Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Novascotiaboy]

MrC my comment of "being afforded" was not intended as you have taken it. I should have said "provided". I am fully aware of how well the NZ economy is doing. I only wish I could claim the same here.

The NZ population has developed the same myopic view of defence as Canadians. "Sea Blindness" I believe is another term used here. In regard to the need of long range AAW capability I do not see the threat directly to NZ to require it. NZ will have assets embedded with a coalition partner that has that ability if required as there is no threat in the SP at this time or into the future.

From a selling point to those same pollies controlling the cash I would think it easier to sell an uprated LPD with frigate like features because of its non military utility in HADR both around NZ as well as the SP.

In a non shooting situation, typical since the end of hostilities of WW2, most naval activities has been presence patrol and playing chicken with soviet submarines. The past is the past. The threats are different and so is the needs of the country. We should not be building forces for other countries requirements. That is my rationale for two full fledged general purpose frigates and the two frigate like LPD's that can offer so much more to the day to day operations of the RNZN.

I agree fully with your comments regarding the use RNZN personnel in any possible Border Protection entity. The intent of my proposal was to reduce the ustilization of personnel, equipment and funding for non core military activities. There may be times NZDF personnel may be working as part of a specialist deployment but control of any asset in the BPF needed to be civilian.

 

[ngatimozart]

I agree with the steel is cheap and air is free comment as I have used it myself. My concern is that in the event of a shooting action anything NZ has will be extremely vulnerable given the lack of long range weaponry of NZ vessels. As noted in your own posts the threat from modern ordinance will overwhelm even the best equipped. So let's be realistic in our thinking regarding the use of mini flat tops in the context of NZ. In the event of a coalition operation one of the two GP frigates would be available to participate unless the LPD was desired. For SP operations the force projection of an upgunned LPD with its 5" gun and helicopters plus an embarked force with high speed CB90's would be an overwhelming force of diplomacy.

All I am suggesting is that versatility is the key. A quick search today revealed many articles from writers around the world extolling the benefits of these ships as MrC has alluded too repeatedly. Like the Absalon class that I still think is a good GP frigate the Algerian LPD offers more. Some of what I read today stated that the high crew numbers was due to reduced automation. In the best interests of efficiency a design change to incorporate labour reduction systems would be a good investment in the long term. Another change I would consider would be another hull stretch, if possible, from the current 143m, to 160m. This would be primarily to increase bunkerage of fuel to extend the range. The added room would also allow room for an additional helo.

What stands in the way of this type of a change in organization is the want to be something that you can never be. New Zealand will never be afforded the high end AAW capabilities of a Hobart or the offensive capabilities of TLAM.

If a frigate sensor package along with a comparable weapons load including 533 mm heavy torpedoes as planned for Damen crossovers this would be a significant capability for a navy the size of NZ. The country has always punched above its weight from a people perspective. The time is right for RNZN brass and the elected ones to sit and openly discuss realistic options.

Like anything that is multipurpose it's never going to be as good as a uni tasker. Canada was guilty of having a unitasker fleet at the end of the Cold War. Even today the concern for what replace our frigates and destroyers will hamstring the government if it fails to head what so many are saying about flexibility.

As much as I would like to see NZ with ships similar to Australia to take advantage of economies of scale during production I feel NZ will not need what OZ will be selecting.

Like others I feel RoK built vessels will offer the cost advantage and it's up to smarter people than I to ensure the Navy and the Government get what is needed.

As Mr C has said: Affordability has always been a myth. A political creation of convenience in NZ. To me it's a political construct that has been conveniently bandied by Kiwi pollies prior to and since WW2.

LPDs / LHDs are not built to withstand the same damage as frigates / destroyers. They are phat ships designed to be kept away from intense combat. They can also be significantly more expensive to operate and a one size fits all approach doesn't always work especially for a small navy. We may not necessarily acquire the same ships as the RAN because the outlook of our political masters is different to the Australians and we don't necessarily have to always be in complete lockstep with them. Unlike Australia we have never had a direct attack by a foreign enemy on our shores, so that colours and shapes our pollies and populations outlook and worldview. If the Japanese Imperial Navy had dropped bombs on Wellington or Auckland, when their aircraft overflew the cities and / or the parent sub had shelled either city during WW2, then it probably would've been a different story. But it didn't happen and Kiwis slept in their beds blissfully unaware that the enemy flew overhead with evil and nefarious thoughts in his mind.

