Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

[Massive]

If trade growth mirrors GDP out to the mid 2030's then having just 2 Frigates protecting the SLOC on which $250B of two way trade is conducted, along SLOC that are the worlds longest - into and through this centuries most contested sealanes - then one must note the abject stupidity of thinking 2 frigates is somehow adequate in a risk management sense when it comes to national security.

If you are worried about SLOC then 2 or 4 frigates isn't really going to make that much of a difference.

Regards,

Massive

 

[MrConservative]

I personally could easily see members of the int'l community valuing NZ input less, as well as being less willing and interested in protecting Kiwi shipping (flagged or merely carrying cargo for NZ). This in turn could easily cause the cost of imports shipped to NZ to rise, as well as reducing the profitability of exports from NZ, as the shipping costs rise.

The other element related to this is billions of dollars incurred in higher insurance related costs if strategic conditions unravel without even getting into a hostile vignette. Together with higher shipping rates that NZ businesses - both importers and exporters - would have to stump up (and ultimately consumers) would led to a negative impact on the NZ economy and flow down effect on productivity, incomes, loss of market share and jobs.

One of the classic maxims is that Defence and National Security is not simply about Territorial Sovereignty but equally Economic Sovereignty. A strong defence protects a strong economic sovereignty.

 

[MrConservative]

If you are worried about SLOC then 2 or 4 frigates isn't really going to make that much of a difference.

Regards,

Massive

Disagree.

Four frigates will make a solid contribution to the regional surface combatant capability of the Anzac nations.

 

[Massive]

Disagree.

Four frigates will make a solid contribution to the regional surface combatant capability of the Anzac nations.

I think that that is a better argument. I would make the same argument for the RAN surface fleet.

Regards,

Massive

 

[MrConservative]

I think that that is a better argument. I would make the same argument for the RAN surface fleet.

Regards,

Massive

I would say that amongst the US allies, the wider security umbrella, Australia is viewed very positively and is making a solid contribution to maritime time security in the Indo-Pacific region. Nine Hunters and 3 Hobarts - that is nudging things along quite a bit in a capability sense - and of course the Subs. Likewise if NZ fronted with 4 Frigates that had at least parity with a future FFG(X) that would be seen for its size as making a solid contribution.

 

[beegee]

There is a difference between what the RNZN wants, and what the RNZN needs. If gov't fails (or refuses ) to provide what the RNZN needs, then at some point the RNZN will not be able to meet gov't requirements for naval policy. Now there is the potential for new ideologues to take over gov't and then enact significant changes to naval and other defence policies, thus enabling a glorified coast guard-type force of armed OPV's to replace the frigates. However, even if naval policy gets changed to fit some individual or group's worldview, that would not disconnect NZ from global trade. Something like 98% of NZ trade by value is via international shipping, while over 99% by tonnage is. A very large portion of that trade passes through some of the most congested, and increasingly contested SLOC in the world. If NZ fails to maintain an adequate naval combatant force within the RNZN, then NZ would find itself unable to be involved or influence the outcome if (IMO not if, but when) a conflict breaks out involving one or more of those SLOC.

Consider the following hypothetical situation; the US and/or other int'l partners/allies requests that the NZ gov't deploy a RNZN frigate to patrol the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden off the coast of Yemen, to protect int'l shipping from piracy and/or AShM launched by Houthi fighters at vessels transiting the Red Sea and/or Gulf of Aden.

What sort of impact would there be upon NZ influence and trade if the NZ gov't refused such a request? What about if the request was met with the offer of a vessel not up to the task? I personally could easily see members of the int'l community valuing NZ input less, as well as being less willing and interested in protecting Kiwi shipping (flagged or merely carrying cargo for NZ). This in turn could easily cause the cost of imports shipped to NZ to rise, as well as reducing the profitability of exports from NZ, as the shipping costs rise.

You're preaching to the choir, brother.

