I don’t disagree with much of the recent commentary about the importance of having a respectable naval fleet that includes having modern frigates.
That said I’ve often posted NZ needs to figure out what its broad navy looks like and how to fund it.
Upshot it appears NZ have no commitment in dollars for the type of defence many of us on DT think / believe is the minimum requirement.
So here’s the challenge.
Acknowledgment of the above suggests hard choices to be made.
The Army article was good in that it begs the question of change. We may not like its proposal but the question is prudent.
I’m reluctantly of the opinion that two frigates is such a minimal capability that it’s not the dollars.
Capability is availability.
Two does not work
Spend frigate dollars a different way
Therfore other options should be explored
This would be a very different looking Navy and suggest Airforce
Cheers S
I did up reading the entire article written by the former Army officer and some of my conclusions are that either the officer was writing, rather authoritatively IMO, about a subject which he really was not familiar with, or else the former officer was aware of the issues with his article and was being deliberately misleading, dishonest or disingenuous.
For those who follow naval matters and/or those who have served especially in a naval or maritime capacity, one is aware that different types of vessels have different hullforms and that these differences exist for a reason, because the hullforms themselves can provide different capabilities. Hulls which lend themselves to operating in very shallow waters could run into stability or seaworthiness issues if they attempt open water transits in higher sea states or rough weather. Flat-bottomed hulls which might lend themselves to safely grounding ashore to land troops, kit or supplies might likewise be less suitable for open water ops. Similarly, vessels featuring bow doors and/or drop ramps, all of which lend themselves to beach landings, are likely going to be less able to maintain high transit speeds. Looking through various LST derivative designs, it seems they generally have speeds around 12 - 15 kts which could make attempts to have LST-hulled escorted become problematic since at least some merchant vessels have higher transit speeds.
Secondly, the author also appeared to suggest that adopting mission modules could allow NZ to fit capabilities to other vessels, apparently in the belief that one could have some/all frigate capabilities without having frigate-like costs. If this impression is accurate, then the idea itself is hugely inaccurate and unrealistic. For starters, the old adage that steel is cheap and air is free comes to mind. Yes, a modern advanced frigate is an expensive endeavour. However, that expense is not due to the vessel being a frigate, but is rather due to the costs of the systems installed to enable a frigate to have the capabilities it has. I forget exactly where on the forum I first encountered this, but IIRC modern warships with advanced sensor, electronics and CMS fitouts typically have something like over a third to half the initial/purchase cost of the vessel come from the sensors, CMS and electronics.
Now sure, a ship could of course be developed with sockets or slots to take mission modules, but without the architecture as well as installed sensors, electronics and CMS, those modules are going to be largely ineffective at best. Going back to the idea of taking an LST-120 and fitting modules for air defence, ASuW, ASW, etc. once the needed sensors and electronics get installed into the vessel, then one is no longer looking at an inexpensive vessel. For those who might think that some modules could be both self-contained and effective, i.e. not need external ship sensors, that might be true for some of the less capable self-defence systems that might be equivalent to SeaPhalanx or SeaRAM. However, if one were to try and install more capable air defence missiles like Sea Ceptor, ESSM, or even something larger/longer ranged, then the ship itself would need more powerful and appropriately located sensors to detect threats further out. There would then also need to be an internal network as well as a combat system to manage sensor contact information as well as coordinate the response. Again, all of this is expensive and part of why smaller warships like the K130/
Braunschweig-class corvettes cost close to five times what similarly sized OPV's like HMNZS Otago do. The first batch of the German corvettes cost €240 mil. per vs. NZD$110 mil. which once one adjusts for currency conversion would have worked out to ~NZD$508 mil.
Now me being me, I would like to see the RNZN and RAN make greater strides in adopting and fielding containerized modules and systems. My desire for this is that I think, if done properly, it could enable RNZN and RAN vessels to be more flexible in terms of capabilities whilst on deployment without requiring extensive time in a yard. Similarly, if modules are maintained in a pool arrangement, then if one module use ends up malfunctioning or requiring maintenance, it might be able to get swapped out or replaced quickly without disrupting a deployment.
