) we can't afford B) nobody wants it and C) our navy is to small to generate to experiment with say $5-7b (NZD) in a punt. I'll leave it there.
Cheers

Shane, have a look at the Danish Absalon Class frigates which I personally think would be good for the RNZN. Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship - Naval Technology Also have a look at what we have been talking about regarding the Aegir 18R AOR Aegir Brochure That should give you an something to start with.
NG.

 

[MrConservative]

Ok, we are both on the same page, two ships for two different roles.

So the question is Mr C, is there currently a ship in service, something along the lines that Assail mentioned (an ice strengthened version of Ocean Shield for example) that will fit in with your suggestion?

Or would it have to be designed and built from scratch?

John, the Scando Coast Guards like Sweden and Iceland have new vessels which look fairly good concepts to start from. Both 1A ice, crane, MSAR, ETV and EnvRsp, plus offshore patrol capabilities - though lack a flight deck and hanger, which would have to be required for a RNZN vessel. I am not too sure if they can take 4-8 TEU"s though they do have some stores and cargo capacity. Nevertheless, I am sure that a naval architects on the big bucks could work out a lengthened adaption of those COTS designs for us. Most of the bids for the Icelandic vessel were around the Eur30-35m mark so it is not so much of a bank buster.

The economic loss from the Rena, not to mention the tonnage value of the fish pinched from the southern Ocean due to illegal fishing alone in one year could pay for this. That is another point to beat truculent pollies over the head with.

NG - fuel bunkerage on the "Resolution" would be a definite capability, enough to supply the summer season at Scott Base with a return trip for the Winter over.

 

[MrConservative]

Shane, have a look at the Danish Absalon Class frigates which I personally think would be good for the RNZN. Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship - Naval Technology Also have a look at what we have been talking about regarding the Aegir 18R AOR Aegir Brochure That should give you an something to start with.
Nm.

Shane though has described (if we take out the AOR capability, the numbers, and the defacto crusier aspect) the ideal Canterbury replacement to a certain extent. His idea reminded me of the MESHD derivative of MRD-150 from B&V. Not too far off MrC's Endurance 160 line of thinking.

 

[ngatimozart]

John, the Scando Coast Guards like Sweden and Iceland have new vessels which look fairly good concepts to start from. Both 1A ice, crane, MSAR, ETV and EnvRsp, plus offshore patrol capabilities - though lack a flight deck and hanger, which would have to be required for a RNZN vessel. I am not too sure if they can take 4-8 TEU"s though they do have some stores and cargo capacity. Nevertheless, I am sure that a naval architects on the big bucks could work out a lengthened adaption of those COTS designs for us. Most of the bids for the Icelandic vessel were around the Eur30-35m mark so it is not so much of a bank buster.

The economic loss from the Rena, not to mention the tonnage value of the fish pinched from the southern Ocean due to illegal fishing alone in one year could pay for this. That is another point to beat truculent pollies over the head with.

NG - fuel bunkerage on the "Resolution" would be a definite capability, enough to supply the summer season at Scott Base with a return trip for the Winter over.

Those scando boats could they be set up for long haul salvage if need be? It probably could just a matter of upping the horsepower of the engines. With regard to "Resolution" I wasn't just thinking of fuel for Scott Base but McMurdo as well. Scott Base is over the hill from McMurdo and all fuel goes into McMurdo. That's why I was thinking of Endeavour replacement as shipping the fuel in. The ER being ice strengthened will pose less of an environmental risk than probably what is being used at the moment.

 

[MrConservative]

Those scando boats could they be set up for long haul salvage if need be? It probably could just a matter of upping the horsepower of the engines. With regard to "Resolution" I wasn't just thinking of fuel for Scott Base but McMurdo as well. Scott Base is over the hill from McMurdo and all fuel goes into McMurdo. That's why I was thinking of Endeavour replacement as shipping the fuel in. The ER being ice strengthened will pose less of an environmental risk than probably what is being used at the moment.