I just don't trust the politicians. When I joined the RNZAF we had seven bases, when I left eight years later we had, effectively, three. In my time we endured large personnel reductions and only cost of living pay increases. I was based in Wigram when they finally built a permanent runway, with permanent lighting (I remember the old portable electric lamps well (I used to have to charge the bastards)). They spent millions putting in that runway. One of my claims to fame was I got to marshal in the first aircraft to land on the new runway, a brand new Aermacchi, down from Ohakea for the runway opening ceremonies. A short time later they decided to close Wigram. I was bloody livid. Now the runway is gone, Wigram is gone and the Aermacchis are gone. I just don't trust the politicians.

 

[Todjaeger]

The other element related to this is billions of dollars incurred in higher insurance related costs if strategic conditions unravel without even getting into a hostile vignette. Together with higher shipping rates that NZ businesses - both importers and exporters - would have to stump up (and ultimately consumers) would led to a negative impact on the NZ economy and flow down effect on productivity, incomes, loss of market share and jobs.

One of the classic maxims is that Defence and National Security is not simply about Territorial Sovereignty but equally Economic Sovereignty. A strong defence protects a strong economic sovereignty.

Actually it is not just shipping insurance, hence my use of the term shipping costs. IIRC when the Somalia pirates were being particularly bad circa. 2011, the average cost of insurance had gone up an extra $100k per transit, which was just one area where the costs increased due to the potential threat the pirates posed. Shipping firms responded in various ways which unfortunately would automatically increase costs. Having embarked security teams for the duration of the transit through the threatened area costs money, as does modifying a vessel to include a self-defence type capability like less-than-lethal sonic weapons, or having a reinforced control citadel where the crew can take refuge while retaining at least some control of the ship. Some ships instead (or in addition) made the same transit at faster then normal/economical speeds, which in turn would burn more fuel at a greater rate thus requiring more or more frequent refueling stops. In some cases, vessels took different/longer routes to minimize or eliminate passage through threatened areas altogether. I can recall one case where a shipping line was seriously considering re-routing vessels bound for Asia and the Pacific around Africa to transit past the Cape of Good Hope rather than go past the Horn of Africa.

 

[Todjaeger]

If you are worried about SLOC then 2 or 4 frigates isn't really going to make that much of a difference.

Regards,

Massive

There is quite a difference between a fleet with two frigates, and one with four. Following the Rule of Threes, a naval asset like a frigate will be either on or available for deployment about a third of the time, with another third of the time occurred by some form or minor or major maintenance, repair or upgrade work, and then in the final third the frigate and crew would be conducting training operations or on a pre-deployment preparation or post-deployment recovery cycle.

If a fleet only has a pair of frigates, then roughly a third of the time the fleet would have no frigates either on a deployment or available for deployment. Yes, it might be possible for a surge deployment to be done, rushing a frigate that is in a training cycle through so it can deploy, or hurriedly completing or postponing minor maintenance, etc. The key part to take away though is that by having so few numbers available, there will be limited availability.

Now with a fleet that has four frigates, the Rule of Threes tend to suggest that there would always be at least one frigate either on a deployment, or immediately available to deploy. In addition, a third of the time there would be a second frigate either deployed or available to deploy and this is without there being a surge deployment. If due to some crisis or incident, a fleet with four frigates has a much better chance of being able to respond with a pair of frigates and possibly even with three, when compared with a fleet containing only two frigates which could very well find itself without any frigates available when needed.

As for what a single frigate could accomplish, that would very much depend on the circumstances. I would suggest though that a single frigate could easily contribute to securing the safe extraction of foreign nations, should some sort of unrest erupt in a Pacific island nation. Also, if NZ was able to contribute a frigate to a coalition task force involved in securing freedom of navigation through pirate infested waters, or through SLOC where competing nations are on the verge of coming to blows over their rival claims, the presence of an additional vessel with suitable capabilities (i.e. not an up-gunned OPV or coast guard-type vessel) would be valuable.

