ANZAC Frigate & OPV Replacement

[ngatimozart]

Eventually we'll have to replace the two ANZAC Frigates, Te Kaha & Te Mana. At the moment the planned replacement period is around 2025 - 30. Also we will be looking at replacing the the two OPVs, Wellington and Otago. All things being equal it would be presumed that we would participate as partners with the RAN in the replacement programs. The RAN ANZAC replacement program is the ADF SEA 5000 Next Generation Combatant (NGC), not ANZAC II as commonly stated by some, myself included.

From the ADF SEA 5000: "The 2009 White Paper stated that a Fleet of eight new Future Frigates, which will be larger than the ANZAC Class, designed and equipped with a strong emphasis on anti-submarine warfare (ASW), will be acquired. Incorporation of a land attack cruise missile (LACM) capability will be integral to the design and construction of the Future Frigate as stated in the 2009 White Paper." www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea5000.html
From elsewhere: "This ship will be built around the AUSPAR radar, strike length VLS and large hangar/mission bays. AUSPAR will be comparable to SPY-1 in range but being an AESA would be far more flexible. They could even be fitted with the AEGIS combat system to run AUSPAR. [with the] NGC to probably be bigger than the AWD." So this is apparently what the RAN are looking at for the ANZAC FFH replacement.

This is capability far above what the RNZN have now but in the future I would think one that they would probably need to remain current and to be able to operate effectively with the RAN, USN and the Japanese Navy, Indian Navy, and the Navies of the FPDA. It is a while in the future so the RNZN & NZG know the expenditure they are looking at and should be able to plan for it.

On the OPV front the RAN are looking at OCVs at around the 2000 tonne mark. There is some conjecture about the hull type and material (steel vs aluminium), and how much multi-roling they intend to fit into the hull. But it is intended to cover what our OPVs do (but not Antarctica - so not ice strenthened) plus MCM, Hydrographic etc., so it is the full Littoral Warfare vessel.

From ADF SEA 1180: "The Government has directed that Defence develop proposals to rationalise the Navy’s patrol boat, mine countermeasures, hydrographic and oceanographic forces, potentially into a single modular multi-role class or family of around 20 Offshore Combatant Vessels (OCV) combining four existing classes of vessels. The new vessels will likely be larger than the current Armidale Class patrol boats.

The concept relies on the use of modular unmanned underwater systems for both mine countermeasures and hydrographic tasks capable of being deployed independently to any operational area, or loaded onto any of the OCVs or vessels of opportunity. In addition, the OCV and its systems will be able to undertake offshore and littoral warfighting roles, border protection tasks, long-range counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations, support to Special Forces, and missions in support of security and stability in the immediate neighbourhood. The feasibility of these new ships to embark a helicopter or UAV will also be determined during project development."
www.defence.gov.au/dmo/id/dcp/html_dec10/sea/Sea1180.html

Again the timetable for this program is about the time our to OPVs need to be replaced. So I would suggest that the RNZN would have or should have a goodly amount of input on both projects. My own opinion is that three ANZAC FFH replacements are required and that four or even five OCV be procured esspecially if they are steel hulled, ice strengthened and around the 2000 tonne size. That means we can project more into the Southern Ocean and South Pacific and at the same time have a strong littoral warfare component.

[Dave Homewood]

Considering the massive protests in the 1990's against replacing the frigates, back in the days when NZDF was still credible and reasonably well funded, I would not be surprised with the way the economy and public sympathy for defence is, and will continue to be, if the frigates will never be replaced. It has been a steady downscale anyway since the 1950's.

As for the other two, aren't they new ships? Surely they must have 50 years life in them yet?

[meo4]

Probably get something modular like the Type 26 the using recycled refurbished and upgraded weapons off the current Anzac frigates eg torpedo tubes, 5 inch gun ,MK 41 vertical launchers , Phalanx CIWS etc to save on cost of purchasing new weapon systems.
Doubt the RNZN would go down same road axing Naval combat force as the RNZAF did .
It would become just a coast guard RNZCG. Would be bit of a joke considering our huge Martime catchment and EEZ.
The life of a ship is only about 30 years before it needs replacing ie hull , geartrain gas turbine , propulsion diesels.