MacTown is now run by a commercial contractor so whether we do that or not would be at their contractual behest. The Brownie points trade off would not be the same as if the USN were still there like the old days. There has been a theme of greater self reliance within NZ and encouraged by the US over the NZ Antarctic program in recent years as it should be. We help them by helping ourselves - and no not in the traditional kiwi servicemans concept of helping ourselves. That got to wear a little bit then a few years back.

 

[Shanesworld]

Shane though has described (if we take out the AOR capability, the numbers, and the defacto crusier aspect) the ideal Canterbury replacement to a certain extent. His idea reminded me of the MESHD derivative of MRD-150 from B&V. Not too far off MrC's Endurance 160 line of thinking.

Yeah its a little pie in the sky reagrds AOR, numbers and too much else to list.
I do think though that with the greater proliferation of particularly subs but also effective Anti ship missiles that what will evolve after the next great conflict or perhaps even confrontation (I happen to think we are facing a great and open confrontation soon between major players but don't believe that necessarily means open conflict) will be a major vessel using helicopters and perhaps rotary UCAV's (yet to be proven in high jamming environments) to provide standoff and more effective sensory awareness and weapons delivery. The current fighting ship arrangement with a single helipad and perhaps two embarked helicopters I don't think allows enough growth in this area. And mongrelising a small hull into a flat top with the usual destroyer or heavy frigate elements is the only way I can see forward.
It is perhaps analogous to the universal tank concept overtaking the heavy and cruiser or medium roles in tank development. And it gives you switch role capability to provide basic sea lift that possibly be more effective than what is an enhanced long range ferry like the Canterbury. Don't get me wrong for all its faults it was a excellent effort at a time when Defence has faced its greatest challenges.
Regarding numbers though we are facing periods ahead that suggest political turmoil (regional and globally), a looming energy deficit (globally), resource depletion namely fisheries, and our ever present extended SLOC's (the curse of our geographically isolation that I reckon outways any benefit). With all this any other nationality would prioritise a major and more capable fleet what we have currently. The current makeup suited for benign environments is I believe a disservice to our children and does not constitute good risk management.

 

[Shanesworld]

Shane, have a look at the Danish Absalon Class frigates which I personally think would be good for the RNZN. Absalon Class Combat / Flexible Support Ship - Naval Technology[/url] Also have a look at what we have been talking about regarding the Aegir 18R AOR That should give you an something to start with.
NG.

Thanks Ngati,
Yeah I really like the Absolon aswell. With the Stanflex concept they I think are really onto something here. Small nation/navy maximising every dollar spent I think.
In terms of the Aegir 18R AOR that does look quite a sensible direction. Just wish we had the heavy industry and support services here to have ago of it. Reckon we could innovate all hell out of it.

 

[ngatimozart]

Thanks Ngati,
Yeah I really like the Absolon aswell. With the Stanflex concept they I think are really onto something here. Small nation/navy maximising every dollar spent I think.
In terms of the Aegir 18R AOR that does look quite a sensible direction. Just wish we had the heavy industry and support services here to have ago of it. Reckon we could innovate all hell out of it.

No probs Shane. I would like to see Absolon Stanflex and OPVs with the Stanflex in the RNZN. I think there are companies here that would be capable of doing some of the Stanflex work. I haven't had a good chance of reading through and digesting that interesting first post you made last night, so I haven't commented on it. I've just had a very quick scan and did see mention of a well dock so that is a big plus in my book.

 

[ngatimozart]

My apologies in advance for a long post.

