Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates

t68 said:

Any idea how much Canty would be on the open market and would their be any potential buyers?

Click to expand...

Would not have a clue what she would be worth on the open market, its a handy little ship, so imagine there would be plenty happy to have a look at it.

Something along the lines of a Galicia Class would also augment the proposed Endeavour replacement as well, maybe a hardened hull so it also has the ability to do supply runs down south when the JSS is not available or in re-fit and vice versa.

The utility of both a JSS style and descent sized LPD like a Galicia would be a great capability and enabler for the NZDF

Cheers

aussienscale said:

Would not have a clue what she would be worth on the open market, its a handy little ship, so imagine there would be plenty happy to have a look at it.



Cheers

Click to expand...

But it is quite specialised even thought it is based on a commercial design. That will push your price down as any commercial operator will have to modify it. May be easier to sell it as a warship but suspect that you would be better off running it and
plan to build the replacement if that was what was desired. From planning to in service could take a while.

t68 said:

Any idea how much Canty would be on the open market and would their be any potential buyers?

Click to expand...

Why would New Zealand sell her? She meets all of the requirements for New Zealand Defence Forces sea lift. There is a reason why she has 408 lane meters of vehicle deck space. There is a reason why they didn't want a well dock. There is a reason why she is designed to carry a enlarged company group, not a battalion.

Sea Toby said:

Why would New Zealand sell her? She meets all of the requirements for New Zealand Defence Forces sea lift. There is a reason why she has 408 lane meters of vehicle deck space. There is a reason why they didn't want a well dock. There is a reason why she is designed to carry a enlarged company group, not a battalion.

Click to expand...

Have you read the the last couple of pages, and if so you will know what the above relates too. Can you point to where I said sell her?


But in saying that she would still be usefull as the strategic sealift ship in co-junction with the proposed Singapore endurance 160 in the RNZN

http://www.stengg.com/download/pdf/1145a3iazembefv3e5ef.pdf

Sea Toby said:

Why would New Zealand sell her? She meets all of the requirements for New Zealand Defence Forces sea lift. There is a reason why she has 408 lane meters of vehicle deck space. There is a reason why they didn't want a well dock. There is a reason why she is designed to carry a enlarged company group, not a battalion.

Click to expand...

Agreed, for the price we paid and for what we actually do (not potentially) then CY is leaps and bounds ahead of what we had and (now) a very useful and versatile ship. Operations, capabilities and even complement size suit our small navy and is proportionate to our military scope both in lift operation and outputs. A well dock is a nice to have but for the added cost, size and procedures is it nesscesarily a need to have for us and do the advantages outweigh the requirements?

Possibilities, maybes and what ifs are root causes for aqquisition price, operating costs and the options list but at the same time we need to be somewhat realistic with how, what and why for the justification.

RegR said:

Agreed, for the price we paid and for what we actually do (not potentially) then CY is leaps and bounds ahead of what we had and (now) a very useful and versatile ship. Operations, capabilities and even complement size suit our small navy and is proportionate to our military scope both in lift operation and outputs. A well dock is a nice to have but for the added cost, size and procedures is it nesscesarily a need to have for us and do the advantages outweigh the requirements?

Possibilities, maybes and what ifs are root causes for aqquisition price, operating costs and the options list but at the same time we need to be somewhat realistic with how, what and why for the justification.

Click to expand...

For NZ it came down to price you got what you paid for, the tactical military requirement in the NZDF for sealift is infrequent at best with majority of the moves are strategic/administrative in nature, and the then recent conversions of ex-USN Newport class amphibious ships scared the government on second hand shipping.

The debate at the time was centered on the strategic sealift capacity of HMNZS Charles Upham which could have been modified to a similar level as Canterbury has now.
RSS Endurance was looked into at the time and was deemed to have has only half the strategic lift capacity of a modified Charles Upham which stands to reason because of the well dock, but was deemed to have excess capacity in the tactical requirement, The Endurance can tactically offload heavy vehicles up to LAV size It also has two spot helicopter positions (not sure if they can be used concurrently)

With NZDF goal of expeditionary Joint Amphibious Task Force you need the correct enablers to achieve capabilities for a credible combat capability not just peacekeeping and HADR, a proper resourced combat capability will act as an effective and credible deterrent and provide stability in the wider South Pacific region as well being capable of participation in coalition operations elsewhere in the world for NZ to provide an integrated and effective response over a number of contingencies for any deployed Defence Force elements.

