Royal New Zealand Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter Padman
- Start date
National had three successive terms from 2008 to 2017. Labour three successive terms before that, Labour succeeded in deleting our air force strike wing and neutralising our navys defence and support (reducing to two frigates) in their terms of office. National purchased some Texan trainers (needed) and talked about or deferred the other necessary replacement requirements. Gerry "Blew and snorted a bit" over the C17 offer before retiring to his padded recliner (Probably within Bellamys).
Exactly, whoever is in power by the time kit comes online is sometimes irrelevant as due to long planning, lead ins and aqquisitions they could just (by luck) be the ones to "complete" the deal. This has as you say gone both ways in terms of funding and cutting and who knows next election could prove different again but does not mean that particular govt laid the groundwork but just happened to be wearing the hat when the gear showed up.
If this does not prove the requirement for a 3rd frigate then I don't know what does barring WWIII. Even if we had an absalon type then we could have at least sent that whilst the true frigates were offline but agreed, bad planning all round and this is the outcome of one too many cutbacks.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Instead of the half billion dollars spent on upgrading the ANZACs the money would have been better spent on three new hulls and the funds recovered from the sale of the two ships could have been used to defer costs further. Look at the Dutch as an example. Since the Leanders they have built and owned frigates for a 20 year period and then on sold them to less advantaged navies where these ships continue to serve for decades more. This way the Dutch always have top end vessels and systems and dont waste their money maintaining old hulls and systems.
I am sure the Phillipines would have been a prime market for the two ANZACs.
In general context a ship such as Absalon would serve NZ well. Able to fight if required it would be out classed by long range ssm like most vessels. But a vessel designed and built to civilian naval design standards with military specs for specific portions of the design can be a cost effective and highly capable vessel. We have had this discussion previously and we dont need to rave on.
Bottom line is three frigates today would have given one in NZ waters or at least available for service. With an OPV replacement likely to be in the water before the frigate replacement I would hope that consideration be give to a more capable ship. Even the Dutch Holland class OPV with its 3 inch gun and full aviation capabilities would have offered a significant contribution via its imast sensor package. Thru the replacement of the 30 mm with a CIWS such as Millenium Gun this type could safely operate in an area such as the gulf. With the addition of Sea Ceptor it would be quite potent at protecting itself.
With a compliment of 54 the crew requirement is only a dozen more than the current OPVs. Based on published figures the Hollands were $40 million more than the OPVs at $150 million a piece.
Having so few vessels makes it more important to have a tiered approach to design and capabilities of the next level of ship. From frigate to corvette to OPV to patrol boat there should be some fill in capacity but in NZ context its the capabilities of a GP frigate to six vessels each with no more than a 25mm cannon.
Maybe the next time the pollies will get it right.
I am sure the Phillipines would have been a prime market for the two ANZACs.
In general context a ship such as Absalon would serve NZ well. Able to fight if required it would be out classed by long range ssm like most vessels. But a vessel designed and built to civilian naval design standards with military specs for specific portions of the design can be a cost effective and highly capable vessel. We have had this discussion previously and we dont need to rave on.
Bottom line is three frigates today would have given one in NZ waters or at least available for service. With an OPV replacement likely to be in the water before the frigate replacement I would hope that consideration be give to a more capable ship. Even the Dutch Holland class OPV with its 3 inch gun and full aviation capabilities would have offered a significant contribution via its imast sensor package. Thru the replacement of the 30 mm with a CIWS such as Millenium Gun this type could safely operate in an area such as the gulf. With the addition of Sea Ceptor it would be quite potent at protecting itself.
With a compliment of 54 the crew requirement is only a dozen more than the current OPVs. Based on published figures the Hollands were $40 million more than the OPVs at $150 million a piece.
Having so few vessels makes it more important to have a tiered approach to design and capabilities of the next level of ship. From frigate to corvette to OPV to patrol boat there should be some fill in capacity but in NZ context its the capabilities of a GP frigate to six vessels each with no more than a 25mm cannon.
