Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[ngatimozart]

Thanks for response

Thanks. "50m", intersting. Current problem is RNZN cannot even afford/man the IPV you have know.

My point is, if you limit the IPV task to "within 24nm" or even 12nm from the shore, how small/cheap/maintenance-free can the IPV be. Damen 4207 for example is "a 32m-long PC applied with Enlarged Ship Concept to make it 42m long". That's why it can be operated with only 12 crew, i.e. only 60% of those you need for Protector IPVs. These kind of approach would be practical, I think. If not, as Lucasnz-san has suggested, navy will not need it (simply because unable to man it = waste of money).

Good point. My idea is that, Antarctic ship regulation becoming so strict these days, already there is a merit to build 2 different class. What is more, I am talking about 20-years from now. So the currently planned "3rd OPV" = Antarctic OPV will be there. Not bad, I guess.

I'm sorry but I do not share this idea. Firstly, a modern stabilized 25mm gun is much "lethal" than 20mm or even 40mm guns you had in 1970s. Its "enough", I guess. One thing I cannot follow is the future possible conflicts in South Pacific as you claim. What island are you talking about? (Sorry I may lack good information on such issues).

Denmark is sending Absalon to Gulf. USN LCS has a similar mission bay. Italian PPA has a small mission bay in its stern. If your point is critical, you can add a fire/water-tight wall in the FLEX deck, relatively easily. My point is that, 2 FF and 1 MRV concept is OK, but you need something in case MRV is in long-refit. Then you need "2 or more" transport vessels.

And, modern full-rate escort is deadly expensive. Expecting 2 "T26-like" large escorts for ANZAC replacement is equivalent to asking for Spruance class DD for Leander replacement in late 1980s. So the light-frigates, GPFF, FTI, PPA, whatever you call it, with ~half the cost of "hi-end" escorts, will be the right choice for RNZN.

Combining the "light frigate" and "2 or more" transports, Crossover/Absalon comes in. Yes, tranport deck is smaller than what you have in Canterbury. That's why I am proposing 4th transport, the Antarctic OPV to be added, so that Navy can send "2" vessels, if needed.

Yes "Iver Huitfelds" is great hi-end escorts, but I'm afraid it is DEADLY expensive. As I noted above, it will require almost all other assets in your navy to be disbanded. Do not believe in its "cheapness". Denmark navy itself is doing much works to arm/test it, and the 32-cell Mk.41 is still empty. Never fired SM-2 up to now. In other words, these cost was not included in the building cost. Also, after they built it, the ship yard was scrapped. (financially was a big damage?)

Another point is that, 8 Black swan is as expensive as 8 (or more) Otago OPV. I cannot find the money. And what is more, you are talking about its mission module. But the module itself shall be quite expensive, even much expensive than the vessel itself. Again, no money, I guess.

If you want Iver Huitfelds and Black-swan with proper mission modules, I guess you will have only 1 Iver and 3 Blackswans, in place of 2 ANZACs and 2 Otagos and 1 Antarctic OPV. In this case, you still have 1 MRV, 1 AO and 1 LCS. But I do not think this is a good idea.

Can you please enlighten me upon the cost of the Over Huitfelds and the Black Swans, plus how expensive the mission modules are and how many of each type would be required. Just where do you get these coatings from?

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

Can you please enlighten me upon the cost of the Over Huitfelds and the Black Swans, plus how expensive the mission modules are and how many of each type would be required. Just where do you get these coatings from?

I have not much information other than wikis.

See "Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate - Wikipedia" and also google "Sleek, modern and built on a budget – Denmark’s latest frigate" (Sorry I cannot put link, not exceeding 10 times of post). What I know is, German navy, Denmark navy, both good at ship building and not foolish, needed some amount of cost to build similar frigate.

Black swans. What I know is the original concept is carefully proposed to avoid ANY expensive stuffs, while you are proposing to add MANY. On mission modules, I also have no specific information. Low level one, such as HADR containers and so on, no problem, I agree. For MCM, will cost 150M NZ$ or more per module. In Japan, latest MCMV cost 273M NZ$ per unit. Half of it will be MCM system. Modular system will never be cheaper than built-on system. So, here comes 50M NZ$ or more.

 

[Lucasnz]

I would probably go slightly different but with the general direction that you are taking by combining the two FF and OPV classes to something like this:

• 3 Iver Huitfelds or similar
• 8 Black Swan Sloop Of War derivatives
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the Black Swan derivatives)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

The Ivers give great high intensity level combat coverage and I would suggest a minimum of 32 VLS cells permanently fitted with capacity to have another 16 or more using Stanflex or similar modular arrangement. The hangar arrangement would also have to be modified to take two NH90 helos. That allows for one helo and an UAV.

The Black Swan concept (drawing) was something that the UKMOD looked at about six years ago. The RN are not keen on the idea because they see it as endangering the Type 26.

Specifications

• Length: (WL) 90m
• Beam: (WL) 15.5m
• Draft: 4m
• Max Speed: 18 knots
• Range: 10,000 nautical miles at 12 knots
• Displacement: 3150 tonnes
• Hangar: Merlin plus rotary wing UAV
• Flightdeck: Chinook ramp down
• Basic complement: 8 plus 32 mission planners
• Fixed Armament: 1 x 30mm gun, 2 x GPMG miniguns

However in the RNZN it would be quite a good concept, with some modification, because it would fill roles that more than one platform fill at the moment and it would offer far greater flexibility below that of the level of the Ivers. With this concept it needs to be understood it is not platform centric but systems centric and the hull itself is basically a logistical base for the systems. If used in conjunction with something like Stanflex this, I feel, would be ideal for the RNZN subject to the following caveats:

• ice strengthened to 1A preferably
• a CIC ability is included i.e., same systems as on the Ivers with the open architecture consoles etc.
• structurally able to mount a 76mm main gun
• Rheinmetall GDM-008 Millenium Gun as CIWS - again, same as on Ivers

Don't need to acquire 8 76mm guns etc., but like I say its a hull with a basic crew and then plug and play systems. The UK was suggesting a cost ₤STG 65 million which is around NZ$135 million per ship.