Apologies if this is still not a very valid idea. I am not a marine engineer at all by the way nor have any experience managing any sort of procurement or capital engineering project.
But here is my thoughts. The best option if time, continuity and perception of money less of an issue the best direction would be a four or god forbid five vessel class of true multirole vessels. An apologies if you have heard this from me before but I think that takes the form of a flat top 8000 to 10000 ton design with a well dock mounting bow mounted sonar, CEAFAR/ SMART-L, VLS, two phalanx, a five inch and two triple tubes. (160m - 180m, 19-22m beam, draw 5ish metres and aim for a crew not exceeding 125 ish)
Flight deck/cargo deck with armoured fuels/liquids, armoured ammo modules moved into the deck when in a replenishment role, lane meters for taxiing army, and hangar space for 4 to 7 medium sized helos for sub hunting and capital ship harassment.
No one makes these really with that myriad of roles in mind I know and there is probably a good reason (I am probably naive in this) but when I think about this its the answer I keep comming back to.
Crewing is always an issue but the Canterbury for such a cheap and cheerful vessel is well automated and the formidable class is also a possible example to look at (although I imagine the Singaporeans are less likely to have to patrol as far maybe?).
It allows the right munitions to be carried into high intensity stuff with entry level sensors, has the flexibility to carry out other less than war roles with cargo space to burn, and respond to RENA type situations (I helped on something to do with that and can see a role there that this concept would have been useful) humanitarian event and still self escort with the option to bring the most effective sub and ship hunting assets - more helicopters.
If you could tell me where this is going wrong outside of the fiscal and political viability it would be appreciated.
Cheers Shane

In a way Shane you have written a RFI for a small multi-role DDH(D) (Destroyer Helicopter Dock), or a small very well armed LHD. The Japanese MSDF have just launched the Izumo, which they call a DDH to get around certain constitutional obligations. IMHO your proposed vessel has to many roles. For example, in order to do a FFH / FFG type role would need to have a speed at least equal to or in excess of the current ANZAC frigates. To get 10 kilo tonnes of ship through the water would take a lot of power so means larger power plants than what a normal FFH / FFG would have and it would be less agile in the water than a FFH / FFG. Multi rolling is fine within reason, but it can be taken too far and create far more problems than it solves. So I think what you describe, would in the RNZNs case need to be two different types of vessel.

The Formidable Class frigate would not pass muster for NZ because it would likely be expensive cost wise. I’ve already mentioned the Absalon frigate and we do need a good ASuW anti ship missile; something along the lines of the RGM 84 Harpoon and the AGM 84 Harpoon as well. If the Stanflex system is used then the ship do not have to be permanently fitted with the VLS and maybe the Harpoon launch system could be adapted to fit to Stanflex (the Mk41 VLS does not take the Harpoon).

Shane though has described (if we take out the AOR capability, the numbers, and the defacto crusier aspect) the ideal Canterbury replacement to a certain extent. His idea reminded me of the MESHD derivative of MRD-150 from B&V. Not too far off MrC's Endurance 160 line of thinking.

Mr Cs Endurance 160. I am sure he’s angling for naming rights, ha ha. I have for a long time been of the opinion that the RNZN needs a LPD rather than a Protector Class MRV. Having said that, Canterbury is a learning curve for us and I feel that it is the right way for us to progress - crawl, walk then run. I have been keen on the Navantia Galicia Class LPDs but I’ve had a look at the Endurance 160 LPD and I don’t think it looks like it could be an appropriate vessel for the RNZN. It is an LHD rather than a LPD and there are some issues with it which lead to compromises which reduce the operational capability and efficiency of the ship. I think that the Endurance 140 LPD would be the better option. If for some reason we were to procure a LHD it would be better for us to procure a Navantia LHD and then we would have compatability with the RAN. This is an 85 page Navantia pdf file Amphibious Warfare Ships: The Navantia Experience which is a good read and a good backgrounder.

Yeah it does sound abit silly and I have no idea regarding the volume/power/coolant/mass constraints of any of those systems but with a flat top vessel it does give abit of volume and if you have the volume it gives abit of fleixbility. What if we looked at it as a GP frigate with "enlarged helicopter facilities",a small capacity well dock and generous cargo capacity would that work? As an aside Singapore sold an Endurance 140 to Thailand for US$134 million in 2008. This is cited in the Endurance 140 link above.

If they can act as say frigate, then re role for replenishment or amphib duties wouldn't that address afew training, support and spares issues?
But your right it is abit silly. If there is any merit A) we can't afford B) nobody wants it and C) our navy is to small to generate to experiment with say $5-7b (NZD) in a punt. I'll leave it there.
Cheers

Not silly. You are throwing ideas out and having a reasoned discussion about them.