Maybe the next time the pollies will get it right.
Good day folks
These ships are not build to civilian commercial standards, as you note they are built to DNV (now DNV-GL) Naval rules. The difference is your design relies on civilian classification rules as opposed to domestic (military) warship standards. Given the advances in propulsion technology in some elements of the civilian sector, and the fact that most Navy’s do not retain an in house design capability, this is a sensible option.
Naval rules ‘may’ piggy back off commercial (Class and IMO) requirements and generally do. But the certification matrix for a warship is a vastly different animal to your average bulk carrier and to suggest the same rules will, as a rule, be cheaper is simply nonsense. In many cases the main advantage of class is that in classing the vessel then a system of survey and inspection is developed to endeavour to ensure the maintenance of the vessel is such that it remains in a safe condition (there have been some epic fails in this regard). But .... It is up to the naval administration to determine what will apply and how ‘relaxed’ they may be in using off the shelf (COTS) equipment. This flexibility is a decision ....... it is not enshrined in a fixed set of rules.
As an example the T26 is being build to Class Naval Rules but that does not mean a cheaper lower grade set of requirements. I can tell you right now that ‘commercial’ rules does not cover weapons systems or any systems with technology that is sensitive in nature. The rule set for that vessel will have been set as part of the design process not taken from a standard set of rules.
So .... yes ... you can build a cheaper ship if you use commercially available equipment and engines but these will not have the same ‘quiet’ capability as a cutting edge ASW frigate. It comes down to what you want to spend...... not the rule set.
You really do pay for what you get. So the decision is to go lower spec and cheaper for a capability will make sense in some situations BUT ..... if the risk profile changes that is the capability you are stuck with. Upgrading vessels significantly is fraught with risk, time blowouts and cost increases (look at the FFGUP programme). Such upgrades often costs more that the original platform and if it is growth constrained then the vessel may not as be capable as would be desirable. Worse still the modified platform has a limited life. The purpose of the the Australian continuous construction (combine with batch building) is intended to resolve this issue (provided the political will remains in place).
So if the desire is a cheaper vessel then there are options, and they may be worth it, but there will also be compromises and if you realise in a decade that you need a greater capability then it cannot simply be ‘turned on’.
Last edited:
I would also note that keeping a warship in class, if you are really serious about it, has the potential to impose operational restrictions at some time or other if the surveyor decides something needs to be done when the operatiinal authority needs the ship to do something else. That is why a number of navies build to class, maintain generally to class and use the services of a classification society to provide oversight or audit services, but don’t actually maintain the ships in class.
Thing is an absalon type built to whatever standard, milspec or civspec, is still over and above what we currently have so either way would be a bonus and at least usable (as in right now considering we have nothing). Point is it is not affecting anything as it is non-existant but anything is better than nothing and whilst maybe not as "specced" as the ANZACs it is vastly moreso usable than the OPVs in this instance and arguably even both depending on who you talk to.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
I Agree whole heartedly RegR.
Ships like the Absalon offer an ability to patrol and exert force if required. The shear presence of such a heavily armed vessel should disuade even the most insane. True it lacks typical western naval damage control abilities but in todays world of such devastating weapons systems survival is truly unlikely if targeted.
The design of and the actual ships have proven themselves on deployments and in 2008 was part of CT 150 in the Gulf of Oman. Swiss army knife comes to mind when thinking of these ships. Not the best at anything but good at doing a lot of things that other vessels couldnt even consider.
I think of Hurricane Katrina when the RCN and CCG sent a frigate and a medium endurance ice breaker / nav aids tender. There was damn little a CPF was going to offer the residents of Louisiana in terms of capacity. An Absalon with its 900 lane meters of flexible storage area could have carried supplies or vehicles for our own people so we could have been self sufficient when offering aid instead of having to use boot leather to get around.