RegR said:

A well dock is a nice to have but for the added cost, size and procedures is it nesscesarily a need to have for us and do the advantages outweigh the requirements?

Possibilities, maybes and what ifs are root causes for aqquisition price, operating costs and the options list but at the same time we need to be somewhat realistic with how, what and why for the justification.

Click to expand...

Strategic requirements flowing through to Conops (concept of operations) through to capability requirements are the true justification of what should be acquired. By 2035 the NZ Govt through the NZDF sees the strategic neccessity of being able to independently deploy amphibious forces in the Pacific, project and sustain a sizeable combat force offshore, and achieve dominance of the country’s maritime domain and South Pacific region. The conops are developing as we move forward both in planning, training engagement with allies, acquisition and refocusing as events change (Case in point less requirement for operating IPV's and a greater requirement for operating larger vessels and it is not just driven by manning restraints but also changings in the commercial fishing fleet ops over time, the Big E replacement by a multirole support ship which will also supplement CY).

There is nothing pie in the sky about the NZDF requiring a well dock on whatever design replaces the CY. For what replaces the CY will be the core capability nexus of which the JATF and whole Future 35 / DWP stratdox are built around and no doubt beyond that timeframe. The ship that does replaces the CY will also likely to be still be in service out to 2060 thus not to have a well dock and I might add improved aviation capability would be practically either negligent or insane.

Oh I have no doubt future CY will be an improvement as this is the natural evoloution and development of such an important capability set for NZ (as with future END) and it would be rude not to given the chance (level of will be the interesting part) but I am talking about retro-fitting CY now in our current position and just think it would money ill spent and a reckless endeavour.

To be brutally honest future 35 to me are just ideals, goals(current at best) and a focus for now that are really just some nifty flow diagrams, spiffy pie charts and inspiring catch phrases at the end of the day and changes in cycles with some ever shifting goalposts. In reality who knows what the actual 2035 beast will shake out to and eventually look like in the end. Times have been proven to change a lot more rapidly than we can predict sometimes.

Who would have forseen in the 80s/90s that in the 2000s we would now not 'require' an ACF? What cements assets like CY and END future growth, upgrades and justification are their true multi-role skillsets (an not mil focussed either). Another big tester in this future 35 magical carpet ride will be the ANZAC replacements as they will be alittle harder to push across the table but to some are just as important if not more dependant on how you interperet future 35, we will just have to wait and see I guess?

Changes will no doubt occur to Future 35 over the next decade particularly with respect to the RNZN. Providing enhanced logistical support will nevertheless be a constant. One change that is becoming evident as conops evolve due to output requirements is that the patrol fleet will possibly be numerically smaller but each vessel will be larger, more capable and more cross roled. Inshore patrol vessels are likely to disappear as a class of vessel in our fleet and that output covered by using the planned teir 2 ISR aircraft (ala B350ER) vectoring a larger patrol vessel which to respond. The RNZN era of a small fleet of IPVs conducting short 5 day stints is coming to a close. The recent/current fleet of 4 IPVs, 2 OPVs, a survey vessel and a dive/MCM vessel may be reduced down to five vessels, yet with better range and patrol persistance, better ISR, greater use modular task packages, more automated and be helicopter capable. With respect to Anzac replacement and the CY replacement my view is that we will end up with 2 very capable surface combatants - from where and what it is still too early to tell - type 26, evolved F100 or a Korean OTS design? From what replaces the CY is the really interesting part for us. The small navy trend is moving to multirole designs similar to the recent Algerian vessel and the Endurance 160 et al which can act not just in the traditional amphibious support role albeit with better aviation capability that older LPD designs, but also act as suplementary enabler to surface combatants in that they can potentially and credibly deploy rotary ASW assets and conduct bread and butter SLOC duties when not used in their prime amphibious support and command ship role.