Another thing the HDMS Absalon is not a frigate. It is a command and support ship. It and its sister ship are not built to the naval standards but to commercial standards so they cannot take as much damage as a ship built to full naval standards. The Iver Huitfeld class on the other hand is built to full naval standards and whilst it is predominantly an AAW frigate, the design could also be relatively easily modified to a GP frigate design.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Ngati I guess my point in this is that there seems to be a movement away from truly milcots standards and an acceptance of the risk associated with commercial standards for frontline military vessels. The USN LCS type ships are far from being able to deal with damage due to limited crew and design features of the vessels.

A MK 48 ADCAP torpedo exploding under any warship on the water today or in the future will be a dive reef. Like the ever escalating threat from landmines and IEDs we can never build something big enough or strong enough to protect those occupants from all hazards. If we design and construct functional vessels for the day to day requirements we ask them to perform and equip them with measures that will help to protect them in the event we ask them to go into harms way we have done our job. That means giving them the ability to protect themselves with weapons and countermeasures. But better yet it means giving the tool, the ship, the leadership with the experience to know when and where the ship can and cannot go. If all the brain power, sensor power and weapons power fails in todays technologically advanced world no ship will survive an attack of modern offensive weapons. You very eloquently provided details of that reality.

Realistic thought on what are the needs of the navy, and government, opposed to a desire of maintaining a past glory position that is not affordable or viable. By this I mean a purely ASW force contributing little to joint operations.

New Zealand's ultimate weapon is its isolation. The role of the navy needs to reflect the ability to support the army. The navy needs to be the prime mover of the army and then it needs to be the primary supporter, both logistically and with NGFS, once they are on the ground.

The concept behind the Canterbury is just but a start for the RNZN. The development of the JATF is proceeding and the force structure is being developed to provide that single direction. I think it is short sighted to consider replacing the existing ANZACS and Canterbury with like but bigger platforms without looking at the opportunity of combining the best features of both for the real situations faced by the nation and those that serve her.

Money will always be a concern for the bean counters and I am not advocating gold plated.

In my heart of hearts I fear that the RNZN is well on its way to a constabulary navy. A token contribution of two frigates, regardless of the capability of the platform and its crew, is a miniscule contribution to coalition operations. Its clearly apparent to me that the new tanker and announcement of a southern OPV are both as a result of the Ross Sea protected area, not military need. The LOSC will be a fantastic tool but more so as a result of the RENA experience than a military need.

If baby flat tops were acquired with frigate like features this would signal a desire to offer a military solution that supports the JATF concept.

Its true that Denmark has chosen to classify these ships a support ships but if it looks like a frigate, is armed like a frigate, does the work of a frigate.. Then guess what? Its a frigate that has extra flexibility.

 

[Rob c]

Defence affordability is one of the great myths. It is not affordability that has been the problem. It has been unwillingness to pay for it.

Australia has a willingness to pay for it. That is the only difference in 2016.

When looking at economic fundamentals - NZ has a greater capacity to afford increased defence spending when compared many other countries with respect to their defence spending versus debt levels. NZ has been one of the most successful OECD economies in the last 5 years and is now No1 for overall prosperity on the Legatum Index beating Norway and other Scando's, Unemployment 4.9%, economic growth 3.7% pa, population booming soon to hit 5 million, no budget deficit, a $1.8b surplus trending to a $5b+ structural surplus by 2020, GDP dept per capita under 25% which is very healthy.

Affordability has always been a myth. A political creation of convenience in NZ.

Totally agree, the problem appears to be that the recent governments have been too much under the influence of the financial sector and they seem to regard defence in a very negative way. I don't think the public perception is a problem from a political point of view in regard to defence spending and an increase would not be a problem apart from a few loud mouths. I am aware of only one political party in parliament that is calling for an increase, but at this time I think that the financial sector has to much sway for much to happen. This needs to change and the financial sector needs to be aware that they will be amongst the first casualties should security go pear shaped.

 

[ngatimozart]

Siemens video on the recent IPMS upgrade to Te Kaha.
Siemens Helping Navy Optimisation through Automation

 

[ngatimozart]

Ngati I guess my point in this is that there seems to be a movement away from truly milcots standards and an acceptance of the risk associated with commercial standards for frontline military vessels. The USN LCS type ships are far from being able to deal with damage due to limited crew and design features of the vessels.