 

[ngatimozart]

The Navy does not run the acquisition programmes or develop policy - the MoD does under direction of the GOTD. The policy was to upgrade the two Frigates. There was no policy developed at that time planned for a 3rd Frigate. The work on the Frigate upgrades was completed and signed off between the DWP10 and DPW16. It was after those decisions that RADM Steer on the eve of leaving his VCDF post and privy to the contents of the DPW came out with the view of at least a 3rd Anzac.

Yep Jack Steer went from VCDF to CN at end of 2012.

Generally my views align with this sentiment.

While everyone has been discussing Type 26, 31e, Hunter Class new builds and the Halifax and Anzac upgrades - the reality is that the RNZN Anzacs will not be replaced until after 2030. It will very likely be 14-16 years until the replacements Te Kaha and Te Mana.

There will be a volume build, off the shelf Frigate programme from a FVEY's partner during this period which in my view will provide for a realistic and appropriate pathway to keep a very close eye on. The USN's FFG(X) programme with Raytheon EASR, NGSSR, Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 and CEC/NIFC-CA at the heart of it. Also compared to the Type 26 and Hunter Class likely to be more attractive in the cost-benefit department.

Even if we do not select the FFG(X) programme winner in a completed "turnkey" hull sense - the integrated package of Raytheon's EASR, NGSSR and Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 as key government furnished elements in our future frigate design would provide for a common sense solution. It might sound a little trite but whatever the USN are up to in the frigate space over the next 2 decades would be good template for the RNZN to follow considering that we will work closely with them and that the platform will have inter-operability with a wide range of US Pacific allies and their platforms.

Nevertheless, we will desperately need an interim solution to expand the current Frigate force as it will be become evidently reckless not to do so by mid next decade. A single new build Absalon won't be the silver bullet as an interim solution. The reason why we require 3 or more capable long range surface combatants will become increasingly obvious as the strategic situation become more challenging in the Indo-Pacific. The DWP lays this out but the message has not sunk in yet - going on the solutions made in the 2018-2025 Naval plan.

With the first of the RAN Anzacs decommissioning mid-late next decade, the first crew for HMAS Hunter to be commissioned in 2027, will likely be assigned to it quite some period before. It might be that a RAN Anzac could become available as soon as 2025. It takes 5-6 years to develop a fully trained Anzac crew. 2025 is just 7 years away. We should be now starting to embed RNZN personnel into RAN Anzacs and also maintain crew and training on our own upgraded vessels. Yes it will be a pain in the backside and will require a lift in the Naval Combat Forces output in the annual appropriation to cover this, but the cost and reputational penalty of likely naval policy failure between 2025 and 2035 of trying to muddle through on just 2 Anzacs will be avoided.

Furthermore, I am seriously of the view that by 2035 New Zealand should be fielding not just 3 Frigates - but 4. When we last had 4 Frigates (1999/2000) the population was under 4 million and the GDP was half what it is now. By 2035 the GDP will top half a trillion and the population over 6 million. Two way trade was worth $110 Billion last year - 98% of it by Sea. If trade growth mirrors GDP out to the mid 2030's then having just 2 Frigates protecting the SLOC on which $250B of two way trade is conducted, along SLOC that are the worlds longest - into and through this centuries most contested sealanes - then one must note the abject stupidity of thinking 2 frigates is somehow adequate in a risk management sense when it comes to national security.

In some respects having the RNZN take over initially a single and (and later another OZ Anzac) is that it would boost surface combatant numbers on a trans-tasman basis. So it would work to mutual benefit. Essentially NZ would be crewing and paying for the operation of their Anzac. Ownership models could even be arranged in the form of lease. Over the period from the time the first RAN ANZAC becomes available to the last one is decommissioned could see under a lease approach the RNZN swap over earlier upgraded RAN vessels to later ones as they come available. There would be added benefit to Australian industry as the "Kiwi" ex RAN vessel(s) would be supported in OZ alongside the remaining RAN Anzacs. The other advantage is that it would enable the development and training over time - between 2025 - 2035 of generating the 4th crew for the 4th Kiwi frigate.