Multi purpose ships offer nations options and with so few ships in the NZ fleet every ship design needs to have the maximum of flexibility. As I have stated a couple of times any new vessels need to incorporate as much flexibility as possible in their design, weapons and sensor fit outs. Single function ships have a purpose but only when you have capacity.
Lets truly hope that whatever gets purchased in coming years there is whole of government support for more than the minimum. And preferably three of them. It is amazing that a group of people from all walks of life with an interest, both professionally and voluntarily, can read and interpret the repeated reports on the "rule of threes". I have a high school education and a lifetime of experience. I do not have a university degree but I do have three letters after my name. "QBE" Qualified By Experience.
Elected representatives forget or are never told what there role truly is. We as a society wlect them to oversee the running of our governments. They are not there to get re-elected, or save money. They are there to ensure government policies protect the state and the people of thw state.
Sorry rant over.
I am preaching to the choir.
Ships like the Absalon offer an ability to patrol and exert force if required. The shear presence of such a heavily armed vessel should disuade even the most insane. True it lacks typical western naval damage control abilities but in todays world of such devastating weapons systems survival is truly unlikely if targeted.
The design of and the actual ships have proven themselves on deployments and in 2008 was part of CT 150 in the Gulf of Oman. Swiss army knife comes to mind when thinking of these ships. Not the best at anything but good at doing a lot of things that other vessels couldnt even consider.
I think of Hurricane Katrina when the RCN and CCG sent a frigate and a medium endurance ice breaker / nav aids tender. There was damn little a CPF was going to offer the residents of Louisiana in terms of capacity. An Absalon with its 900 lane meters of flexible storage area could have carried supplies or vehicles for our own people so we could have been self sufficient when offering aid instead of having to use boot leather to get around.
Multi purpose ships offer nations options and with so few ships in the NZ fleet every ship design needs to have the maximum of flexibility. As I have stated a couple of times any new vessels need to incorporate as much flexibility as possible in their design, weapons and sensor fit outs. Single function ships have a purpose but only when you have capacity.
Lets truly hope that whatever gets purchased in coming years there is whole of government support for more than the minimum. And preferably three of them. It is amazing that a group of people from all walks of life with an interest, both professionally and voluntarily, can read and interpret the repeated reports on the "rule of threes". I have a high school education and a lifetime of experience. I do not have a university degree but I do have three letters after my name. "QBE" Qualified By Experience.
Elected representatives forget or are never told what there role truly is. We as a society wlect them to oversee the running of our governments. They are not there to get re-elected, or save money. They are there to ensure government policies protect the state and the people of thw state.
Sorry rant over.
I am preaching to the choir.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The talk on the ROYAL Navy thread regarding rumours of the T31 being won by the Ivor Hutfeld platform could be a good thing for the RNZN.
To me this would be a preferred solution instead of the T26 or something similar. General purpose. Room for growth. If built in numbers like the Leanders of the 60s and 70s it will be a worldwide success.
To me this would be a preferred solution instead of the T26 or something similar. General purpose. Room for growth. If built in numbers like the Leanders of the 60s and 70s it will be a worldwide success.
A couple of recent navy related articles from over on Incline:
Where are the Frigates?
Keeping the Lights On: The Need for New Zealand to Increase Its Maritime Capability
I think Robert Ayson needs his head read to even suggest not replacing the frigates (even if he is being "rhetorical", noting that it isn't the first time he has beaten that drum). He could well be right in that it is likely that the money will run out before the frigates come up for renewal.
-----
Finally, just a couple of random Navy & DCP-related thoughts that I've been holding onto for a while and I want to get off my chest:
One of the things that disappointed me the most in the 2019 Defence Capability Plan was the outlook for the Navy. Not only were timelines stretched out far too long (e.g. the ANZAC frigates to serve into the 2030s; the Southern Ocean patrol vessel introduction delayed further - it was 2025, now 2027), but there was no mention of a third frigate (blame the Greens I guess). Another thing missing from the DCP, which should be high priority, was getting the NH90s marinised (it would do the most to improve the apparent deficiencies of the Canterbury). I'm also surprised we have yet to hear anything regarding the Air Surveillance Complementary Capability - supposedly to be in service by 2023. If it's anything less than say 4 C295 MPA fitted out to Portuguese VIMAR standard, don't bother! I simply don't believe the RNZAF hype that P-8s will be doing routine SAR missions (not with only 4 aircraft; they can't manage to routinely provide a backup P-3 with 6).