[ngatimozart]

Both pretty negative comments. First of all Dave I think you'll find that the political dynamic has somewhat changed and a lot of the protest dynamic against the ANZAC frigates was being pushed by the likes of Locke, Clarke, Mallard Goff & their ilk.

We won't go down the path of a British frigate such as the Type 26. It wouldn't be in our best interests to. We would be far better served staying with the RAN as we havwe have with the ANZAC. The NZG knows this and that is why they have the common agreement with the OzG regarding Defence purchasing and procurement. The RNZN will not become a a coast guard because our strategic security and economic interests stretch from Antartcia to the equator in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. 95% of our trade is by sea so the security of our SLOC is extremely vital. We are a maritime nation and if you read the 2010 DWP and subsequent documents you will see that is the direction where the NZG thru MinDef is shaping NZDF.

[corsair67]

Probably something cheap from trading partner China! ;D

I agree that if the RNZN buy frigates again, three should be the minimum number purchased, and they should be compatible with whatever the RAN ends up with.

[Dave Homewood]

OK, so the Wellington and Otago have just under 30 years life left in them then. Why are you talking about replacing them now? It just doesn't make sense, to me anyway.

As for the frigates, I wasn't meaning to be negative, just realistic. I really cannot see the frigates being replaced with two or more new frigates. It is just so unlikely these days. They will most likely go for smaller, cheaper craft. The media will still call them frigates to make the Navy feel better though, like they do know with "frigate" Canterbury and "frigate" Endeavour.

[phil82]

I can recall the Naval dictum of a "four frigate navy"! Minimum! That was thrown out with the same bathwater I suspect!

[ngatimozart]

The RAN are going for 20 OCVs so we won't be getting them straight away. It'll take them some years to build their OCVs and by the time they have say five operational they should've gotten all the bugs worked out. I think 25 years for the OPVs so 2028 - 2032 for first OPV replacement. The Whangarei built IPV's & ISVs (Kiwi, Moa, etc) were replaced after 20 years. If we were to get extra OCVs then we could have the extra vessels earlier (after RAN have sorted out bugs) with the last two replacing the OPVs.

[ngatimozart]

Dave the NZG realises it has to replace frigates with frigates and that is in the 2010 DWP and the Joint Amphibious Task Force planning. That is the basic strategy for the next 30-50 years out until around 2060 if you look at where they are going with the P8. It is a long term look rather than the three year electoral cycle. After 1999 - 2008 they realise that they have to take a long term view in order to maintain basic security. Frigates are the most basic warship NZ can realistically operate with in a maritime security, role, combat role, dfence and foreign affairs roles. The Aussies and US would not accept anything less and the NZG cannot afford to lose either party.

[meo4]

Think the Navy at one stage was looking at sending an officer over to the UK to be on the global combat ship project team. This upcoming ANZAC frigate system update will be based on transferable technology sensors and weapons for the eventual replacement.
Eg new active technologies Sea ceaptor opposed to older ESSM semi active technology.
This will reduce reliance on illumination radars and extra control systems , saving $ and weight of ship.
The type 26 or type 27 version will be a more multi functional ship eg space for embarked forces , goverment agencies opposed to dedicated ASW or AAW frigate.
If you look at a cost of warship most of the cost is weapon systems and sensors , the marine engineering side eg Hull , gear train propulsion etc is only fraction of the overal price tag. Similar comparison between a 737 and a P8A with the sensors and weapon systems making up the bulk of the difference in price tag.
There is also a French Italian FRAAM design which similar modular design.

[ngatimozart]

I don't know if the RNZN & RAN are going ahead with the global combat ship project because I remember reading somewhere a while back that the RCN pulled out and the RAN & RNZN didn't think it was what they were quite looking at. I went back checking but haven't found it yet. Also there is the issue with UK missile systems and us & RAN dealing with the USN so it makes more sense going with a US capable weapons system - sustainment etc. The Aussies seem to have developed a pretty good shipboard radar and radar ancillary system that they want to install on any NGC vessel they build.

Given the way the ANZACs were built I would presume the NGC would be modular designed & built. I also have read that the RAN may be having issues with their ANZACS becoming top heavy when they started installing four cell Harpoon boxes as well as the ESSM cells. It appears that the NGC is also seen in the RAN as more of a GP vessel, but given modern thinking and experiences I wouldn't discount quick change mission spec modularity. That may work in the RNZNs favour because we could run three GP frigates and have say one or two dedicated high end surface to surface missile modules and the same number of advanced air warfare missile modules that can be moved from ship to ship as and when required. The ASW component would be a permanent fit. We'd have a lot of real good capability with a reasonable cost.