Cheers MrC

I asked the question as a thought bubble because of possibilities; looking at future possibilities for CTY and / or its replacement down the track. Whilst a well-dock is an ideal capability, we must learn to walk before we can run and I've always seen CTY as the ship we learn Amphib Ops and maritime projection on. My opinion is that it is well thought out in some areas, especially in the aviation side with four helo spots. I read last year the some USN officers were impressed with the bridge layout and the extended bridge wings, over the ships side, allowing good vision for ship manoeuvring activities in confined spaces, or evolutions where the bridge officers needed good views of what was happening. Undoubtedly there are other areas that I am unaware of, where it is well thought out too. Conversely, there will be areas where improvements need to happen. Like I said this is, IMHO, our amphib ship with trainer wheels on I would like to think that son or daughter of CTY will build on these lessons, pollies and bean counters allowing. IMHO I would like to see a through deck LHD of around the 12,000 class in RNZN colours. This LHD would have a minimum of four medium sized helo spots with maybe six preferable and capable of lily-padding a chook or a MV22 Osprey.

Like Reg, I have some reservations about Future 35 and the talk of a single service sends shivers down my spine. It didn't work for the Canadians and what makes the CDF (who was Army same as current one) think that it will for NZ? It speaks more of bean counters and pollies, but that is not for this thread except to state that it has the potential of killing the culture and ethos of the RNZN (& RNZAF). Having said that, Future 35 does lay the course for future NZDF direction and as such it should provide a theoretical grounding upon which NZDF can build.

The biggest problem that the pollies, the bean counters and the general public have is that they forget, or do not understand, that NZ is a maritime nation, one that is the remotest nation in the world. Our EEZ is the 4th largest in the world and we are totally dependant upon maritime trade, with 99.4% of our imports / exports transported by sea. Our SLOC extend well beyond Australia to Asia and North America. We are dependent upon Middle East oil for our hydro carbon energy needs and that's just the present. The oil that we drill is of the sour crude type and unable to be distilled by the refinery at Marsden Point, therefore having to be exported. Hence we have to import sweet crude to distil at our refinery so we are still totally dependant on foreign oil. We import petrol from Singapore and Seoul.

The future is not one of sublime peaceful coexistence nor a benign future like the trendy lefties have us believe, nor the bean counters and MFAT have us think. China is flexing its muscles especially in the maritime sphere and Russia is becoming more belligerent against the west. NATO has reported that Russian regular forces are operating in the Ukraine. Continued and further sanctions against Russia will drive them closer to China, economically and militarily. If this happens and some form of pact between the two nations eventuates then China will be emboldened to further press claims it already has and any future claims it may have both in the maritime areas adjacent to China as well as in the Arctic and Antarctica. This will create serious challenges to NZs security and economic wellbeing. Therefore when we discuss frigates and OPVs we should keep this in mind as well as the usual standard NZ pollie head in the sand approach to maritime and defence security issues.

Regarding the IPV / OPV mix, if the IPVs are reduced and replaced with OPVs then numbers are very important. If there is a change of govt at the election then Goff may be able to persuade the Cabinet to fund say another three or four OPVs to protect his beloved fisheries BUT at what expense? If the govt isn't changed then we lose two IPVs for one OPV and will it be capable of doing what is best for NZ Inc?

To whit frigates. I am of the firm opinion that NZ Inc., needs three frigates or two frigates and possibly an Absalon type ship built to milspecs. At the present point in time an Absalon type would be desirable and in FOC before the current ANZAC frigates are due to be replaced, in order that we do have one frigate type vessel available at all times. We have spoken of the advantages of an Absalon type before and one of them is as a c2 or c3 (or possibly c4) ship when it is not practical to have CTY in the mix, plus all the other capabilities said vessel has. Think Defence have a section devoted to the Type 26. I think that at present it would be a front runner for the RNZN ANZAC replacement especially if we can take the expensive stuff from the ANZAC FSU through as planned, much like the RN intend doing with kit from their Type 23 frigates. The RNZN would be looking at the GP variant of the Type 26, rather than the ASW or anti air variants. This is further along than any mooted Australian ANZAC replacement and considering that the RNZN ANZACs, are looking to being replaced around 2025 - 2027, then they (Aussies) will have to start things soonish.

That's my take on things at the moment.

NG I agree with a lot of the above and can understand reservations about Future 35 however disagree with the passing comment concerning the Navy wanting two GP type frigates.