Whilst the UK may take that approach I think that in the NZ context we would want a greater damage control and survivability content. Hence I think that the basic crew numbers would have to increase as well. However I do believe that this is a concept well worth investigating.

I did consider the concept of 8 vessels of a common design (I think it has merits), but the ultimate cost was IMHO was going to be to high. Specific areas where costs would sink the idea are ice strengthening 8 vessels, when realistically one deployed in the Antarctic is all were likely to need at any one time. The big killer in my view was the capital costs associated with fitting eight ships with a flight deck and their aircraft. Assuming 13 of the 14 vessels were flight deck capable NZ would need around 15-20 helicopters to maintain the operational capability on 11 vessels (assuming 2 vessels were in refit).

If a single class of 8 ships were acquired the core / equipment outfit would need to be the same. One of the things the Danes found with the SF300 being multi role across all capabilities was that the skill set degraded. Near the end the SF300 lives the Danes designated vessels to have specific roles. Having too many roles for a single class can cause issues. Perhaps the US have it right with assigning Mission capable personnel to the LCS to operate the modules.

 

[MrConservative]

Thanks for response

Thanks. "50m", interesting. Current problem is RNZN cannot even afford/man the IPV you have know.

That is not the real issue. They are costing money sitting alongside regardless. The issue is that the IPV 24mn patrol role is marginal in value and the wider EEZ is where maritime patrol force they need to be. We need OPV's and not IPV's. It is also more of an intel led interdiction focus than just cruising around like a police car looking for naughty fisherman.

My point is, if you limit the IPV task to "within 24nm" or even 12nm from the shore, how small/cheap/maintenance-free can the IPV be. Damen 4207 for example is "a 32m-long PC applied with Enlarged Ship Concept to make it 42m long". That's why it can be operated with only 12 crew, i.e. only 60% of those you need for Protector IPVs. These kind of approach would be practical, I think. If not, as Lucasnz-san has suggested, navy will not need it (simply because unable to man it = waste of money).

I agree with Lucas that there are other vessels including NZ made better served to do 12 nm inshore work and that these fisheries / customs / police work or other border protection and prosecution tasks be jointly operated by them.

Good point. My idea is that, Antarctic ship regulation becoming so strict these days, already there is a merit to build 2 different class. What is more, I am talking about 20-years from now. So the currently planned "3rd OPV" = Antarctic OPV will be there. Not bad, I guess.

That I agree with. The Southern Ocean / Antarctica is is an emerging focus in the DWP and generic OPV's are not easily adapted to sufficiently support that environment. That a vessel of sufficient size could also be of use as a logistics support vessel outside the main SO patrol season.

I'm sorry but I do not share this idea. Firstly, a modern stabilized 25mm gun is much "lethal" than 20mm or even 40mm guns you had in 1970s. Its "enough", I guess. One thing I cannot follow is the future possible conflicts in South Pacific as you claim. What island are you talking about? (Sorry I may lack good information on such issues).

This is clearly not the 1970s. If you are envisaging a swing role vessel that can dress up and dress down according to directed tasking you require you have to be able to match other potential actors. You obviously fail to understand that in risk adverse situations such as UN mandated piracy missions for example your 20mm (though fine for coastal constabulary tasking) is marginal in its utility. Coalition commander are becoming more exacting about the standards and efficacy of vessels that become part of force elements. And for good reason. They do not want blood on their hands. They are the professional arbiters of what is enough.

My point is that, 2 FF and 1 MRV concept is OK, but you need something in case MRV is in long-refit. Then you need "2 or more" transport vessels.

'Transport' vessels? Amphibious Sealift has moved dramatically beyond the days of the Charles Upham - it becoming far more about being a strategic projection platform and even extending into sea denial capabilities.

And, modern full-rate escort is deadly expensive. Expecting 2 "T26-like" large escorts for ANZAC replacement is equivalent to asking for Spruance class DD for Leander replacement in late 1980s. So the light-frigates, GPFF, FTI, PPA, whatever you call it, with ~half the cost of "hi-end" escorts, will be the right choice for RNZN.

OK. I get it. Maybe it is the use of hyperbole such as 'deadly expensive' that is the give away. You are personally offended by capable surface combatants such as frigates.

Combining the "light frigate" and "2 or more" transports, Crossover/Absalon comes in. Yes, tranport deck is smaller than what you have in Canterbury. That's why I am proposing 4th transport, the Antarctic OPV to be added, so that Navy can send "2" vessels, if needed.

Your concept alienates security principles. What on earth is a light frigate doing escorting logistics vessels or trying to go it alone into even a low to medium intensity environment that may or in the case of the Asia-Pacific will have subs in the vicinity. Again people must realise that you will NOT be allowed to contribute even if you wanted to within a UNSC VII context. It is simply reckless with lives and equipment that you would place at risk. This is not Womble world.

Yes "Iver Huitfelds" is great hi-end escorts, but I'm afraid it is DEADLY expensive. As I noted above, it will require almost all other assets in your navy to be disbanded. Do not believe in its "cheapness". Denmark navy itself is doing much works to arm/test it, and the 32-cell Mk.41 is still empty. Never fired SM-2 up to now. In other words, these cost was not included in the building cost. Also, after they built it, the ship yard was scrapped. (financially was a big damage?)

What unsubstantiated nonsense about disbanding the Navy. You have to realise that defence cannot be done on the cheap nor can sophisticated vessels such as surface combatants.

Another point is that, 8 Black swan is as expensive as 8 (or more) Otago OPV. I cannot find the money. And what is more, you are talking about its mission module. But the module itself shall be quite expensive, even much expensive than the vessel itself. Again, no money, I guess.

I think that 8 'Black Swans' is a tad over-cooked but the dress / up and dress down aspect to it with Stan Flex is one way of achieving a wider remit of capabilities on a limited number of vessels that have infrequent requirements. As Lucas noted the degrading of skills is an issue and crew management has to be done carefully. I am of the view that vessels that go south of Stewart island are purpose built Southern Ocean patrol vessels.