A MK 48 ADCAP torpedo exploding under any warship on the water today or in the future will be a dive reef. Like the ever escalating threat from landmines and IEDs we can never build something big enough or strong enough to protect those occupants from all hazards. If we design and construct functional vessels for the day to day requirements we ask them to perform and equip them with measures that will help to protect them in the event we ask them to go into harms way we have done our job. That means giving them the ability to protect themselves with weapons and countermeasures. But better yet it means giving the tool, the ship, the leadership with the experience to know when and where the ship can and cannot go. If all the brain power, sensor power and weapons power fails in todays technologically advanced world no ship will survive an attack of modern offensive weapons. You very eloquently provided details of that reality.

Realistic thought on what are the needs of the navy, and government, opposed to a desire of maintaining a past glory position that is not affordable or viable. By this I mean a purely ASW force contributing little to joint operations.

New Zealand's ultimate weapon is its isolation. The role of the navy needs to reflect the ability to support the army. The navy needs to be the prime mover of the army and then it needs to be the primary supporter, both logistically and with NGFS, once they are on the ground.

The concept behind the Canterbury is just but a start for the RNZN. The development of the JATF is proceeding and the force structure is being developed to provide that single direction. I think it is short sighted to consider replacing the existing ANZACS and Canterbury with like but bigger platforms without looking at the opportunity of combining the best features of both for the real situations faced by the nation and those that serve her.

Money will always be a concern for the bean counters and I am not advocating gold plated.

In my heart of hearts I fear that the RNZN is well on its way to a constabulary navy. A token contribution of two frigates, regardless of the capability of the platform and its crew, is a miniscule contribution to coalition operations. Its clearly apparent to me that the new tanker and announcement of a southern OPV are both as a result of the Ross Sea protected area, not military need. The LOSC will be a fantastic tool but more so as a result of the RENA experience than a military need.

If baby flat tops were acquired with frigate like features this would signal a desire to offer a military solution that supports the JATF concept.

Its true that Denmark has chosen to classify these ships a support ships but if it looks like a frigate, is armed like a frigate, does the work of a frigate.. Then guess what? Its a frigate that has extra flexibility.

First of all it's not about retaining a past glory position. If that was the case then the RNZN would field a cruiser and six frigates like it did during the early 1950s. This is about a force structure that reflects NZs place in the world and how we are reliant upon seaborne trade as a nation.

The Navy I lead is unique in the region with its fleet mix, scope of responsibilities and available resources. It is what Geoffrey Till called a ‘post-modern navy’ – a navy with a focus on protecting not just our own domestic interests, but “the system” as a whole.

Just as the RNZN is a post-modern navy, New Zealand is a post-modern state; that is, one which is instinctively collaborative, and aspires to a cooperative system of openness and mutual dependence. New Zealand therefore deploys its resources: diplomatic, trading, cultural and military to promote that system of openness and mutual dependence. This is reflected in the RNZN’s mission statement of “Advancing New Zealand’s Interests from the Sea.”

Given the overarching principle that New Zealand supports a system of openness and interdependence, we are strong proponents of international law and internationally accepted norms and behaviour. New Zealand’s recent Defence White Paper identified as one of our overarching national security objectives, the need to strengthen the international order to promote security. It further identified that our interests are supported by the international rules-based order which disciplines the exercise of national power through international law, custom and convention, and affords the same rights to all countries, regardless of size.
...

New Zealand is a trading nation. Our first world life style is supported by a disaggregated global trading system based on free and open trade routes, transfer of information and the free flow of funds. We rely not just on the security of our own trade routes, but the security of every one else’s trade routes, because in effect, they are our trade routes as well. None of these things happen by themselves, but depend on international laws, agreements, norms and standards. We therefore have a vital interest in maintaining those links in our supply chain, even though we do not have the luxury of great size or wealth. Like many other nations we depend on larger nations adhering to internationally accepted norms and standards of behaviour.
Rear Admiral John Martin, ONZM, Chief of Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy
Norms and standards – a view from NZ Navy

New Zealand is a trading nation. Our first world life style is supported by a disaggregated global trading system based on free and open trade routes, transfer of information and the free flow of funds. We rely not just on the security of our own trade routes, but the security of every one else’s trade routes, because in effect, they are our trade routes as well. That is the significant point in R Adm Martins speech regarding NZs place in the world and one that the general public and pollies forget. Yes I hammer on about this and yes it is sea blindness, but it is also a fatal strategic flaw and the tyranny of distance is no longer the defence that it once was. Like any island nation NZ can be blockaded to try and have its freedom of action curtailed and an alien will imposed upon it. It doesn't have to be invaded for this to happen. In todays world missiles, other weapons and sensors negate any defence advantage that tyranny of distance once gave us.