[Chris F]

Am I mistaken or did I see that the Navy retired two of the new inshore patrol boats?
Because of a lack of crew??
I hardly think we will get new frigates....if your lucky they might get 2 more OPV at very best.
Cast your mind back to 2001 and the ACF....gone without a fight and no Govt since has even considered getting back into that role.
And we wonder why the NZDF has low morale?

[meo4]

Yeah think you mean reduced availability period which is basically tied up due to crewing shortfalls. There is a crewing issue which is trying to be solved by bringing in lateral recruits form the Royal Navy. You usually have one ship tied up in maintenance under normal circumstances .It's like you wouldn't have all 6 p3k and p3k2 doing maritime patrols at once . Navies are based around warships all past and present Chief of Navy have been a captain of a frigate in their Navy career. Considering only 5 percent of NZ is above water (including of EEZ) two frigates with combat capabilities is the bare minimum to maintain SLOC.
In a crisis the Naval combat force plus naval aviation forms the sharp end to NZ maritime defence.
Hopefully the airforce and NZDF develops armed capable MPA capability to strengthen the Maritime force. Can't really draw similarities between ACF and NCF one has top end combat capabilities , the later has broad range of capabilities from combat to constabulary fishery patrols.

[richard1098]

Jul 31, 2012 21:32:16 GMT 12 ngatimozart said:

I I also have read that the RAN may be having issues with their ANZACS becoming top heavy when they started installing four cell Harpoon boxes as well as the ESSM cells.

Those concerns predate both of those upgrades. Anyway, the stability improvement program which is being implemented concurrently with the ASMD upgrades addresses the issue.

www.navy.gov.au/Anti-Ship_Missile_Defence_trials_head_to_sea

[chasper]

Oer the next 10-12 years the NZDF has a huge capex expenditure requirement and the driver for that spend will be economics and politics rather than capability and cost. The army neeeds trucks, rifles, artillery, engineering, comms, the navy a tanker and frigates and the airforce transports, trainers and mpa's. The treasury cupboard is going to be as bare as can be over this period as the economy will struggle and we are guaranteed to have a coalition government in this period that includes the greens. This will probably preclude any acquisitions that have a warfighting capabilityso instead of frigates we should assume ex uscg cutters and instead of mpa's assume ex anz atr's with an sar capability or sim. Sad but true I fear.

[meo4]

Without frigates you don't have a navy unlike the airforce the RNZN priority is combat capabilities over 50 percent of sea going billets and good chunk of funding is for the two ANZAC frigates . Patrol ships are treated as a less of priority or a nice to have .
As with the NZ Army priority is to provide a combat capable ground forces not SAR or civi taskings. The day they disband frigates is when the NZDF will become civilian constabulary force.

[beagle]

maybe they should be taking tickets in both the euro and usa lotto

[Dave Homewood]

When was the last time the RNZN was involved in actual combat? Was it in the Korean War, or was there actual combat later by NZ ships in nthe Malayan Emergency? Borneo? Vietnam?

I don't just mean patrols and supply runs, but actual firing of shells back and forth. I know that the RNZN ships did have naval battles in the Korean War but I have never heard of anything since then.

[richard1098]

Aug 11, 2012 23:50:55 GMT 12 Dave Homewood said:

When was the last time the RNZN was involved in actual combat? Was it in the Korean War, or was there actual combat later by NZ ships in nthe Malayan Emergency? Borneo? Vietnam?

I don't just mean patrols and supply runs, but actual firing of shells back and forth. I know that the RNZN ships did have naval battles in the Korean War but I have never heard of anything since then.

The NZG has a choice: will NZ be viewed by others in the region as a partner, willing and able to participate in regional security issues in all their aspects? To be really blunt, the "trans Tasman", "Australasian" "special relationship" perspective is pretty much a Kiwi one only, one that is way out of touch with the way the average Aussie and Aussie politician view NZ. How can NZ expect a seat at the table, and to have influence on issues like trade and immigration (eg access to welfare for Kiwis living in Aus) unless it brings something to that relationship?

[Dave Homewood]

That does not answer my question.