If you want Iver Huitfelds and Black-swan with proper mission modules, I guess you will have only 1 Iver and 3 Blackswans, in place of 2 ANZACs and 2 Otagos and 1 Antarctic OPV. In this case, you still have 1 MRV, 1 AO and 1 LCS. But I do not think this is a good idea.

Again unsubstantiated nonsense. There is up to 3 billion earmarked within Defence Planning for planning for the Anzac frigate replacement.

Using the standflex system you put to sea with the mission packages you require. You do not buy every mission module package for every vessel. You may only buy a single MCM package and swap it over when required, likewise an environmental clean up package.

 

[ngatimozart]

I have not much information other than wikis.

See "Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate - Wikipedia" and also google "Sleek, modern and built on a budget – Denmark’s latest frigate" (Sorry I cannot put link, not exceeding 10 times of post). What I know is, German navy, Denmark navy, both good at ship building and not foolish, needed some amount of cost to build similar frigate.

Black swans. What I know is the original concept is carefully proposed to avoid ANY expensive stuffs, while you are proposing to add MANY. On mission modules, I also have no specific information. Low level one, such as HADR containers and so on, no problem, I agree. For MCM, will cost 150M NZ$ or more per module. In Japan, latest MCMV cost 273M NZ$ per unit. Half of it will be MCM system. Modular system will never be cheaper than built-on system. So, here comes 50M NZ$ or more.

Well one or two of us on here are familiar with the Iver Huifelds, their capabilities and costs because we have actually researched it and the Absalon Class from which they are descended.

A modular system has advantages over a fixed system because you don't have to acquire one of each system for every ship. If you look at what I wrote I actually stated that emphasis is on the systems not the ship. The ship is secondary to the systems and that is different to traditional naval thinking.

You really need to read back through this thread to gain an understanding of what the RNZN is doing, its CONOPS (CONcept of OPerationS) and its area of operations. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and not really acceptable here.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

... You obviously fail to understand that in risk adverse situations such as UN mandated piracy missions for example your 20mm (though fine for coastal constabulary tasking) is marginal in its utility. Coalition commander are becoming more exacting about the standards and efficacy of vessels that become part of force elements. ....

I do see EEZ patrol becoming quite important world wide, and see many "as cheap as possible" OPV coming around. My question will be, with limited resource, is RNZN going to send their "OPVs" to "anti-piracy" operations? You are sending ANZAC frigate = escorts there now, not OPV. OPVs are very busy to perform EEZ patrol.

'Transport' vessels? Amphibious Sealift has moved dramatically beyond the days of the Charles Upham - it becoming far more about being a strategic projection platform and even extending into sea denial capabilities.

Sorry, "sea-lift" is what I meant. I also agree sentense like "deadly expensive" it not good way to express.

Your concept alienates security principles. What on earth is a light frigate doing escorting logistics vessels or trying to go it alone into even a low to medium intensity environment that may or in the case of the Asia-Pacific will have subs in the vicinity. Again people must realise that you will NOT be allowed to contribute even if you wanted to within a UNSC VII context. It is simply reckless with lives and equipment that you would place at risk. This is not Womble world.

Good point. But in addition to hi-end assets such as T45/T23/26, Burg DDG, APAR-AAW frigates, AEGIS frigates, there are "light frigate"-class assets, such as German T123/125, MEKO200s in Portogan and Greek, M-cass in Netherland/Belguim, LCS of USN. Also FTI of French, GPFF of RN, PPA of Italy to come. Are they meaningless? I do not think so. If meaningless, why they are going to be built?

What unsubstantiated nonsense about disbanding the Navy. You have to realise that defence cannot be done on the cheap nor can sophisticated vessels such as surface combatants.

Yes. Well balanced "fleet" is the key. Totally agree here. That's why my proposal is balanced.

Again unsubstantiated nonsense. There is up to 3 billion earmarked within Defence Planning for planning for the Anzac frigate replacement.

RN was preparing 12 billion GBP = 25G NZ dollars for 13 T26s. Of course it depends on what "those number" covers. But I am not surprized if the NZ's budgets only amounts to 1.6 units of T26. (simply assuming proportinal calc.).

Using the standflex system you put to sea with the mission packages you require. You do not buy every mission module package for every vessel.

This idea, I agree. That's why I was proposing only 2 ASW kits for 3 Crossover light frigates.

You really need to read back through this thread to gain an understanding of what the RNZN is doing, its CONOPS (CONcept of OPerationS) and its area of operations. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and not really acceptable here.

I read it all through, I guess. (may missed some sentences, I admit). My comment is that, "3 hi-end escorts + 8 multi-mission OPV, with LHD, AO, LCS", do not look like to happen. I never saw such hi-level of commitment of NZ government to defense for tens of years.

Please note that I am not against hi-end somethings. I even think Iver Huitfeldt-class will be good. But, it surely needs additional resources. May be 20% smaller Army or so. I just cannot share the idea that 2 ANZAC FF is equivalent in resource to 3 Iver Huitfeldt-class.

On CONOPS and what RNZN is doing, I am following navy-news for 10 years, and I see no indication navy needs "3 Iver Huitfeldt and 8 multi-purpose OPVs". I remember big discussion of the "3rd frigate". Even after Air Force has lost ALL of their A-4s, the 3rd frigate did not come. In place Protector vessels came.

Also, for ANZAC frigate, RNZN did not select T23, not even M-class, but MEKO-200ANZ, because it is much cheaper. No SSM, no TASS. This is the resource allocated now.

This is the decision (must be based on CONOPS) I know about RNZN.

 

[ngatimozart]

I did consider the concept of 8 vessels of a common design (I think it has merits), but the ultimate cost was IMHO was going to be to high. Specific areas where costs would sink the idea are ice strengthening 8 vessels, when realistically one deployed in the Antarctic is all were likely to need at any one time. The big killer in my view was the capital costs associated with fitting eight ships with a flight deck and their aircraft. Assuming 13 of the 14 vessels were flight deck capable NZ would need around 15-20 helicopters to maintain the operational capability on 11 vessels (assuming 2 vessels were in refit).