Unlike Canada, NZ is not a protectionist economy hence we are totally reliant upon the foreign markets and we have to compete in and against protectionist markets. Getting our trade to market involves sea travel and that involves significant risk in wartime even if we are not a combatant. We also do not have a mercantile marine fleet so are dependant upon foreign shipping companies. Hence our SLOC are our weak links and they extend into Asia and far across the Pacific.

Therefore we do need a navy that has a significant combat capability and that involves frigates with capabilities beyond one threat. Yes submarines are prolific breeders in our part of the world, however torpedoes are only one part of a subs armament and the significant part of a subs armament is now the SLASCM giving it a very long reach compared to that of a torpedo. Therefore having a ship that specialise in just ASW would be a mistake. In todays world it also has to be able to defend itself and others against significant airborne threats. Unlike Canada we have to orientate ourselves to face a possible Chinese threat and they are strong believers in multilayered attacks geospatially and over time. Yes we would most likely be part of an allied or coalition force but not necessarily all the time.

I continue to look at the possible threats, history, geography, politics etc., and whilst I sometimes despair at current NZ pollie (& general public attitudes) I agree with Mr C that the argument about defence affordability is a convenient political construct to avoid spending money on defence.

Some suggested reading:
Till, Geoffrey: 2013Seapower: A Guide for the Twenty-First Century (Cass Series: Naval Policy and History) 3rd Edition.

Toshi Yoshihara & Holmes, James R: 2010 Red Star over the Pacific: China's Rise and the Challenge to U.S. Maritime Strategy.

 

[KiwiRob]

Another thing the HDMS Absalon is not a frigate. It is a command and support ship. It and its sister ship are not built to the naval standards but to commercial standards so they cannot take as much damage as a ship built to full naval standards. The Iver Huitfeld class on the other hand is built to full naval standards and whilst it is predominantly an AAW frigate, the design could also be relatively easily modified to a GP frigate design.

The Ivers cost 325 million USD per ship, they were build to commercial standards with some military spec included, just like the Absalon class. You don't get frigate built to milspec for 325 million.

Skip down the page, there is a good article about the class and the reasons behind the design.

2143-Warship-Design| FrontLine Defence

 

[ngatimozart]

The Ivers cost 325 million USD per ship, they were build to commercial standards with some military spec included, just like the Absalon class. You don't get frigate built to milspec for 325 million.

Skip down the page, there is a good article about the class and the reasons behind the design.

2143-Warship-Design| FrontLine Defence

Cool thanks. I was aware of the design philosophy and methodology behind the builds but not having read my material on it for quite a while forgot about that bit. Also they pulled through a reasonable amount of kit from previous ships, such as guns, which managed to help keep costs down. The specs call for a 127mm main guns on the Ivers but the Danes pulled through 76mm guns so that they don't have to purchase 127mm guns at the moment. I quite admire a lot of the forethought and common sense that has gone into the building and design, such as not burying the cables and pipes behind bulkheads, decks and deckheads in order that they may be easily accessed. Simple things; the way they built the ships was where a lot of cost saving occurred and of course there is a lot of automation but the Ivers are built to a greater naval standard than the Absalons.

 

[John Fedup]

The Ivers cost 325 million USD per ship, they were build to commercial standards with some military spec included, just like the Absalon class. You don't get frigate built to milspec for 325 million.

Skip down the page, there is a good article about the class and the reasons behind the design.

2143-Warship-Design| FrontLine Defence

I doubt an Iver could be built for anywhere near $325 million today. They were built by an Eastern European yard and the pricing was very aggressive. The yard is now gone. Add in the inflation factor and a Western shipyard and the price will be much higher but an Iver is still likely to be the least expensive design.

 

[swerve]

All Danish naval ships are built to DNV GL (formerly just DNV) naval ship rules, which impose standards not required by commercial ships.

The price is for a pretty bare ship (IIRC none of the StanFlex modules, which I think are budgeted for separately as they're not allocated to specific ships, & probably some other stuff), as well as pulling stuff through from older ships, as Ngatimozart says, & I doubt there's anywhere else that could build to the same standard for that price. Maersk managed its shipyards very efficiently, & kept costs down. That's how Odense Staalskibsværft managed to survive for so long despite Danish wages & prices.

Commercial practices doesn't always mean commercial standards, e.g. for damage control. It can mean such things as organisation of construction. Commercial construction standards are selectively allowed by classification society naval vessel rules. Absalon et al aren't built like warship-shaped merchant ships. They'd have been even cheaper if they were.