If you apply strategic direction which has proactive and reactive elements to it, and flowing those elements through to conops, and then through to what replaces the Anzacs - to build only 2 general purpose frigates without anti-air and ASW or something at the level of CEC/Ceafar - then we might as well not bother. We would have no legitimate or useful role to play in a hot cross bun fight and yet we may actually get caught up in one whether we want to or not in the South China Sea which is of national security interest to NZ diplomatically, economically and militarily, a place we have traditional been involved in, a place where maritime events can unravel fast. An area littered with generational nationalist beefs, byzantine politial and command structures and Navies chock full of small fast and very lethal corvettes. It is not a place for fools and the faint hearted. Frigates are meant to be warships, to fight and survive intensive maritime events to protect other assets - to do more than monitor threats and police sea lanes. They Navy knows this so it is a little incorrect to say the Navy professionals will want two GP frigates. Beancounters and some Pollys may be happy with that but it is our job to advocate otherwise .

ngatimozart said:

Regarding the IPV / OPV mix, if the IPVs are reduced and replaced with OPVs then numbers are very important. If there is a change of govt at the election then Goff may be able to persuade the Cabinet to fund say another three or four OPVs to protect his beloved fisheries BUT at what expense? If the govt isn't changed then we lose two IPVs for one OPV and will it be capable of doing what is best for NZ Inc?

Click to expand...

Any change of Govt would be a suprise. On the hypothetical Goff will be fighting hard to save the Frigates from the Green - Mana and Labour left axe.

I would be fine with all the IPV's going. There time is passing. A single highly capable long hull OPV, with module packakes and helo, is worth more to us than a couple of small 55m IPVs - greater utility and roles. Their endurance negates the hull reduction. They also do not need that much greater crew levels (The OPV crew of 55 is only 20 more than the IPV) which is an issue - manning in specialist areas.

What we should start to consider building is a batch of new OPVs stretching out over the next few years - decade. Starting with the mooted 3rd OPV to replace 2 IPV's (2018/20), then 2 years later a further OPV to replace the last 2 (2021/22). Then next replace the current OT (2023/24 and WG (2025/26). Protector patrol fleet sold off. With the LWSV also patrol tasking capable, it would actually be an improvement. If the LWSV is a Ventator / BAMS type design or derivation of, the replacement programme could start from there in (2017/18) which would make it a 5 ship class.

MrConservative said:

NG I agree with a lot of the above and can understand reservations about Future 35 however disagree with the passing comment concerning the Navy wanting two GP type frigates.

If you apply strategic direction which has proactive and reactive elements to it, and flowing those elements through to conops, and then through to what replaces the Anzacs - to build only 2 general purpose frigates without anti-air and ASW or something at the level of CEC/Ceafar - then we might as well not bother. We would have no legitimate or useful role to play in a hot cross bun fight and yet we may actually get caught up in one whether we want to or not in the South China Sea which is of national security interest to NZ diplomatically, economically and militarily, a place we have traditional been involved in, a place where maritime events can unravel fast. An area littered with generational nationalist beefs, byzantine politial and command structures and Navies chock full of small fast and very lethal corvettes. It is not a place for fools and the faint hearted. Frigates are meant to be warships, to fight and survive intensive maritime events to protect other assets - to do more than monitor threats and police sea lanes. They Navy knows this so it is a little incorrect to say the Navy professionals will want two GP frigates. Beancounters and some Pollys may be happy with that but it is our job to advocate otherwise .

Click to expand...

I wasn't suggesting a very basic frigate but more a GP one rather than a specialised one. In the present climate, or even in a future one, how much will a NZG be willing to stump up for? Do we go with the Type 2087 sonar which is highly specialised and even the RN has only fitted to eight of its Type 23 frigates? Or do we have a slightly less specialised sonar but can still do the job? Is CEC ideal? The RN don't have CEC and yes it does have a lot of advantages but I think the Brits have avoided it because of cost and ITAR issues. I happen to think that a CEC / CEFAR combo would be choice or even the Artisan 3D radar and CEC if CEC is open architecture and capable of easy integration. I feel we need far more than 20 Sea Ceptors on-board and 32 or even 48 would be far better, plus a surface missile capability such as the Kongsberg NSM. I note that the Type 23 has a Magazine Launched Torpedo System with two twin launchers and a total of 18 torpedoes available. That brings me to another point, we need to upgrade our torpedoes to either the Stingray, MU90 or Mk54. I would prefer three of these frigates plus an Absalon (or even two Absalon) if, like I said earlier, the Absalon were built to milspec and, if I may add, fitted out the same way as the ANZAC replacement frigates. I would like to say to the pollies and bean counters, it's not so much what you can afford to arm the ships with and how many ships you have. It's can you afford to lose these ships, or the phat ships or more importantly, the container ships and tankers that visit our ports? What costs the least?