If a single class of 8 ships were acquired the core / equipment outfit would need to be the same. One of the things the Danes found with the SF300 being multi role across all capabilities was that the skill set degraded. Near the end the SF300 lives the Danes designated vessels to have specific roles. Having too many roles for a single class can cause issues. Perhaps the US have it right with assigning Mission capable personnel to the LCS to operate the modules.

I thought 8 tops because of the number of taskings that would be required. Considering the size of the RNZN's area of operations and NZs EEZ, the P.I., EEZs it is required to surveil and monitor plus anti piracy and other roles that may occur, 6 - 8 ships would be required. I agree about assigning mission capable personnel to the vessels for the reasons that the Danes had found. Regarding the Antarctic, I feel that whether we like it or not, we will have to future proof ourselves and when the Antarctic Treaty is due for renegotiation before it expires in 2048 we may need to have the ability to operate armed vessels in the region. We do have a claim in the Antarctic and we may at some stage have to do more than play lip service to it.

Not every ship requires a helo every time it sails, but yes an increase in the current number of helos would have to increase. They have 8 Seasprites at the moment and 5 flight decks. Changing the fleet as I suggested would result in 12 - 14 flight decks not all requiring an ASW / ASuW helo. A mix of capabilities would be required such as marinised NH90s and we will need to replace the Seasprites probably by 2030, hence the NFH may possibly enter the frame because of its commonality across NZDF.

 

[MrConservative]

I do see EEZ patrol becoming quite important world wide, and see many "as cheap as possible" OPV coming around. My question will be, with limited resource, is RNZN going to send their "OPVs" to "anti-piracy" operations? You are sending ANZAC frigate = escorts there now, not OPV. OPVs are very busy to perform EEZ patrol.

That is the point of having vessels which through Stanflex modules that can swing roles from bread and butter EEZ tasks into been able to deploy into more complex situations. Helpful to have 57mm or 76mm medium naval gun as a standard fit up front. That is what you do with limited resources.

Modern frigates are not just an escort ship or ASW platform. They have other roles for example intel generation.

Good point. But in addition to hi-end assets such as T45/T23/26, Burg DDG, APAR-AAW frigates, AEGIS frigates, there are "light frigate"-class assets, such as German T123/125, MEKO200s in Portogan and Greek, M-cass in Netherland/Belguim, LCS of USN. Also FTI of French, GPFF of RN, PPA of Italy to come. Are they meaningless? I do not think so. If meaningless, why they are going to be built?

There is a lot of difference between those smaller frigates and what you have in mind a sealift vessel with 2nd tier combat capabilities. Frigates are in essense the smallest blue water vessel type able to independently conduct directed military tasks at sea over extended ranges. They are built with survivability in mind and are able to exist in higher threat zones. Larger fleets develop supporting 2nd tier surface combatants alongside their tier one independently capable surface combatants viz frigates, destoyers et al. So they are not meaningless - it is that one has to learn the distinctions.

Yes. Well balanced "fleet" is the key. Totally agree here. That's why my proposal is balanced.

RN was preparing 12 billion GBP = 25G NZ dollars for 13 T26s. Of course it depends on what "those number" covers. But I am not surprized if the NZ's budgets only amounts to 1.6 units of T26. (simply assuming proportinal calc.).

This idea, I agree. That's why I was proposing only 2 ASW kits for 3 Crossover light frigates.

The proposal is frankly pointless as the vessel you offer does not have the capability for the RNZN to independently or within a coalition conduct directed military tasks with survivability in mind in including higher threat zones as required by the NZ Govt.

T-26 build costs are dictated by UK domestic build policies to support industry. For example a design such as the Iver F370 or Navantia F100 licensed to be built in a Korean shipyard is dramatically less. NZ does not have to carry the cost of supporting a local shipbuilding industry.

I read it all through, I guess. (may missed some sentences, I admit). My comment is that, "3 hi-end escorts + 8 multi-mission OPV, with LHD, AO, LCS", do not look like to happen. I never saw such hi-level of commitment of NZ government to defense for tens of years.

The NZ Govt experimented with defence between 1999 and 2008 leading to a myriad of policy and procurement failures so deep seated that it will take the best part of 15 years to stabilise and recover from - not helped by the 2011 Quake and rebuild nor the GFC. The NZ government in recent years has evolved its strategic orientation based on a changing security outlook and developed from DWP 2010 its Future 2035 orientation which has a frigate capability as a core force element.

What NG has outlined with respect to vessels in the context over the next 20-25 years in the above quote is frankly an appropriate future fleet. A LWSV to replace Manawanui & Resolution, an amphibious ship with aviation capability aka 15K LHD to replace the CY, an evolved maritime sustainment vessel to replace Endeavour, getting the 3rd Frigate back, and rationalising the current IPV fleet and OPV vessels into a more appropriate vessel that can swing tasking according to directed requirements is pragmatic and is based on an understanding of capability gaps and projected requirements. I have less criticism of it than what you offered. I personally would demarcate that supporting force into a purpose built Southern Ocean vessel though as a distinguishing factor and build the remaining OPV/OCV vessel in determined numbers according to whatever the strategic outlook unfolds in later DWP's. However the concept is sound.

Please note that I am not against hi-end somethings. I even think Iver Huitfeldt-class will be good. But, it surely needs additional resources. May be 20% smaller Army or so. I just cannot share the idea that 2 ANZAC FF is equivalent in resource to 3 Iver Huitfeldt-class.

The government announced in 2015 a funding pathway of $16B over 15 years to 2030 to recover appropriate capabilities to meet evolved policy and operational goals.

On CONOPS and what RNZN is doing, I am following navy-news for 10 years, and I see no indication navy needs "3 Iver Huitfeldt and 8 multi-purpose OPVs". I remember big discussion of the "3rd frigate". Even after Air Force has lost ALL of their A-4s, the 3rd frigate did not come. In place Protector vessels came.

Pleased that you read Navy Today. However it is not a publication where by long term strategic planning is disseminated. What a prior ideologically blinkered government once did 15 years ago ignoring the advice of experts has zero relevancy for the next 25 years other than it making it more difficult for current and future governments to recover and rebalance.