Yeah its a little pie in the sky reagrds AOR, numbers and too much else to list.
I do think though that with the greater proliferation of particularly subs but also effective Anti ship missiles that what will evolve after the next great conflict or perhaps even confrontation (I happen to think we are facing a great and open confrontation soon between major players but don't believe that necessarily means open conflict) will be a major vessel using helicopters and perhaps rotary UCAV's (yet to be proven in high jamming environments) to provide standoff and more effective sensory awareness and weapons delivery. The current fighting ship arrangement with a single helipad and perhaps two embarked helicopters I don't think allows enough growth in this area. And mongrelising a small hull into a flat top with the usual destroyer or heavy frigate elements is the only way I can see forward.
It is perhaps analogous to the universal tank concept overtaking the heavy and cruiser or medium roles in tank development. And it gives you switch role capability to provide basic sea lift that possibly be more effective than what is an enhanced long range ferry like the Canterbury. Don't get me wrong for all its faults it was a excellent effort at a time when Defence has faced its greatest challenges.
Regarding numbers though we are facing periods ahead that suggest political turmoil (regional and globally), a looming energy deficit (globally), resource depletion namely fisheries, and our ever present extended SLOC's (the curse of our geographically isolation that I reckon outways any benefit). With all this any other nationality would prioritise a major and more capable fleet what we have currently. The current makeup suited for benign environments is I believe a disservice to our children and does not constitute good risk management.

I agree with you on the threats to NZ and our SLOC. I do watch what happens in the area to the north and east of Australia. Unfortunately none of the kiwi pollies or the great hairy unwashed (general public) tend to see pass the nose on the end of their face. There are no votes to be gained in stating that trouble is coming.

 

[MrConservative]

NG. To defend my beloved 160. (just Joking)

With regards to the merits of the 160 over the 140 the compromises that the Sengan Diri Blog suugested, which you have developed your opinions of the E160 viz the 140, in my view are orientated to an operational configuration more relevant to Singapore context with respect to lift capability. personnel and number of rotary assets. In the context of the post 2020 NZDF joint amphibious force and a smaller LTG/ CTAG lift and support requirement compared to the Singapore focus, I would argue when looked at from our future needs and perspective, and with our doctrinal transformation and the role rotary plays within that - I actually think the real compromise weakness is with the lack of flexibility of the 140 over the 160. The 160 has it all over the 140 in aviation capability and the flexibility it delivers. I would want that flexibility of not just using the landing craft, but also to operate without constraint 2 NH-90's and a Sea Sprite simultaneously. The 140 cannot. That capability is not just a factor in in the high end of a ChpVII ops, but time critical tempos are a huge advantage in humanitarian and disaster support scenarios, even SASO stuff. Lastly the blog referenced and gave a critique of an early design of the 160. Over the last 4 years the design concept has developed somewhat further.

 

[Todjaeger]

The Formidable Class frigate would not pass muster for NZ because it would likely be expensive cost wise. I’ve already mentioned the Absalon frigate and we do need a good ASuW anti ship missile; something along the lines of the RGM 84 Harpoon and the AGM 84 Harpoon as well. If the Stanflex system is used then the ship do not have to be permanently fitted with the VLS and maybe the Harpoon launch system could be adapted to fit to Stanflex (the Mk41 VLS does not take the Harpoon).

Just a quick comment for now. An 8-cell RGM-84 Harpoon container has already been developed for the Stanflex system and has been fielded aboard Danish Flyvefisken-class patrol vessels amongst other Danish warships.

-Cheers

 

[ngatimozart]

Just experimenting to see if i can get an image up here

Ok I can upload a file and all the bb code from Photobucket does is provide a link.

 

[Shanesworld]

Just experimenting to see if i can get an image up here

Ok I can upload a file and all the bb code from Photobucket does is provide a link.

That is golden!!. No truer words have been spoken.