I agree that four frigates are required and for the reasons given. However I strongly dispute acquiring the ex RAN ANZAC class frigates as an interim solution. This is because in my mind it is a false economy; a significant waste of money and just means that we are pushing a full new frigate replacement program further away, making it a far costlier option in the long term.

The RAN ANZAC FFGs will be well and truly stuffed by the time they are replaced, because they have been used far more than originally planned for. With the money we would spend keeping each one of them serviceable and afloat, we could probably acquire a DDH with. We went down that path with the ex RN Leanders Dido and Bacchante (Wellington), and Dido (Southland) being loved by the local concrete merchants whenever she pulled alongside a NZ port because more often than not she needed concrete to repair a hole in the side. I was alongside at Nelson (on Kiwi) when a local concrete truck pulled up beside Southland, because a young junior seaman had put a wire brush though the hull from the inside when scraping the rust off. Also Wellington and Southland weren't replaced and Canterbury and Waikato lasted longer in service than they did.

The systems on the RAN and RNZN ANZAC frigates have diverged over the years. Even the helo capture systems are different. In fact some were different right from the initial build, with the RAN ships having things that the RNZN ships didn't, purely cost cutting on the NZG part, so the RNZN crews would have to be completely retrained on RAN ANZACs. Also what kit are the RAN going to leave on the ANZACs? At one stage they were looking at pulling through kit to cut the cost down on the Hunters.

I don't think that we have the time nor can afford to wait 10 years for a ex RAN frigate so it's far better to bite the bullet and start the replacement project now:

• ship 1 delivered 2025,
• ship 2 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2032,
• ship 4 delivered 2034.

If things get dire, build two ships at a time. If we went with an OMT Iver Huitfeld, we could have the first one sooner, say 2023, because the design is already mature and in service. Another option is:

• ship 1 delivered 2024,
• ship 2 delivered 2026,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 4 (Te Mana replacement) delivered 2030.

Yes it takes time to train up crews, but we already have the core of two experienced crews now and the extra personnel required could be recruited and trained whilst the ship(s) are being built. Work up periods can be increased if needed, with the wreckers spending more time getting the crews proficient. There is an excellent new seamanship training facility at Philomel, plus the other branch training facilities.

I also do not think that we need to acquire the Raytheon EASR, NGSSR, Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 and CEC/NIFC-CA straight away. Let the USN sort all the bugs, problems and gremlins out first before we even have a look at it. As long as we can communicate with the USN ships and transfer data etc via Link 16 and / or Link 22, then we should be fine. I would stick with the Lockheed CMS that is being installed during the current RNZN FFH upgrade. During a future MLU of the KiwiFFX then seriously consider it.

 

[beegee]

The CEAFAR2-L will be a decade or more old by the time the RAN ANZAC-class frigates start decommissioning, and unless the NZ gov't brings forward the Future Surface Combatant (which I think is should) the frigate replacements will not start occurring until sometime after 2030. In short, the designs are likely going to be 15+ years old and in need of updates/upgrades to remain effective.

The radar will be continuously upgraded through it's life to keep it effective (an easy task for a digital software controlled radar like CEAFAR2-L).

The first order for the SMART-S Mk2 was placed in 2002 (for the Absalon class ships). Here we are 16 years later and NZ is fitting it to our upgraded ANZACs. Many other navies are fitting it to their new and upgraded ships also. Is it still an effective design? Absolutely.

 

[Todjaeger]

The radar will be continuously upgraded through it's life to keep it effective (an easy task for a digital software controlled radar like CEAFAR2-L).

The first order for the SMART-S Mk2 was placed in 2002 (for the Absalon class ships). Here we are 16 years later and NZ is fitting it to our upgraded ANZACs. Many other navies are fitting it to their new and upgraded ships also. Is it still an effective design? Absolutely.