Also, for ANZAC frigate, RNZN did not select T23, not even M-class, but MEKO-200ANZ, because it is much cheaper. No SSM, no TASS. This is the resource allocated now. This is the decision (must be based on CONOPS) I know about RNZN.

Again what a government ordered 25 years ago at the start of the Post Cold War period has zero relevancy for the next 25 years.

 

[Todjaeger]

• 3 Major Surface Combatants (International Obligations)
• 4 FF (Thetis Class type ships for EEZ / Low / Mid Intensity ops in the South Pacific - Ice Strengthened)
• 4 OPV (For Inshore and Offshore - No Flight Deck / Secondary MCM / Environmental Protection)
• 1 AOR (Already in the pipework)
• 1 Littoral Warfare Ship (Supplemented by the OPV)
• 1 LPHD (as Canterbury's long term replacement)

I do have some quibbles with this list. Unfort due to need to sleep, cannot get into full explanation of why, but list would read more like this:

4 GP Frigates/Major Surface Combatants
1 AOR (as mentioned, already in the works)
1 LPD or LHD as the Canterbury replacement
The FF's, OPV's, & Littoral Warfare vessel are all areas where I am a bit flexible/questioning on.

For example, depending on what the precise role of the Littoral Warfare vessel is, that might be something which a suitably kitted out FF or OPV could perform. Not sure exactly so hard to say.

From my own POV, all the vessels which are OPV-sized and larger should be equipped with a landing pad sized for an NH90 as a minimum. Some vessels should also have hangar facilities to support sustained helicopter operations. Keeping in mind that having a landing pad does not mean that additional helicopters are required, it just means more flexibility in terms of how a specific vessel class can be employed.

I also tend to agree with MrC about having only some vessels ice-strengthened and expected to operate in Antarctic areas

I also like the idea of Ngati's about having modular systems (like StanFlex, or another such system) available and able to be fitted onto many/all the larger vessels. This could expand the potential capability range of various vessels, without requiring the entire class all be kitted out with upgraded weaponry, etc. The question I would have though, is whether the cost of the electronics would be able to be justified.

Incidentally, some might find my thoughts on 4 frigate out of line. However, with only having 3 frigates in service, that permits only 1 frigate to be either available for, or on a deployment at a given moment, with a potential surge capability to get a 2nd frigate. That follows the rule of threes. Having a 4th frigate in service, would allow for a single frigate to be either available for immediate deployment or already on a deployment, a 2nd frigate to be basically available, with the other two on training or maintenance cycles.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

So you are expecting big increase in resource. In that case, we can talk about many things, yes.

But, I'm afraid the increase is "modest".

AO-R has lost their sea-lift capability to save cost. It happened last (or this) year, I understand. IPV man power shortage is not solved, even though it will be greatly relaxed if simply increase the payment by, say, 25%.

Actually, I see some indication the resource allocation is getting better. For example, Frigate upgrade is impressive. With 24 CAMM and SMART-S2 added, and with completely new CMS, the modified FFs will actually be one of the best light-frigates in the world. (ANZAC-FF has good endurance/range, distinct from other light frigates. The point I love with them).

But, I think they shall have CAPTAS-2 added, but not. It is either RNZN is not thinking much of ASW, or lack of resource, or both. Their sea going days are still kept 180 and 150 days or less, respectively, which both shall be 180 days I think.

I also heard that OPV sea going days are not at the maximum (I do not have the actual number). You know, RN is operating their River Batch 1s 300 days a year at sea.

So, still the resource increase is modest. That's why I cannot be confident that "3 hi-end escorts and 8 multi-purpose OPVs" will come within 20-30 years.


By the way, I myself is not familiar with Crossover. I guess it has a standard the same as Absalon, and Iver Huitfeldt. If you think you need to equip your frigate with more hi-level of damage control, just do it.

If the point is to separate sea-lift capability from a "frigate", actually I have no strong objection. Then I propose to have 2 FTI/GPFF/PPA(full-mode) and 1 Bay-like LPD, as replacements for 2 ANZACs and Canterbury.

 

[MrConservative]

So you are expecting big increase in resource. In that case, we can talk about many things, yes.

But, I'm afraid the increase is "modest".

AO-R has lost their sea-lift capability to save cost. It happened last (or this) year, I understand. IPV man power shortage is not solved, even though it will be greatly relaxed if simply increase the payment by, say, 25%.

Actually if your posts do not improve in substance your further opinions may not happen gere. I ban trolling which you are running very close to happening.

If you read the thread the issue with the IPV is less about manpower but more about the fact that the IPV role is redundant. If I have to explain that to you again you will have a holiday from this website.

Please quote a source citation to your speculation about the Endeavour replacement.

Actually, I see some indication the resource allocation is getting better. For example, Frigate upgrade is impressive. With 24 CAMM and SMART-S2 added, and with completely new CMS, the modified FFs will actually be one of the best light-frigates in the world. (ANZAC-FF has good endurance/range, distinct from other light frigates. The point I love with them).

The Anzac Class is not a light frigate. It is a standard frigate. 4000 short tonnes 118m.

But, I think they shall have CAPTAS-2 added, but not. It is either RNZN is not thinking much of ASW, or lack of resource, or both. Their sea going days are still kept 180 and 150 days or less, respectively, which both shall be 180 days I think.

BSAPS upgrade. Don't think. Do your homework before you comment.

I also heard that OPV sea going days are not at the maximum (I do not have the actual number). You know, RN is operating their River Batch 1s 300 days a year at sea.

Sea days are no longer an accurate measurement. Directed and interdicted taskings are used. What the River class do each year is irrelevant in this context. The UK does not have at present a P-3K2 type capability as its sweeper.

So, still the resource increase is modest. That's why I cannot be confident that "3 hi-end escorts and 8 multi-purpose OPVs" will come within 20-30 years.

Frigates are not just escorts. I have taken the time to explained that to you. If you do not understand such simple explanations you are gone from here.

By the way, I myself is not familiar with Crossover. I guess it has a standard the same as Absalon, and Iver Huitfeldt. If you think you need to equip your frigate with more hi-level of damage control, just do it.