ngatimozart said:

I wasn't suggesting a very basic frigate but more a GP one rather than a specialised one. In the present climate, or even in a future one, how much will a NZG be willing to stump up for? Do we go with the Type 2087 sonar which is highly specialised and even the RN has only fitted to eight of its Type 23 frigates? Or do we have a slightly less specialised sonar but can still do the job? Is CEC ideal? The RN don't have CEC and yes it does have a lot of advantages but I think the Brits have avoided it because of cost and ITAR issues. I happen to think that a CEC / CEFAR combo would be choice or even the Artisan 3D radar and CEC if CEC is open architecture and capable of easy integration. I feel we need far more than 20 Sea Ceptors on-board and 32 or even 48 would be far better, plus a surface missile capability such as the Kongsberg NSM. I note that the Type 23 has a Magazine Launched Torpedo System with two twin launchers and a total of 18 torpedoes available. That brings me to another point, we need to upgrade our torpedoes to either the Stingray, MU90 or Mk54. I would prefer three of these frigates plus an Absalon (or even two Absalon) if, like I said earlier, the Absalon were built to milspec and, if I may add, fitted out the same way as the ANZAC replacement frigates. I would like to say to the pollies and bean counters, it's not so much what you can afford to arm the ships with and how many ships you have. It's can you afford to lose these ships, or the phat ships or more importantly, the container ships and tankers that visit our ports? What costs the least?

Click to expand...

Absalon rears its head again. I remember this being one of your favourite topics from a while back Ngati. From what I recall one of the more senior forum members gave a reasoned, considered argument as to why these would be not ideal for the RNZN. Can't recall the reasons, but it convinced me at the time. Initially I was all for them, but now I wouyld think I would prefer 'pure' combat frigates. The CY and END replacements can do all the lifting.

I agree about the torpedoes, surface to surface missiles and the need for more than 20 CAMMs. Hopefully if the new frigates dont come with this capability, they have space, weight margins and wiring for them.

kiwi in exile said:

Absalon rears its head again. I remember this being one of your favourite topics from a while back Ngati. From what I recall one of the more senior forum members gave a reasoned, considered argument as to why these would be not ideal for the RNZN. Can't recall the reasons, but it convinced me at the time. Initially I was all for them, but now I wouyld think I would prefer 'pure' combat frigates. The CY and END replacements can do all the lifting.

I agree about the torpedoes, surface to surface missiles and the need for more than 20 CAMMs. Hopefully if the new frigates dont come with this capability, they have space, weight margins and wiring for them.

Click to expand...

As the only two ships the Absolom would not be ideal. It as a multi role support ship to the frigate and sealift force they make a lot of sence.

A modified Absolom such at that proposed to the RCN can have the abilty to act as area air defence destroyers and Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I) platforms in support of JATF. You can never have enough sealift and these are self escorting as well as escorting the JAFT. But it means more sustainabile defence budget and more of an open mind

kiwi in exile said:

Absalon rears its head again. I remember this being one of your favourite topics from a while back Ngati. From what I recall one of the more senior forum members gave a reasoned, considered argument as to why these would be not ideal for the RNZN. Can't recall the reasons, but it convinced me at the time. Initially I was all for them, but now I wouyld think I would prefer 'pure' combat frigates. The CY and END replacements can do all the lifting.

I agree about the torpedoes, surface to surface missiles and the need for more than 20 CAMMs. Hopefully if the new frigates dont come with this capability, they have space, weight margins and wiring for them.

Click to expand...

If you read the post I said three frigates plus an Absalom built to milspecs and armed like the frigates. I agree the Absalom in it's present guise is somewhat under done for what we would want, but it does have some advantages and if we were to modify it to suit our needs, then I believe that it would be an asset. It is a good concept and one we shouldn't discount easily. The END replacement is going to be a AOR type vessel much like the RNs Tide class vessels. Which leaves CY. Their will be situations where CY, or its successor are not the most practical platform but an Absalom type vessel will be ideal.