The earliest reference I can find of the SMART-S Mk2 would be in an upgrade done on some of the G-class frigates in service with the Turkish Navy with deliveries between 2007 and 2011. Now the actual design and manufacture is likely to be a little bit older than that, perhaps 2004 or 2005. That would put the SMART-S Mk2 at around 25 years old in 2030. I mention 2030 specifically because I and more importantly Thales Group, believe the potential threat environment will be significantly greater than it is, even at present. As a result of this projected threat environment, Thales appears to be working on developing next generation fixed AESA panels, in the belief that there will be a need for radar capabilities significantly beyond what state of the art radars are currently capable of.

This is one of the reasons I believe that the RNZN's Future Surface Combatant should be brought forward, because I strongly suspect that the FSU will be inadequate and/or obsolete by 2030 even though it would only have been fully implemented for eight years or so.

Now with AESA radars like CEAFAR2, since their capabilities are software defined to a degree, a string of software upgrades can add or enhance capabilities over the service life of the arrays. However, the actual hardware also has inherent limitations in terms of cooling, power per T/R module, number of T/R modules per panel, etc. which cannot be overcome with software improvements. As a sort of case in point, if new software along was sufficient to keep AESA relevant, then why has CEA developed CEAFAR2 or continued working on AUSPAR instead of just writing new code for CEAFAR?

 

[MrConservative]

Yep Jack Steer went from VCDF to CN at end of 2012.

I agree that four frigates are required and for the reasons given. However I strongly dispute acquiring the ex RAN ANZAC class frigates as an interim solution. This is because in my mind it is a false economy; a significant waste of money and just means that we are pushing a full new frigate replacement program further away, making it a far costlier option in the long term.

The RAN ANZAC FFGs will be well and truly stuffed by the time they are replaced, because they have been used far more than originally planned for. With the money we would spend keeping each one of them serviceable and afloat, we could probably acquire a DDH with. We went down that path with the ex RN Leanders Dido and Bacchante (Wellington), and Dido (Southland) being loved by the local concrete merchants whenever she pulled alongside a NZ port because more often than not she needed concrete to repair a hole in the side. I was alongside at Nelson (on Kiwi) when a local concrete truck pulled up beside Southland, because a young junior seaman had put a wire brush though the hull from the inside when scraping the rust off. Also Wellington and Southland weren't replaced and Canterbury and Waikato lasted longer in service than they did.

The systems on the RAN and RNZN ANZAC frigates have diverged over the years. Even the helo capture systems are different. In fact some were different right from the initial build, with the RAN ships having things that the RNZN ships didn't, purely cost cutting on the NZG part, so the RNZN crews would have to be completely retrained on RAN ANZACs. Also what kit are the RAN going to leave on the ANZACs? At one stage they were looking at pulling through kit to cut the cost down on the Hunters.

I don't think that we have the time nor can afford to wait 10 years for a ex RAN frigate so it's far better to bite the bullet and start the replacement project now:

• ship 1 delivered 2025,
• ship 2 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2032,
• ship 4 delivered 2034.

If things get dire, build two ships at a time. If we went with an OMT Iver Huitfeld, we could have the first one sooner, say 2023, because the design is already mature and in service. Another option is:

• ship 1 delivered 2024,
• ship 2 delivered 2026,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 4 (Te Mana replacement) delivered 2030.

Yes it takes time to train up crews, but we already have the core of two experienced crews now and the extra personnel required could be recruited and trained whilst the ship(s) are being built. Work up periods can be increased if needed, with the wreckers spending more time getting the crews proficient. There is an excellent new seamanship training facility at Philomel, plus the other branch training facilities.

I also do not think that we need to acquire the Raytheon EASR, NGSSR, Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 and CEC/NIFC-CA straight away. Let the USN sort all the bugs, problems and gremlins out first before we even have a look at it. As long as we can communicate with the USN ships and transfer data etc via Link 16 and / or Link 22, then we should be fine. I would stick with the Lockheed CMS that is being installed during the current RNZN FFH upgrade. During a future MLU of the KiwiFFX then seriously consider it.

