Also we might be in just a wee bit of ahem trouble with our supposed 1-4 frigates if an adversary hypothetically sends over a much larger task force (dunno let's say 6 vessels and a couple of subs and then they split off to different areas)!
Solution might be to not put all one's eggs into one basket, perhaps ...
Almost like you need a layered force with options in air, land, maritime, cyber, information and space domains, that provide flexible options designed to address a range of threats, rather than a personally preferred option that counters threats (barely) in a single domain?
Out of interest, Australia is spending AUD$1.6b (NZD (1.8b) to acquire a fleet of 42x HIMARS, plus a substantial inventory of weapons, establishment of a Regiment, training, sustainment and so on. These weapons at present include GMLRS, ER-GMLRS, ATACMS and a quantity of PRsM Increment 1 missiles, weapons capable of a wide range of strike operations, including some degree of maritime strike.
The U.S. Army successfully used two Precision Strike Missiles (PrSM) against a moving target at sea, marking a first...
www.navalnews.com
NZ is spending NZD $2.34b on it’s existing P-8A capability - one that doesn’t presently provide a stand-off anti-ship capability…
Any replacement frigate program budget is unknown as yet, but there is little doubt that if your desire is to be able to put a lot of missiles down-range as quickly as possible, neither air or maritime means are the most efficient nor cheapest way to do it.
A full regimental fire effort from the 10th fires brigade puts more ASM’s down range than the entire surface fleet of the RAN could manage, even if you could get them all to sea at once, not to mention when dispersed they cover many more locations than the RAN could possibly manage. The difference would be even more stark with the NZDF.
If NZ wants to be able to control it’s approaches using ASM’s, then HIMARS even if only on a cost basis, has to be a consideration.