I think the prospect of two LPDs (god forbid LHDs - we couldn't afford the helicopters or the crew!) is a complete pipedream. Ridiculous fantasy fleet stuff. One LPD - possibly (but even that will be difficult to man unless there is a major funding increase & recruitment drive). The Navy is already the smallest force (which, strategically, seems to be at odds with the nation's and the region's geography). To provide backup to a new LPD, I'd be looking at something a lot cheaper, operated in a reserve capacity only (need to knock a few Treasury heads together to get anything that sensible to happen though). Probably a converted breakbulk merchant ship (perhaps even a converted containership) - that could be used in peacetime as a training ship by the Auckland Maritime School & the Navy. As a starting point design-wise, something near to a Charleston class LKA (the last version of a USN Attack Cargo Ship, built late 1960s, retired early 1990s) or a Cape J breakbulk freighter (aka Mariner class) that the Military Sealift Command used to have. Probably would have to be medium-speed diesel (and therefore twin-screwed) these days (for compatibility with naval fuel). To be pulled out of mothballs when we have to deploy a battalion to the Pacific, respond to a major HADR event (say a Wellington earthquake) or replenish at sea a large joint RAN / RNZN task force. Given the state of port facilities in the most likely deployment area, the South Pacific, I would be thinking twice about relying on containerised goods in an amphib operation - hence my preference for breakbulk over RO/RO or a containership.
To my mind, now that the decommisioning dates of the ANZAC class have been extended (no surprise there), a third frigate (the first of a new class) should be built and introduced into service before the ANZACs retire (i.e. pre 2030), followed by two more of the same class as the ANZAC replacements. I would expect this new frigate class to be a low-end ASW type - suitable for merchant ship / amphib convoy escort. I can't see us affording three "cruiser-frigates" (e.g. Type 26, or even the 6000-ton Arrowhead 140). At a guess, I would suggest the following attributes:
Where are the Frigates?
Keeping the Lights On: The Need for New Zealand to Increase Its Maritime Capability
I think Robert Ayson needs his head read to even suggest not replacing the frigates (even if he is being "rhetorical", noting that it isn't the first time he has beaten that drum). He could well be right in that it is likely that the money will run out before the frigates come up for renewal.
-----
Finally, just a couple of random Navy & DCP-related thoughts that I've been holding onto for a while and I want to get off my chest:
One of the things that disappointed me the most in the 2019 Defence Capability Plan was the outlook for the Navy. Not only were timelines stretched out far too long (e.g. the ANZAC frigates to serve into the 2030s; the Southern Ocean patrol vessel introduction delayed further - it was 2025, now 2027), but there was no mention of a third frigate (blame the Greens I guess). Another thing missing from the DCP, which should be high priority, was getting the NH90s marinised (it would do the most to improve the apparent deficiencies of the Canterbury). I'm also surprised we have yet to hear anything regarding the Air Surveillance Complementary Capability - supposedly to be in service by 2023. If it's anything less than say 4 C295 MPA fitted out to Portuguese VIMAR standard, don't bother! I simply don't believe the RNZAF hype that P-8s will be doing routine SAR missions (not with only 4 aircraft; they can't manage to routinely provide a backup P-3 with 6).