We will not get a new Frigate Class next decade however much you want them NG. Of course I would love to see new Frigates. But it is not going to happen in your timeframe. Sorry but that is the reality. I am political realist and interested in pragmatic solutions with respect to the cards been dealt. We got dealt only 2 of the 4 Anzacs we needed. We have operated two frigate variants for a fair chunk of our Naval history. Rothesays and Leanders B3's from the mid 60s to early 80's and later towards the end a 7 year period Leanders and Anzacs. Not unusual.

There is no evidence to suggest that the RAN Anzacs will be stuffed by 2025. A little tired yes - they have only just gone through a major systems refit. If we can 5 - 7 years out of one and swap it under a lease arrangement I will take it. They are not the perfect solution but they are more certainly more ideal than nothing and they would be what they are - still generally capable vessels - which will be with the RAN well into 2030's as the Hunter Class drumbeat progresses.

We only have 2 frigates and will need 3 sooner than we think. I would suggest that leased ex RAN Anzacs would be substantially cheaper than any new build. That the RNZN would be an ideal and trusted candidate to take them over (In fact many Navies who would love to get there hands on them would not be allowed anywhere near them). It will take at minimum 5 years mostly likely 6 to train a new or additional crew to OLOC whatever vessel is chosen.

So once people understand the real politique of Zero new or extra build frigates actually in commission within the next decade and most likely 15 years - what are the pragmatic alternatives? Hope that Jacindarella's government wakes up one morning in the next couple of years and goes mmm lets start the Anzac Class replacement project now. Even fast-tracked we would not see OLOC crews until 2025 anyway. There is a problem to solve - a capability to remedy.

As I said pragmatic solutions that are likely to be possible. For example keeping the IPV's and using them semi permanently forward deployed in the SouPac. Getting a 3rd Frigate ex RAN in 7 years knowing that new builds are out of the question. Maybe picking up a 2nd vessel 2-3 years later and developing that 4th crew which would make it easier to gain that 4th Anzac. I will take a pragmatic result over the perfect solution when I can.

 

[beegee]

The earliest reference I can find of the SMART-S Mk2 would be in an upgrade done on some of the G-class frigates in service with the Turkish Navy with deliveries between 2007 and 2011. Now the actual design and manufacture is likely to be a little bit older than that, perhaps 2004 or 2005. That would put the SMART-S Mk2 at around 25 years old in 2030. I mention 2030 specifically because I and more importantly Thales Group, believe the potential threat environment will be significantly greater than it is, even at present. As a result of this projected threat environment, Thales appears to be working on developing next generation fixed AESA panels, in the belief that there will be a need for radar capabilities significantly beyond what state of the art radars are currently capable of.

This is weird. I already told you the first order for SMART-S Mk2 was placed in 2002 for the Absalon class. Do you think I'm lying about it?

The Royal Danish Navy is the launch customer for the SMART-S Mk2 volume search radars ordering two radar systems for its Flexible Support Ship (FSS) program. The order was announced on December 23, 2002. The first radar set was scheduled for delivery by the end of 2006.

...if new software along was sufficient to keep AESA relevant, then why has CEA developed CEAFAR2 or continued working on AUSPAR instead of just writing new code for CEAFAR?

I didn't say that the radar could be upgraded with software alone. I said upgrading is "an easy task for a digital software controlled radar like CEAFAR2-L", meaning it's a hell of a lot easier than upgrading an analog radar where everything is hardware controlled.

CEAFAR2 and AUSPAR are different products, with different capabilities to CEAFAR2-L. Their development doesn't mean CEAFAR2-L is no longer an effective radar, just like Thales' development of the NS100 or Seafire radar doesn't mean the SMART-S Mk2 is no longer an effective radar.

 

[Xthenaki]

Yep Jack Steer went from VCDF to CN at end of 2012.

