Damage control is always going to be an issue, however, for a Navy like the RNZN, its just not an option in the current environment. Its not like NZ is choosing between 6 x destroyers or 12 x frigates and trying to find a balance there.
Also looking at modern weapons, the type of ships etc, how realistic is it to fight to save the ship or the ship continue the fight while damaged? Or is it more realistic to abandon the ship early and quickly, ensuring safe recovery of the crew. For NZ, that is probably again, just something that they would live with, the more limited damage control and the statistics that ships will generally be lost if hit with action. You can't armor and damage control your way out of every fight. Not to be dismissive, but I think there is just a different set of ideology going on here.
The US has a different policy, losing a CVN, or a whole task group has global repercussions, NZ loosing a frigate, probably doesn't. US ships have massive manpower capability, 300 on a destroyer, thousands on a carrier, they are on a different level of size and scale. The arguments that the US uses so destroyers aren't paired down probably aren't as relevant for NZ, you just don't have the crew. The RAN faces the same issue, we could never bloody crew the American ships, except in cases of full mobilisation.
But I would say crew, more than money is the most limited and valuable thing in the RNZN. People in rich modern nations, are expensive. Capable, but expensive. They are your key resource.
Certainly I think NZ could make a very capable fleet out of 4000-6000t ships.
Just in case the PPA (Thaon di Ravel) has not only the 76mm but a 127mm, 16 A50vls and 8 ASuw launchers in the Full and Light+ configuration.
It would be an interesting proposal, perhaps 2 Full and 2 light ships could be procured. If there was an interest in expanding the navy, a light ship could be converted to a heavy fit later on. Or if NZ wanted a particular mix of weapons and systems across 3-4 ships.
The Sea Ceptor is quad packed when it's used in the Mk-41 VLS and triple packed in the ExLS VLS. We would only be using an American VLS because of commonality with weapons systems. A Euro VLS would create all sorts of problems for us.
Didn't HMNZS Te Kaha loose the mk41 and sprout mushrooms? Either way, I don't think its a deal breaker, with ExLS various similar configurations can be had that would do the same job. I think getting any of these to fit a Mk41 would be relatively straight forward as many of the western launchers are fairly similar in installed dimensions. There would be bigger integration issues than that.
What about finding coperation in southamerica to increase numbers? they have same size economy and similar oceanic needs. Because i have the feeling what you need is different from what we need (JAP/ITA/Kor/SPA/T26)
The South Americans are very, very different. Not many are interested in new ships, and very different needs and capabilities. For them, crewing tends to be much easier. People are cheaper, but less money for expensive complex weapon systems. Not a whole lot of coalition work or integration.
Ideally NZ would find someone building a ship to specs that it is interested in, in sufficient numbers, and would be able to enter a supportive arrangement.
The Japanese and Koreans would be pretty hungry to grab NZ business. While the build volume isn't huge for them, it would be prestige, influential with another capable western partner in the region. These type of ships would also be interesting to others in the region.