Absalon!

Please . . . .

swerve said:

Absalon!

Please . . . .

Click to expand...

Ahh an N not an M must remember that NNNNNN

MrConservative said:

Any change of Govt would be a suprise. On the hypothetical Goff will be fighting hard to save the Frigates from the Green - Mana and Labour left axe.

I would be fine with all the IPV's going. There time is passing. A single highly capable long hull OPV, with module packakes and helo, is worth more to us than a couple of small 55m IPVs - greater utility and roles. Their endurance negates the hull reduction. They also do not need that much greater crew levels (The OPV crew of 55 is only 20 more than the IPV) which is an issue - manning in specialist areas.

What we should start to consider building is a batch of new OPVs stretching out over the next few years - decade. Starting with the mooted 3rd OPV to replace 2 IPV's (2018/20), then 2 years later a further OPV to replace the last 2 (2021/22). Then next replace the current OT (2023/24 and WG (2025/26). Protector patrol fleet sold off. With the LWSV also patrol tasking capable, it would actually be an improvement. If the LWSV is a Ventator / BAMS type design or derivation of, the replacement programme could start from there in (2017/18) which would make it a 5 ship class.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I think maybe a class of 7 with 6 OPVs plus the LWSV. This is a numbers game and you really need a minimum of 2 fully operational so that you can have potentially one to the south and one to the north on NZ at any given time. At the moment with Manawanui and the IPVs we have 6 + 1. Anything less and we will be unable to monitor the EEZ plus our Island obligations. We barely can do that now.

kiwi in exile said:

Absalon rears its head again. I remember this being one of your favourite topics from a while back Ngati. From what I recall one of the more senior forum members gave a reasoned, considered argument as to why these would be not ideal for the RNZN. Can't recall the reasons, but it convinced me at the time. Initially I was all for them, but now I wouyld think I would prefer 'pure' combat frigates. The CY and END replacements can do all the lifting.

I agree about the torpedoes, surface to surface missiles and the need for more than 20 CAMMs. Hopefully if the new frigates dont come with this capability, they have space, weight margins and wiring for them.

Click to expand...

What is wrong with the absalon class (even in its current form) in a NZ context exactly? I agree with Ngati on this one and I also think 1 absalon would be a lot more useful for NZ (not Aus, UK or US) than even our upgraded ANZACs would be for what we actually do and where we would realistically deploy. It has been stated before for other capabilities, niche, we will not go into a contested area that requires this level of sophistication and weaponry alone therefore maybe we can afford to bring something else to the party and possibly fill a void for our part.

Now we could have a fleet of top tier highly specced all seeing all killing gods of the sea for our typical operations but for what really? Timor? Solomons? anti-piracy? or maybe southern whaling fleets? I would argue Absalon would shine in all these AOs over a fully combat dedicated frigate in respect to RNZN ops. I would happily give up alittle spec vs the added flexibility and tangible uses an absalon would afford us over say a dedicated ASW frigate. So many roles as opposed to so few, all for a Gucci combat system and a few more missiles when we struggle to use even 1 operationally anyway bar an unforeseen sea conflict TBH.

I actually like the Danish Navy (from another maritime nation), comparatively small but modern and well equipped. A combination that should go hand in hand if you are to to be of any worth. The only real tangible pitfall of absalon in my eyes (for what we would use it for anyway) is less speed but then again is that really an issue for us? Your only really as fast as your slowest ship in the fleet so negligible.

To keep class benefits I would like to see 1 absalon and 2 Ivers in RNZN colours and that would give us a pretty decent combat fleet with more options than we currently have.

I also see what you mean regarding the GP type26 'commonwealth' class (hint hint) Ngati, jack of all trades master of none, a sad fact of life for small navies unfourtunately. Better to have more multi-role than be stuck in a singular tasking category for our navy. Perhaps if we did go this path maybe 2 GPs and a 3rd could be specialised dependant on our future goals in conjunction with our allies org.

Still not ideal but 3 is probably the minimum number of platforms we could mix and match with as 2 would just be more problematic then beneficial in the scheme of things therefore easier just to make both the same as per our ANZACs.

Just my ramblings anyway team.