I agree that four frigates are required and for the reasons given. However I strongly dispute acquiring the ex RAN ANZAC class frigates as an interim solution. This is because in my mind it is a false economy; a significant waste of money and just means that we are pushing a full new frigate replacement program further away, making it a far costlier option in the long term.

The RAN ANZAC FFGs will be well and truly stuffed by the time they are replaced, because they have been used far more than originally planned for. With the money we would spend keeping each one of them serviceable and afloat, we could probably acquire a DDH with. We went down that path with the ex RN Leanders Dido and Bacchante (Wellington), and Dido (Southland) being loved by the local concrete merchants whenever she pulled alongside a NZ port because more often than not she needed concrete to repair a hole in the side. I was alongside at Nelson (on Kiwi) when a local concrete truck pulled up beside Southland, because a young junior seaman had put a wire brush though the hull from the inside when scraping the rust off. Also Wellington and Southland weren't replaced and Canterbury and Waikato lasted longer in service than they did.

The systems on the RAN and RNZN ANZAC frigates have diverged over the years. Even the helo capture systems are different. In fact some were different right from the initial build, with the RAN ships having things that the RNZN ships didn't, purely cost cutting on the NZG part, so the RNZN crews would have to be completely retrained on RAN ANZACs. Also what kit are the RAN going to leave on the ANZACs? At one stage they were looking at pulling through kit to cut the cost down on the Hunters.

I don't think that we have the time nor can afford to wait 10 years for a ex RAN frigate so it's far better to bite the bullet and start the replacement project now:

• ship 1 delivered 2025,
• ship 2 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2032,
• ship 4 delivered 2034.

If things get dire, build two ships at a time. If we went with an OMT Iver Huitfeld, we could have the first one sooner, say 2023, because the design is already mature and in service. Another option is:

• ship 1 delivered 2024,
• ship 2 delivered 2026,
• ship 3 (Te Kaha replacement) delivered 2028,
• ship 4 (Te Mana replacement) delivered 2030.

Yes it takes time to train up crews, but we already have the core of two experienced crews now and the extra personnel required could be recruited and trained whilst the ship(s) are being built. Work up periods can be increased if needed, with the wreckers spending more time getting the crews proficient. There is an excellent new seamanship training facility at Philomel, plus the other branch training facilities.

I also do not think that we need to acquire the Raytheon EASR, NGSSR, Lockheed's COMBATTSS-21 and CEC/NIFC-CA straight away. Let the USN sort all the bugs, problems and gremlins out first before we even have a look at it. As long as we can communicate with the USN ships and transfer data etc via Link 16 and / or Link 22, then we should be fine. I would stick with the Lockheed CMS that is being installed during the current RNZN FFH upgrade. During a future MLU of the KiwiFFX then seriously consider it.

I agree that four frigates are required and for the reasons given. However I strongly dispute acquiring the ex RAN ANZAC class frigates as an interim solution. This is because in my mind it is a false economy; a significant waste of money and just means that we are pushing a full new frigate replacement program further away, making it a far costlier option in the long term.

The RAN ANZAC FFGs will be well and truly stuffed by the time they are replaced, because they have been used far more than originally planned for. With the money we would spend keeping each one of them serviceable and afloat, we could probably acquire a DDH with. We went down that path with the ex RN Leanders Dido and Bacchante (Wellington), and Dido (Southland) being loved by the local concrete merchants whenever she pulled alongside a NZ port because more often than not she needed concrete to repair a hole in the side. I was alongside at Nelson (on Kiwi) when a local concrete truck pulled up beside Southland, because a young junior seaman had put a wire brush though the hull from the inside when scraping the rust off. Also Wellington and Southland weren't replaced and Canterbury and Waikato lasted longer in service than they did

 

[Xthenaki]