I think the prospect of two LPDs (god forbid LHDs - we couldn't afford the helicopters or the crew!) is a complete pipedream. Ridiculous fantasy fleet stuff. One LPD - possibly (but even that will be difficult to man unless there is a major funding increase & recruitment drive). The Navy is already the smallest force (which, strategically, seems to be at odds with the nation's and the region's geography). To provide backup to a new LPD, I'd be looking at something a lot cheaper, operated in a reserve capacity only (need to knock a few Treasury heads together to get anything that sensible to happen though). Probably a converted breakbulk merchant ship (perhaps even a converted containership) - that could be used in peacetime as a training ship by the Auckland Maritime School & the Navy. As a starting point design-wise, something near to a Charleston class LKA (the last version of a USN Attack Cargo Ship, built late 1960s, retired early 1990s) or a Cape J breakbulk freighter (aka Mariner class) that the Military Sealift Command used to have. Probably would have to be medium-speed diesel (and therefore twin-screwed) these days (for compatibility with naval fuel). To be pulled out of mothballs when we have to deploy a battalion to the Pacific, respond to a major HADR event (say a Wellington earthquake) or replenish at sea a large joint RAN / RNZN task force. Given the state of port facilities in the most likely deployment area, the South Pacific, I would be thinking twice about relying on containerised goods in an amphib operation - hence my preference for breakbulk over RO/RO or a containership.
To my mind, now that the decommisioning dates of the ANZAC class have been extended (no surprise there), a third frigate (the first of a new class) should be built and introduced into service before the ANZACs retire (i.e. pre 2030), followed by two more of the same class as the ANZAC replacements. I would expect this new frigate class to be a low-end ASW type - suitable for merchant ship / amphib convoy escort. I can't see us affording three "cruiser-frigates" (e.g. Type 26, or even the 6000-ton Arrowhead 140). At a guess, I would suggest the following attributes:
- - full-load displacement of 4500 - 5000t (gives more room for growth than the definitely too-small 3600t ANZAC). Maybe 130-140m in length.
- - fitted for, preferably with, a towed array low frequency sonar (doesn't have to be the world's best, it will mainly be for training). Hull-mounted medium frequency sonar fitted.
- - perhaps CODAG propulsion, twin shaft. Probably just one gas turbine (to allow for extra fuel, but giving up a bit of top speed). Maybe a diesel-electric system like the type 23. Not keen on an all-diesel propulsion system (don't need top speed that often, and GT saves space).
- - long cruising range, >6000nm. Maybe 700t fuel capacity.
- - superb sea-keeping (=high freeboard?)
- - either a single 10-ton helicopter, or a 5-6t helo and a simple UAV. Helicopter to carry torpedoes, or lightweight anti-surface missiles. Option for a dipping sonar. Would be happy with the 6t (av fuel ain't going to get cheaper)
- - a relatively simple 3D radar (its not a AAW destroyer)
- - probably a 5" gun forward (guess we are stuck with this calibre). Needs to be suitable for NGS (so 4" or greater).
- - self defence torpedo tubes (got to carry the torps for the helo anyway).
- - a mixed air-defence missile battery. At least ESSM as the first-line missile. Not that fussed about a VLS (seeing as self-defence length Mk41 is no more, and given the modest displacement of the vessel), so I could see even a Mk 29 (which hopefully will be around forever as it is preferred to VLS on US aircraft carriers). 8 missiles ready is probably sufficient (has been for a RNZN ANZAC for the last 20 years!) and it can be reloaded at sea. Backed up by a ship self-defence missile (say 20 Sea-Ceptor or a RAM launcher) and a CIWS (hopefully >20mm, with an anti-surface mode).
- - Several Anti-ship cruise missiles. Mainly just for training. Would be happy with anything box-launched (say Harpoon Blk 2, Exocet MM40 Blk 2 or 3, even the SAAB RBS-15). Minimum of 2 carried in peacetime (like a French Floreal), would prefer 4). Expect these would be increased or replaced pretty quickly if facing a genuine threat.
- - a couple of light cannon (probably remotely operated)
- - Bulk standard ESM, ECM and decoy systems.
- - Crew of 200 or less. Contrary to some recent proposals (crew of 100 in the French FTI for example), I don't think you want to go too small (for damage control mostly).