If you are not familiar with the very platform you were advocating then why even mention it. The Iver F370 is very different to the Xover and the Absalon. It is a Frigate the other are not. Please do not guess. Research or I am likely to lose patience very quickly with assumption based postings.

If the point is to separate sea-lift capability from a "frigate", actually I have no strong objection. Then I propose to have 2 FTI/GPFF/PPA(full-mode) and 1 Bay-like LPD, as replacements for 2 ANZACs and Canterbury.

Please do not propose without justifying why. Take the time to read up on post 2010 DWP public documents. Also I know the abbreviations but other readers may not so please write 2 FTI/GPFF/PPA(full-mode) in full next time.

A Bay Class LPD does not embark helicopters in a hanger which at least the CY does. If you cannot have sensible and researched suggestions then do not post.

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

Actually if your posts do not improve in substance your further opinions that may not happen. I ban trolling which you are running very close to happening.

I'm sorry if I make you get irritated. You are boss here, and I agree I need to learn "how to talk" here. Please note I am a newcomer, and thanks a lot to guiding me.

If you read the thread the issue with the IPV is less about manpower but more about the fact that the IPV role is redundant. If I have to explain that to you again you will have a holiday from this website.

I read it on this thread, but see no evidence for your comment. How can I check RNZN has enough manpower to man them and the redundant crews are waiting ashore for proper ship to come?

And. Yes, I've read DWP2010. Yes, maybe not into each and every sentense, I admit. I will make / had made mistake I agree, but I see no evidence in DWP2010 for "3 hi-end escort and 8 multi-mission OPVs" comming. Only much modest things I see. Where I am wrong here?

Please quote a source citation to your speculation about the Endeavour replacement.

"ENDEAVOUR is nearing her total life expectancy of about 25 years. Consideration is being given to her successor, which may be a very different vessel indeed. CAPT Fred Keating, Assistant Chief of Navy (Capability), confirmed that the RNZN is keen to acquire a more versatile ship when ENDEAVOUR finally is replaced. Although thinking on the matter is ‘still embryonic’ Keating says the intention, in terms of capability, ‘is not to simply go for a one-for-one replacement of ENDEAVOUR. Indeed, for reasons including fit-out, training and logistic support it is preferable to replace ENDEAVOUR with a ‘joint support’ capability, he said." by globalsecurity, Endeavour Replacement page.

"The replacement capability will be capable of refuelling and sustaining the Joint Task Force both at-sea and from-the-sea. When combined with other capabilities it would also offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces, and for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, primarily within the Pacific region. The new capability is scheduled to be in service by mid-2019." from 2014-defence-capability-plan.pdf, p.33. Refers to "offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces". But in APDR Oct 2015 issue, p.27, not mention of any landing craft. So not ‘joint support’ capability, but a tanker, it became.

So I guess it is not only me who felt the ‘joint support’ capability has gone. This is what I meant. Maybe some documents are unreliable (I remember some of you claiming APDR not accurate in some part), and/or my reading will be incorrect. So I think you mean there is no official intention for any landing craft onboard Endeavor replacement from the beginning?

The Anzac Class is not a light frigate. It is a standard frigate. 4000 short tonnes 118m.

In RN thread, it is called "a light frigate". I know the "wording" standard may differ person-by-person, notably the meaning of "light frigate" differs place-by-place. So I have no objection here, because this is the 1st time I hear from you that definition.

BSAPS upgrade. Don't think. Do your homework before you comment.

Sorry I didn't mentioned it by I knew it (I am watching Ministry of Defence website every week for 4-5 years). I just didn't think it was enough to counter modern SSK. In other threads, even RN S2050 bow sonar was said to be "not enough", and CAPTAS-4 or 2 is needed. So you say, Spherion-B with BSAPS upgrade can hunt modern SSK.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not trying to blame or claim. I am not used to the "standard" here and I need to "know". (As you know, "enough" depends on how you take the condition).

Sea days are no longer an accurate measurement. Directed and interdicted taskings are used. What the River class do each year is irrelevant in this context. The UK does not have at present a P-3K2 type capability as its sweeper.

Interesting point. Thanks. But, your OPV seldome goes to the south. Even P3K2s fly down there, without OPV on station, you cannot inspect the suspicious vessel. So sea days will also be some index, arn't it? I do read RN document of OPV performance vs expectation. But, sadly I couldn't find it for RNZN OPV yet. And no document to compare the two navies' efficiencies.

# I admit, Japan has even less information of such kind on the web.. Sorry for that.

If you are not familiar with the very platform you were advocating then why even mention it. The Iver F370 is very different to the Xover and the Absalon. It is a Frigate the other are not. Please do not guess. Research or I am likely to lose patience very quickly with assumption based postings.

Sorry here, I agree to your point. Xover is NOT my favourate/well studied ship. I shall not have mentioned it. I will check the difference among Absaon and Iver. (may not be successful, though, because I tried it "so so" deeply and could not find clear difference in their damage control standards...)

Also I know the abbreviations but other readers may not so please write 2 FTI/GPFF/PPA(full-mode) in full next time.

- FTI is the French ligtht frigate, about 4000t planned. FTI = Fregate de Taille Intermediaire.
- GPFF is the General purpose frigate, used by UK government for the "5 or more" lighter frigate to built with/after 8 T26 frigates.
- PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente DAltura) is the Italian light frigate of nearly 5000t size.

A Bay Class LPD does not embark helicopters in a hanger which at least the CY does. If you cannot have sensible and researched suggestions then do not post.

All 3 Bays have a hangar for Wildcat now. See ttps://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/728288204504371200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

# please change ttps to h ttps. I cannot post link now.

# I hope this post answers to some of the homework.

 

[MrConservative]

I read it on this thread, but see no evidence for your comment. How can I check RNZN has enough manpower to man them and the redundant crews are waiting ashore for proper ship to come?

Take my and the other Mods word for it regarding the IPV's because we do speak to people and not just read about it. Note that I said it is more about tasking ops now and less about manpower as an issue. You will find your evidence about it if your googled anyway.