 

[40 deg south]

Siemens video on the recent IPMS upgrade to Te Kaha.
Siemens Helping Navy Optimisation through Automation

Ngati
Thanks. Although obviously a sales pitch for Siemens, it was still interesting viewing.

I'm curious how this will compare to the platform management system the RAN will have post-upgrade. NZ has separated out the upgrade of the engines and platform (done) from that of the sensors and weapons (starting in Canada next year). My impression is that BAE Williamstown are doing everything in one big hit, although I've never seen a clear description of what platform upgrades they are carrying out.

BAE Systems delivers significant upgrade to ANZAC frigate | BAE Systems | Australia

 

[chis73]

Siemens video on the recent IPMS upgrade to Te Kaha.
Siemens Helping Navy Optimisation through Automation

Anyone else notice the rather glaring error by the narrator in the clip: "Te Kaha was commissioned in 1999". Um, no, 1997 actually. Te Mana was 1999.

I have reservations regarding the wisdom of the unmanned engine room. While undoubtedly it will help with efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and crew requirements in peacetime, the frigates are, and always will be, warships. An unmanned machinery control room is just another system likely to go wrong. I'd rather have someone there to make decisions instantly in a crisis. Has the combat credibility of the RNZN (already looking pretty dodgy) taken another hit?

 

[40 deg south]

Anyone else notice the rather glaring error by the narrator in the clip: "Te Kaha was commissioned in 1999". Um, no, 1997 actually. Te Mana was 1999.

I have reservations regarding the wisdom of the unmanned engine room. While undoubtedly it will help with efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and crew requirements in peacetime, the frigates are, and always will be, warships. An unmanned machinery control room is just another system likely to go wrong. I'd rather have someone there to make decisions instantly in a crisis. Has the combat credibility of the RNZN (already looking pretty dodgy) taken another hit?

Fair point. I wonder if there is provision to have the engine room manned under certain 'threat' conditions? What is appropriate when transiting the Tasman may not be appropriate in, say, the Persian Gulf?

Canadian Navy’s experimental ship is underway on missions | Naval Today

In a slightly-related development, the Canadians are apparently taking a systematic look at manning levels and ship management.

 

[RegR]

Anyone else notice the rather glaring error by the narrator in the clip: "Te Kaha was commissioned in 1999". Um, no, 1997 actually. Te Mana was 1999.

I have reservations regarding the wisdom of the unmanned engine room. While undoubtedly it will help with efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and crew requirements in peacetime, the frigates are, and always will be, warships. An unmanned machinery control room is just another system likely to go wrong. I'd rather have someone there to make decisions instantly in a crisis. Has the combat credibility of the RNZN (already looking pretty dodgy) taken another hit?

I think combat conditions are alittle different to the vast majority of what the frigates do so why have resources constantly on "guard" for this at extra cost, effort and presence?

For example, when was the last time our frigates where in true combat vs training for combat?

 

[ngatimozart]

Anyone else notice the rather glaring error by the narrator in the clip: "Te Kaha was commissioned in 1999". Um, no, 1997 actually. Te Mana was 1999.

I have reservations regarding the wisdom of the unmanned engine room. While undoubtedly it will help with efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and crew requirements in peacetime, the frigates are, and always will be, warships. An unmanned machinery control room is just another system likely to go wrong. I'd rather have someone there to make decisions instantly in a crisis. Has the combat credibility of the RNZN (already looking pretty dodgy) taken another hit?

The Danes do it and there is really no difference in monitoring engine instruments in an engine room or in another compartment elsewhere. It's the systems and processes that you have in place to respond to any malfunctions and / or emergencies that matter and that will be well taken care of. There will still be an engineering steaming watch on duty at all times whilst at sea and they will be in a position to take care of any malfunctions. There is also the ships damage control team which has an engineering component to it that is called into action when the ship has an emergency from fire flooding etc.

 

[Cadredave]

Anyone else notice the rather glaring error by the narrator in the clip: "Te Kaha was commissioned in 1999". Um, no, 1997 actually. Te Mana was 1999.

I have reservations regarding the wisdom of the unmanned engine room. While undoubtedly it will help with efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and crew requirements in peacetime, the frigates are, and always will be, warships. An unmanned machinery control room is just another system likely to go wrong. I'd rather have someone there to make decisions instantly in a crisis. Has the combat credibility of the RNZN (already looking pretty dodgy) taken another hit?