Getting back a few posts to you mentioning over role-ing (thats a horrible mash up of english) yeah absolutely. Covering frigate, helicopter carrier and amphib, (shall I persevere with AOR, fisheries protection and does the dishes too?Nah too much) is probably too extreme. But we are small nation (like Denmark) who makes defence purchases not often enough so we have to look at the trends and look to be ahead of the curve.
Really a frigate doesn't seem to be really dependent on shape to perform its function (I'm assuming). As long as it is mobile and agile enough, has effective sensory awareness and processing with minimal observable emmissions, effective and relevant weapons delivery and can absorb damage and effect damage control. But I suppose its acoustic signature is a function of hull form which may dictate a certain shape of vessel? I am not sure there. If you can get by with a heli carrying frigate with good acoustics I think it is worth looking at. All that hangar volume with a 5 inch, VLS and CIWS with 4 embarked heli's that would be a worry for any opponent above or below the surface.
In terms of displacement and wetted area that is a good point. It all costs money to run. But the Type 26 seems to be 6,000 tonnes or greater and with the desire to see more powerful sensor systems being placed higher (type 45, Type 54 something and possible Type56 ) we are seeing wider beam aswell. 8,000 tonnes loaded might be the practical target to aim for this thought excercise as it seems thats where it is trending overseas. And over-committing a crew to varied roles is a good point. I still think having a production run of four or five vessels (three to four) that can cover all bases (fighting, transporting, carrying) will be worth alot soon and work out maybe cheaper. But maybe designate primary roles to certain vessels and then familiarity training for other roles not designated. Fitted for but not with for the ship dedicated to troop transport maybe?
The BAE CVX (again cruiser in size) is the sort of trend I think will eventuate and with our fleet so small I think having vessels (2-3 year construction time/optimistic work up time and 10-15 year project time) that can have the flexibility to switch roles gives us a reserve capacity to absorb a loss or two (in the event of major hostilities) but still secure our national material interests.
First shots fired of the falklands was from Antrim's Wessex, the frigate was largely expressed through actions carried out by its helicopter. Most of the Antipiracy work on the Horn is carried out by helicopter, Sub drivers seem more concerned with Helo's above them than the warship, seems to me I would prioritise the enabling our fleet to maximise the number of (very expensive) effective helicopters on board and a this type of concept is geared towards it. And then the bonus is one of these hulls can replace Canterbury.
And Tod that Stanflex is really where I hope we head. Some Harpoons would be lovely.
God sorry that is another lengthy one. I'll try to knock it on the head.

 

[Todjaeger]

Its not Endurance class , Now a days we need multitasking vessels my opinion is to have Mobile Landing Platform (MLP) Ship will be a better choice.

naval-technology.com/projects/mobile-landing-platform-mlp-ship/

Is there a particular reason why you feel the NZDF could use a sealift and tanking vessel of 80,000 ton displacement? You do realize that is nearly as much as a USN CVN, right? And about twice the displacement of a USN Wasp-class LHD which itself requires a crew of ~1,200 and can carry and land ~1,900 Marines.

It is also worth noting that the MLP appears to be intended as a 'bridging' vessel to allo ship-to-shore movement of personnel and vehicles from LSMR and JHSV sealift assets when port assets are not available. Apart from carrying some LCAC's aboard, the MLP does not appear to have any personnel or vehicle lift of it's own at present, which means that even the Canterbury is far better at sealift.

It does seem to have an impressive JP5 fuel capacity and some water tankage, but the RNZN has a bit more diverse fuel, fluids and stores requirements from any AOR it were to have enter service. Even the Dutch Karel Doorman-class support vessel might not have sufficient fluids storage for Kiwi needs. In point of fact, a MLP per the entry can carry ~2,230 sq. m. of JP 5 fuel, while a Karel Doorman-class can carry ~9,000 sq. m of fuel, of which ~1,000 sq. m is suitable for use by helicopters. Also the current AOR, HMNZS Endeavour can carry ~6,785 sq. m of fuel...

Between all of those factors, plus the potential docking problems for a vessel with a draught of 12 m, the MLP really does not make any sense for NZ at present or likely in the near future.