- - on the wish-list: some way of launching an ASROC torpedo.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Chris 73 i agree with your thinking as well. Well spoken.
The longterm plan is too far out when action is needed now. Yes there has been Manawanui delivered, not in service, and a new tanker is due in 2020 but the time lag for the SOPV is too great. In the interim do as Australia did and contract a vessel until an SOPV can be ordered and built. The need is there. Just stump up with the cash and get a ship on station. Use this time as a learning opportunity to refine the desirables.
As much as LPD / LPH type ships would be great I too hold your concern that this is likely too much of a pipedream. Too much of a champagne taste with a beer budget. Charles Upham was not up to the task but there are many good CONRO designs available that could serve the purpose if educated persons are allowed their say. Unfortunately military affairs are politicized in both our countries. Getting whats needed doesnt always happen. In the case of the planned sealift vessels once Minister Mark is gone will this happen is the question. My other concern is if it does happen will these two vessels be the fighting ships of the RNZN post 2030 in place of any frigates.
Good post
The longterm plan is too far out when action is needed now. Yes there has been Manawanui delivered, not in service, and a new tanker is due in 2020 but the time lag for the SOPV is too great. In the interim do as Australia did and contract a vessel until an SOPV can be ordered and built. The need is there. Just stump up with the cash and get a ship on station. Use this time as a learning opportunity to refine the desirables.
As much as LPD / LPH type ships would be great I too hold your concern that this is likely too much of a pipedream. Too much of a champagne taste with a beer budget. Charles Upham was not up to the task but there are many good CONRO designs available that could serve the purpose if educated persons are allowed their say. Unfortunately military affairs are politicized in both our countries. Getting whats needed doesnt always happen. In the case of the planned sealift vessels once Minister Mark is gone will this happen is the question. My other concern is if it does happen will these two vessels be the fighting ships of the RNZN post 2030 in place of any frigates.
Good post
Prof. Ayson is very astute and good at what he does. He has posited a point that does need to be discussed and stating that "... he needs his head read to even suggest not replacing the frigates ... " for what is a possibility given the track record of NZ govts, pollies and Treasury, is not necessary or courteous, especially when you don't supply a rational argument to counter his argument. Don't shoot the messenger, just because they don't agree with your world view.
This article should be read alongside the two above because it really lays the groundwork so too speak. The Price of New Zealand's Strategy-Force Mismatch
The DCP has outline what the intentions are and the money has basically been allocated now that it is in the DCP. Both major parties have agreed to it and the enhanced sealift vessel with a welldock has been chosen as the best option for the NZDF, for both military and HADR capabilities, in order to meet govts policy objectives. This would have been after the learnings, experience, and knowledge gained with Canterbury.
Frigates. The majority opinion here is that 2 FFH isn't enough and that a 3rd should be acquired sooner rather than later. We all have our wish lists, but your one above speaks more of looking backwards rather than forward when you speak of getting rid of a VLS and using a Mk-29 launcher. However until the denizens who occupy the Beehive get enough of a fright to fill their grundies, nothing will change.
On 2 July 2018 IHS Janes reported and other members have noted earlier in the RSN thread and this NZ Navy thread, that the Singapore Navy will retire its Endurance class LPDs after 2020 and replace these with the Joint Multi Mission Ship (JMMS) platform. Raises my hand, again, on the hope of a joint JMMS buy by our navies, in the early 2020s. Tick the box for HADR, a well dock to launch FCUs, ability to transport NH-90 helicopters (and Chinooks for the Australians), along with lean manning for a small navy.
And I also agree with the need for a third frigate for New Zealand.
Last edited:
Kiwigov
Member
The 'lean manning' aspect is a key consideration, given the severe (though lessening?) difficulties the NZDF has in recruiting and retaining suitable people. Even a population of (now) 5 million can barely generate enough recruits to maintain current strengths, let alone the DCP proposal to increase to a 6,000 strong Army (and hopefully a commensurate Navy). Obvious solution of a significant rise in salaries would conflict with goals for increased capital investment, including in hulls.