Agree completely that any acquisitions made should be with new vessels rather than those nearing the end of their time and for the reasons mentioned above. Why waste money in plugging the gap. Get straight into a new class with a mid 20+s delivery for the lead ship followed by the 2nd frigate five years later. The gap between the 2nd and third vessel could be stretched to 10years giving a new class for the last two vessels. I feel that we should have a pair of frigate replacements delivered at the end of every 12 to 15 year term. This brings to the navy a rotation of the latest vessels available. We should avoid one class of four frigates that require similtaineous replacement.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately what makes sense is lost on pollies. Stop gap measures with used kit will be problematic but if proper funding isn't available you have no choice (other than voting in pollies who get it). Canada has the same problem which explains why we are buying used Australian classic Hornets that are almost as old as ours. Flushing the money down a toilet instead wouldn't be much worse IMHO.

 

[beegee]

Unfortunately what makes sense is lost on pollies. Stop gap measures with used kit will be problematic but if proper funding isn't available you have no choice (other than voting in pollies who get it). Canada has the same problem which explains why we are buying used Australian classic Hornets that are almost as old as ours. Flushing the money down a toilet instead wouldn't be much worse IMHO.

Yep, false economies. The problem with politicians is they can only see as far as the next election and have a very limited understanding of defence procurement and strategic planning. If something is too difficult or politically sensitive their first instinct is to kick it down the road and make it somebody else's problem.

 

[MrConservative]

Agree completely that any acquisitions made should be with new vessels rather than those nearing the end of their time and for the reasons mentioned above. Why waste money in plugging the gap. Get straight into a new class with a mid 20+s delivery for the lead ship followed by the 2nd frigate five years later. The gap between the 2nd and third vessel could be stretched to 10years giving a new class for the last two vessels. I feel that we should have a pair of frigate replacements delivered at the end of every 12 to 15 year term. This brings to the navy a rotation of the latest vessels available. We should avoid one class of four frigates that require similtaineous replacement.

Look we can all agree on that. Of course it would be great if we could magic up a couple of new Frigates. But this is not going to happen Naki for all that we wish for.

But a lease of say for example Arunta or Warramunga (or whatever the first OZ Anzac ships crew becomes the commissioning crew of the Hunter were assigned to ) which we take over, operate and crew for a further 5 years until the first of our Anzac replacements happen is the only other solution unless 1. We can find another 2nd hand Frigate like a Type 23 or a mothballed and tarted up OHP or 2. We want to go through the period of 2025-2032 with still just two Frigates in commission.

 

[t68]

Look we can all agree on that. Of course it would be great if we could magic up a couple of new Frigates. But this is not going to happen Naki for all that we wish for.

But a lease of say for example Arunta or Warramunga (or whatever the first OZ Anzac ships crew becomes the commissioning crew of the Hunter were assigned to ) which we take over, operate and crew for a further 5 years until the first of our Anzac replacements happen is the only other solution unless 1. We can find another 2nd hand Frigate like a Type 23 or a mothballed and tarted up OHP or 2. We want to go through the period of 2025-2032 with still just two Frigates in commission.

I wonder if there is scope for a mixed crew before hand over say 12 mths or blue and gold crew arrangement not sure if it’s feassbile or not

 

[RegR]

This is all rather moot as TBH as nice as it would be to have a 3 or better yet 4 frigate navy again our manning levels will need a serious injection and overhaul first otherwise we will just be parking more ships up and the park is pretty full atm.

We cannot seem to crew our small (and getting smaller) navy as it is nevermind essentially doubling our requirements as it's not just numbers but essential numbers that seem to be driving our current focus more than even our actual military requirement.

Unless we can support and sustain the recruitment and more importantly retention of key staff than adding more ships, especially major fleet units that are manpower intensive, is literally just fuelling the fire but adding no heat so pretty much a waste of time, effort and funding probably better spent of maximising effort and at least achieving designated sea days in our current fleet and building extra capacity from there first with some double crewing and then when we have the experienced numbers built up then add a ship or two otherwise all for naught and we're back to where we seem to be now, only bigger.