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.