Re number of hulls, would buying more second-hand ships - such as the recent Manawanui replacement - be a solution to the capital cost quandary? Chile maintains a significant force of 2nd-hand ships, mostly ex-RN. Could there be possibilities of buying ex-USN LCS hulls in the 2020s, assuming their new Frigate project is funded.
Re number of hulls, would buying more second-hand ships - such as the recent Manawanui replacement - be a solution to the capital cost quandary? Chile maintains a significant force of 2nd-hand ships, mostly ex-RN. Could there be possibilities of buying ex-USN LCS hulls in the 2020s, assuming their new Frigate project is funded.
TBH, I think that increasing the army is a mistake for a nation that is a maritime nation and totally dependant upon it's SLOC. This from the latest Navy Today (P.3, Issue 235, Aug 2019):
"CN reminded us of our place in the world as a maritime nation, how we depend on trade with more than 90% of goods by value and 99% by volume travelling by sea; how we are a large nation, with 94% of our mass submerged; and how our vision is to be a world-class Navy for a large maritime nation while we deliver on our mission of advancing New Zealand’s interests from the Sea." (emphasis mine).
Unfortunately for CN he doesn't have a Navy for his aspirations and he is unlikely to get one, because NZ govts won't fund one unless they are given a sufficient fright; enough of one to cause them to crap their panties, much like they did in 1941.
Last time I looked the NZLAV couldn't float nor fly unaided, nor was the Army trained or experienced in maritime surveillance or combat. I agree that the army needs to be expanded in some areas, but it isn't a priority compared to the upgrading and expansion of NZ's maritime surveillance, combat and sealift capabilities in order to monitor and protect our SLOC, EEZ and those of the Pacific Islands, especially those for whom we are responsible. This is both a RNZN and RNZAF upgrade and expansion, and their systems have to be interoperable with each other and those of Australia, plus the US, Japan and Singapore.
Second hand / used ships are not a good approach because whilst the upfront purchase cost is low, they require an expensive MLU and there opreting costs are significantly higher, so not good VfM. We acquired to ex RN Leander class frigates in the 1980s and they were goat boats costing us a fortune in the long term. Having said that, given the dire financial circumstances of the country at the time, we didn't have much choice, but now we do and any claims that the country can't afford a third frigate etc., is pure bull crap. We can acquire new build highly capable ships - we just have to change how and where we acquire them from.
Since we are only purchasing 4 P8's we will probably never have any spares ones to send either.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Now that Denmark has rejected Trump's deal to purchase Greenland, perhaps NZ should offer up its Antarctic territory. The money could be used to properly fund the RNZN and maybe even get back into the fast jet business again. Word of warning, rejection of his offer by female PMs will result in the title "nasty".
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Short term solution to the SOPV problem is to secure another vessel along the lines of Manawanui, aka Edda Fonn, from the offshore industry. It wont have all the features required but it will get the job done. No need for the big crane and the rear deck can be readily converted to a helipad and hangar to support helicopter and RPAS operations. Its only money. MV Oceanic Viking and Ocean Protector are two examples of how Australian Border Force did southern ocean patrols before the Ocean Shield was acquired. Bolt on a pair of HMG and you are good to go.
No way because there's all them luverly minerals, including hopefully hydrocarbons in the NZ Antarctic territory, just waiting to be extracted. In order to fully fund Defence, we just need to start extracting the oil and gas in the Southern Basin just below the South Island. It is thought to have significant hydrocarbon resources possibly on par with the Saudi fields or greater, but it hasn't yet been fully explored and quantified.Now that Denmark has rejected Trump's deal to purchase Greenland, perhaps NZ should offer up its Antarctic territory. The money could be used to properly fund the RNZN and maybe even get back into the fast jet business again. Word of warning, rejection of his offer by female PMs will result in the title "nasty".
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
But Ngati didn't Jacinda halt all petro resource exploration? If it is there maybe she will see it as her head is buried in the sand.