And. Yes, I've read DWP2010. Yes, maybe not into each and every sentense, I admit. I will make / had made mistake I agree, but I see no evidence in DWP2010 for "3 hi-end escort and 8 multi-mission OPVs" comming. Only much modest things I see. Where I am wrong here?

NG and Lucas made comments on how they would like to see the DWP evolve and their preferences over the next 20-30 years. That has nothing to do with providing evidence for you. They are simply responding to the DWP. Note they are Mods and have served on RNZN patrol vessels.

"ENDEAVOUR is nearing her total life expectancy of about 25 years. Consideration is being given to her successor, which may be a very different vessel indeed. CAPT Fred Keating, Assistant Chief of Navy (Capability), confirmed that the RNZN is keen to acquire a more versatile ship when ENDEAVOUR finally is replaced. Although thinking on the matter is ‘still embryonic’ Keating says the intention, in terms of capability, ‘is not to simply go for a one-for-one replacement of ENDEAVOUR. Indeed, for reasons including fit-out, training and logistic support it is preferable to replace ENDEAVOUR with a ‘joint support’ capability, he said." by globalsecurity, Endeavour Replacement page.

"The replacement capability will be capable of refuelling and sustaining the Joint Task Force both at-sea and from-the-sea. When combined with other capabilities it would also offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces, and for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions, primarily within the Pacific region. The new capability is scheduled to be in service by mid-2019." from 2014-defence-capability-plan.pdf, p.33. Refers to "offer options in terms of the sustainment of ground forces". But in APDR Oct 2015 issue, p.27, not mention of any landing craft. So not ‘joint support’ capability, but a tanker, it became.

So I guess it is not only me who felt the ‘joint support’ capability has gone. This is what I meant. Maybe some documents are unreliable (I remember some of you claiming APDR not accurate in some part), and/or my reading will be incorrect. So I think you mean there is no official intention for any landing craft onboard Endeavor replacement from the beginning?

The above says nothing about the new ship not being able to supplement the CY in sealift as you allege. Note that it mentions being able to support 'from the sea' joint forces. That kind of suggests a supplementary sealift role to CY.

In RN thread, it is called "a light frigate". I know the "wording" standard may differ person-by-person, notably the meaning of "light frigate" differs place-by-place. So I have no objection here, because this is the 1st time I hear from you that definition.

Fine. Nice to know that you are at least taking in a little of what we Mods say.

Sorry I didn't mentioned it by I knew it (I am watching Ministry of Defence website every week for 4-5 years). I just didn't think it was enough to counter modern SSK. In other threads, even RN S2050 bow sonar was said to be "not enough", and CAPTAS-4 or 2 is needed. So you say, Spherion-B with BSAPS upgrade can hunt modern SSK.

I did not say that. What you said was that it had no ASW sonar. Simply correcting you.

Interesting point. Thanks. But, your OPV seldome goes to the south. Even P3K2s fly down there, without OPV on station, you cannot inspect the suspicious vessel. So sea days will also be some index, arn't it? I do read RN document of OPV performance vs expectation. But, sadly I couldn't find it for RNZN OPV yet. And no document to compare the two navies' efficiencies.

Yes OPV's cannot go south because a previous government blundered over a whole project of vessels. That is why folk here want to see them replaced.

The Cole Report should explain at least a lot of the Project Protector debacle.

- FTI is the French ligtht frigate, about 4000t planned. FTI = Fregate de Taille Intermediaire.
- GPFF is the General purpose frigate, used by UK government for the "5 or more" lighter frigate to built with/after 8 T26 frigates.
- PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente DAltura) is the Italian light frigate of nearly 5000t size.

All 3 Bays have a hangar for Wildcat now. See ttps://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/728288204504371200/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

So does this shelter embark 4 NH-90s and a Seasprite?

Would a single Wildcat on a Bay Class really be that suitable for future JATF?

Don't worry. I know the answer.

 

[Zero Alpha]

From my own POV, all the vessels which are OPV-sized and larger should be equipped with a landing pad sized for an NH90 as a minimum. Some vessels should also have hangar facilities to support sustained helicopter operations. Keeping in mind that having a landing pad does not mean that additional helicopters are required, it just means more flexibility in terms of how a specific vessel class can be employed.

That will drive up ship size, but it is very sensible. Similarly you've probably noticed that for both LSC and MSC there is a requirement for a modest EF store and accommodation. Being able to embark a platoon and stores creates significant flexibility for tasks across the spectrum.

I also tend to agree with MrC about having only some vessels ice-strengthened and expected to operate in Antarctic areas

The ice requirement is seasonal. Vessels aren't needed down south year around, so there isn't any need to invest in it for more than one or two assets.

 

[Todjaeger]

That will drive up ship size, but it is very sensible. Similarly you've probably noticed that for both LSC and MSC there is a requirement for a modest EF store and accommodation. Being able to embark a platoon and stores creates significant flexibility for tasks across the spectrum.

Not quite sure why you think requiring a landing pad and possibly a hangar in vessels of a certain size or larger, would increase the size of those vessels. OPV designs tend to be 80+ m in length, and ~1,500 tonnes or greater.

The ice requirement is seasonal. Vessels aren't needed down south year around, so there isn't any need to invest in it for more than one or two assets.

While the ice requirement at present might be seasonal, I unfortunately suspect that will be changing in coming years. Between climate change, continued growth in demand for natural resources, and either the end of or renewal of the Antarctic treaty c. 2048...

Another consideration for a few more ice-strengthened hulls is the limited availability for the vessels to do anything else, if there are only two hulls. With the 'rule of threes' a pair of vessels can easily meet a seasonal requirement for Antarctic patrolling, and the normal maintenance and training cycles, with a little bit of extra availability for other taskings. However, their deployments need to be carefully managed, otherwise a normal seasonal ice patrol will be missed. In effect, two patrol vessels are largely unavailable for taskings except for a seasonal patrol.

Having an extra hull or two would permit regular training and maintenance cycles, as well as providing a patrol vessel which can be either deployed, or available for deployment, year round. This last bit is IMO significant because during the season, a patrol can be conducted around Antarctica, but the rest of the year, patrolling can be conducted elsewhere. With only two vessels, there is significantly less availability for patrolling in non-Antarctic areas year round, in order to be able to conduct a seasonal ice patrol.