Chris I don't see a problem with this, if it frees the engineers/watch keepers to attend to other more pressing issues rather than four people sitting monitoring screens for hours on end isn't that a waste of precious man power. Technology is meant to do the mundane tasks that this system is obviously designed to do I think it is a clever use of tech to free the precious manpower up & to better use those resources.

 

[alexsa]

Chris I don't see a problem with this, if it frees the engineers/watch keepers to attend to other more pressing issues rather than four people sitting monitoring screens for hours on end isn't that a waste of precious man power. Technology is meant to do the mundane tasks that this system is obviously designed to do I think it is a clever use of tech to free the precious manpower up & to better use those resources.

Except when things go bang spectacularly. This system evolved from merchant ships where there was monitoring from the bridge but the propulsion systems were generally slow speed two stroke diesels which tend to be quite reliable and pretty basic but even here you rely on complex monitoring systems. Engine protection is generally ensured by automatic engine slow down ..... or shut down. Fine for open ocean cruising but not great in company.

Even on merchant ships when in confined navigation environments, entering harbour or when in heavy traffic the MCR will be manned. I would expect that even with this automation they will be looking at the same when vessels are in company, conducting evolutions or closed up. Essentially it appears this will provide a real benefit in dispersed formation where evolutions are not conducted or when patrolling solo.

I would also note complex propulsion systems tend to throw up more challenges. It will be interesting to watch how it performs.

 

[chis73]

Alexsa has said most of what I was going to say. Cheers.

The MCR is usually also an important damage control centre. If there is no one there when things go wrong, that can't be an improvement. At least with a manned MCR there is a small team in the vicinity of the machinery spaces able to react quickly. If they are dispersed all over the ship - I dunno. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. That's putting an extreme amount of faith in a computer system / network to correctly monitor systems and take initial action.

Isn't one of the most basic military maxims "Fight like you train, and train like you fight" (which would seem to go back to at least Vegetius in 4th century AD Rome). Maybe we should just trade the frigates in for a cruise ship. : New RNZN motto: 'You bring the bullets, we'll bring the party!'

Expecting an enemy to give us ample warning of an attack so that we're 'ready' is a fantasy. With the rise in asymmetric threats (think USS Cole, plus the cruise missile attacks on Israeli, Egyptian & UAE vessels recently) it would foolish to not be prepared to take damage at any time or place these days.

 

[RegR]

Alexsa has said most of what I was going to say. Cheers.

The MCR is usually also an important damage control centre. If there is no one there when things go wrong, that can't be an improvement. At least with a manned MCR there is a small team in the vicinity of the machinery spaces able to react quickly. If they are dispersed all over the ship - I dunno. Sounds like a recipe for disaster. That's putting an extreme amount of faith in a computer system / network to correctly monitor systems and take initial action.

Isn't one of the most basic military maxims "Fight like you train, and train like you fight" (which would seem to go back to at least Vegetius in 4th century AD Rome). Maybe we should just trade the frigates in for a cruise ship. : New RNZN motto: 'You bring the bullets, we'll bring the party!'

Expecting an enemy to give us ample warning of an attack so that we're 'ready' is a fantasy. With the rise in asymmetric threats (think USS Cole, plus the cruise missile attacks on Israeli, Egyptian & UAE vessels recently) it would foolish to not be prepared to take damage at any time or place these days.

Modern navies and modern ships already have these systems in place, this is just a further evoloution. 5 metres away or 15 metres away does not make much of a difference in response time on a 100 metre ship and with smaller and smaller crews rest time is paramount to prevent failure at critical moments. Repetitiveness and boredom only leads to inattention and mistakes so combining monitoring roles in a singular point (especially in mundane times) saves on manpower, reduces the workload and shares the burden. Again not everything we do is combat, in fact far from it, long transits, routine tasks, idle port time etc.

I seem to remember navy trialling a new watch initiative for ships alongside in DNB whereas instead of say having 5 seperate watchs monitoring 5 different ships they cut down on numbers required and linked the ships more requiring less pers to maintain the same watchs as apparently they don't just park the ships up and close the doors when not at sea. Same concept with similar goals.

 

[40 deg south]

https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/type-26-frigates-get-sea-ceptors/

MBDA's Sea Ceptor surges ahead with contract for the UK Royal Navy's type 26 frigates - MBDA

Old news, but things are moving ahead on Sea Ceptor production for the RN. And presumably, NZ.