One of the other key things to remember is that if a vessel were ordered today, it likely would not actually be able to enter service until mid-2018 at the earliest, and would likely be slated for decommissioning c. 2048. In actuality though, if a potential need was identified today, studies would be commenced and then RFI's, RFP's, and then likely RFT's would be sent, and it would more likely be two or three years before a contract got signed and an order placed, with delivery likely being ~two years after that, i.e. first in class service entry not occurring until 2021 or later, with a 30-year career ending c. 2051.

While what we are discussing are 'big ticket' items, they also have very long lead times and service lives. As such, recommendations and decisions made now, will be felt for a generation or more. IMO even with the pending DWP looking out to 2035 (a 20-year view) that is still being short-sighted

One area I am struggling with. is where the cost/benefit balance lies between ordering some vessels in partnership with the RAN for economies of scale and commonality which might not have features which would be beneficial for the RNZN, or selecting entirely different vessel classes built elsewhere but can have the desired features fitted. In a perfect world, the RAN would be including modular system capabilities in their upcoming OPV's and future frigates. Then RNZN could place an order for which would provide vessels capable of swing roles, as well as reaching economies of scale and commonality. We shall see.

 

[Zero Alpha]

Not quite sure why you think requiring a landing pad and possibly a hangar in vessels of a certain size or larger, would increase the size of those vessels. OPV designs tend to be 80+ m in length, and ~1,500 tonnes or greater.

Apart from the obviously larger pad needed for 10 tonne machines versus 5 tonnes, the difference in hangar width and height has stability implications.

Examples:

HH-65 H=4m
SH-2G H= 4.5M
NH90 H=5.2M
AW101 H= 6.62m

Obviously the difference between each end of the spectrum has a significant impact on the height of the superstructure, the associated sail area and the CoG.

 

[Todjaeger]

Apart from the obviously larger pad needed for 10 tonne machines versus 5 tonnes, the difference in hangar width and height has stability implications.

Examples:

HH-65 H=4m
SH-2G H= 4.5M
NH90 H=5.2M
AW101 H= 6.62m

Obviously the difference between each end of the spectrum has a significant impact on the height of the superstructure, the associated sail area and the CoG.

That is sort of the point in having the requirement specified for the design. The landing pad and hangar dimensions and weight requirements, as well as CoG issues would all be taken into consideration at one point or another during the design phase.

What could cause a vessel to be larger, would be a total set of requirements for kit, embarked personnel, and endurance that requires either greater displacement, an increased volume, or both. A helicopter handling and support capacity is just one of the factors.

 

[gf0012-aust]

What could cause a vessel to be larger, would be a total set of requirements for kit, embarked personnel, and endurance that requires either greater displacement, an increased volume, or both. A helicopter handling and support capacity is just one of the factors.

if the rotor is intended to be armed and deploy as armed from that platform there also ammo bunkerage issues - and the armoury is a separate rating to be compliant.

ditto for fuel bunkerage

adding a permament rotor capability has a huge impact on hull design. its a non trivial exercise

Alexas could probably add some better insight into the specifics

 

[donald_of_tokyo]

Take my and the other Mods word for it regarding the IPV's because we do speak to people and not just read about it. Note that I said it is more about tasking ops now and less about manpower as an issue. You will find your evidence about it if your googled anyway.

Thanks. I googled around and there are two kinds of claims, man power vs tasking ops. Summing up, it is because,
- IPV tasks are now in many (not all) part at 24-200nm from the shore
- IPV was designed to operate within 24nm from the shore
That's why they are not put resource (crew/fuel/operation) and Navy is looking for 3rd OPV to increase >24nm assets. That's is my understanding reading this thread.

NG and Lucas made comments on how they would like to see the DWP evolve and their preferences over the next 20-30 years. That has nothing to do with providing evidence for you. They are simply responding to the DWP. Note they are Mods and have served on RNZN patrol vessels.

Understood. My comment is mainly on the resource allocated to Navy. Looking at the history of NZ politics from outside, I just cannot believe the resource will be more than doubled, which I think is needed for their fleet plan (I was very sad when NZ lost A4s, 3rd and 4th frigates). But, of course you know much better than me about NZ Politics.

Fine. Nice to know that you are at least taking in a little of what we Mods say.

Yes. So, I need to change the wording depending on the thread. (RN guys say "full frigate" as 8000t FL ship, and when I said ANZAC as a "frigate", they claimed me "LIGTH frigate!!"....Bad memory...) Careful you are at risk of being banned. Do not second guess me.

I did not say that. What you said was that it had no ASW sonar. Simply correcting you.

No, sorry. Please read it correctly. I said no CAPTAS or TASS. Never said no sonar. If you read so, sorry I should have wrote more precisely. (for me it is like "not having a 3D radar", which deos not mean not having a radar at all).

But, I think they shall have CAPTAS-2 added, but not. It is either RNZN is not thinking much of ASW, or lack of resource, or both.

The above is what you said. I did not misquote you. You through that implied that the NZDF was not thinking of ASW. Implied a lack of resource or both. I replied with a recent project enabling regeneration of capability.

The Cole Report should explain at least a lot of the Project Protector debacle.

Thanks.

So does this shelter embark 4 NH-90s and a Seasprite?
Would a single Wildcat on a Bay Class really be that suitable for future JATF?
Don't worry. I know the answer.

No, simply because you said Bay has no hangar, I just said yes it has. By the way, this is another "misfortune of not precisely writing". What I meant was "a kind of Enforcer based LPD or like" by the terms of "Bay". Hanger issue was not the focus for me, bacause I of course think RNZN will optimized these design to the requirement they have (as you know, there are many Enforcer LPD with hangar). Need to carry 4 NH90 and a SeaSprite, no objection here.

For me, my mistake, my "not precise writing" causing your misunderstanding, and the status of this thread become more clear, thanks to your patiant comment. Thanks.

 

[kiwipatriot69]

Has our OPV had the Seasprite armed while in service, does it compliment any such deployment at sea with the pengiun missile or machine gun available, if not fitted?