|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 11, 2019 20:25:43 GMT 12
I'm actually of the opinion that Phalanx is obsolete because with it being 20 mm, it's range is now to short, especially when supersonic AShM, such as the BraMos, are becoming more common. At a minimum, the 30 mm calibre preferably with AHEAD rounds or the 35 mm Millennium gun with it's AHEAD rounds being ideal. If the Phalanx system hits a supersonic AShM the successfull interception will still have the potential to cause significant damage because the explosion will occur close inboard and the debris will still impact the ship at a relatively high velocity. Even with the new breeds of subsonic AShM the 20 mm range is still to short with the Phalanx radar not detecting and locking on to stealth missiles until they are somewhat closer. Another reason I say we will only ever do light duties if ever in a conflict ... they are now too lightly armed to do anything more than patrol duties... |
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Aug 11, 2019 20:44:53 GMT 12
Dunners would pose problems for a new base location as the channel in and out is limited to one ship at a time. from Port Chalmers to the fairway beacon takes about 45 minutes and has a couple of tight bends in it. (it's just outside my lounge window)
|
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 12, 2019 7:47:34 GMT 12
I'm actually of the opinion that Phalanx is obsolete because with it being 20 mm, it's range is now to short, especially when supersonic AShM, such as the BraMos, are becoming more common. At a minimum, the 30 mm calibre preferably with AHEAD rounds or the 35 mm Millennium gun with it's AHEAD rounds being ideal. If the Phalanx system hits a supersonic AShM the successfull interception will still have the potential to cause significant damage because the explosion will occur close inboard and the debris will still impact the ship at a relatively high velocity. Even with the new breeds of subsonic AShM the 20 mm range is still to short with the Phalanx radar not detecting and locking on to stealth missiles until they are somewhat closer. Another reason I say we will only ever do light duties if ever in a conflict ... they are now too lightly armed to do anything more than patrol duties... Light duties? And here they are still in middle of multi $M update with an expected further useful life of 15+ years and already they are unfit for purpose to be involved in conflict. Should the NZ navy have moved toward replacing these with T26 or equivalents mid 2020s. Would they be meaningful as escorts for future NZ LHD? |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 12, 2019 11:19:58 GMT 12
Light duties? And here they are still in middle of multi $M update with an expected further useful life of 15+ years and already they are unfit for purpose to be involved in conflict. Should the NZ navy have moved toward replacing these with T26 or equivalents mid 2020s. Would they be meaningful as escorts for future NZ LHD? They have no real offense power, our ASM the AGM 119 Penguin only really has an effective range of 35(ish) km and has to be launched from a helo. They are only a medium-range missile which means the helo is in range of anti-air missiles. So they can't really reach out to really protect a fleet. Anti Air with 24 CAMM missiles is a little better but the range of these could have been better ie; wait for CAMM-ER which have a better range, as they are not much more than RIM-7 Sea Sparrow to be honest. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 12, 2019 13:44:04 GMT 12
Light duties? And here they are still in middle of multi $M update with an expected further useful life of 15+ years and already they are unfit for purpose to be involved in conflict. Should the NZ navy have moved toward replacing these with T26 or equivalents mid 2020s. Would they be meaningful as escorts for future NZ LHD? They have no real offense power, our ASM the AGM 119 Penguin only really has an effective range of 35(ish) km and has to be launched from a helo. They are only a medium-range missile which means the helo is in range of anti-air missiles. So they can't really reach out to really protect a fleet. Anti Air with 24 CAMM missiles is a little better but the range of these could have been better ie; wait for CAMM-ER which have a better range, as they are not much more than RIM-7 Sea Sparrow to be honest. The big problem with adding AShM to the 2 ANZAC frigates is top weight and that is why I think the Mk-41 VLS was removed. They've already had to cover in the quarterdeck and the RAN have had top weight issues with their ANZACs having to increase ballasting to cover that top weight, which makes the ship heavier, sits lower in the water, reduces ship speed and increases fuel burn. In an ideal world we'd already have a third frigate under construction that was about 6,000 tonnes with AShM, SM-2 etc., but we don't live in an ideal world and we have two major political parties who regard defence as a luxury, not as a necessity. The Sea Ceptor is a far better missile than the Sea Sparrow, but it's not designed to be an AShM and it's not designed for long range interceptions. In reality modern air defence is layered with VSHORAD (Very Short Range Air Defence), SHORAD, MRAD, and LRAD. Sea Ceptor covers the SHORAD and into the MRAD layer. When an air defence is integrated (IADS - Integrated Air Defence System), well organised, well commanded, well trained, and everybody within knows what they're doing, it's a real nut buster. Therefore against a good naval task force with a half decent air defence our Sea Sprites and Penguin missiles will face very daunting odds for mission success and survival. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 15, 2019 14:29:56 GMT 12
Because I can, and I was bored I did a bit of a size comparison chart if we say got the Endurance 170... Technically the new AOR will be bigger, the only size where the E-170 is bigger is beam at 30m I didn't actually realise how heavy the new DHV Manawanui was... If you look really closely at the displacement of the IPV on this scale is only 1 pixel...  |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 15, 2019 15:03:13 GMT 12
Another over looked option is the Mistral 140 smaller that the Mistral BPC 210. The Mistral 140 is very comparable in size wise to the Endurance 170... but my thoughts on this would be it would be more expensive than say getting two E-170 built through the Singaporean yards and two for the Singapore Navy (if we time with the build etc) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Mistral_140Personally if the Singapore go for the E-170 which I think they will, and we decide hey ok... then the timing would be ripe... |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Aug 17, 2019 19:22:15 GMT 12
Another over looked option is the Mistral 140 smaller that the Mistral BPC 210. The Mistral 140 is very comparable in size wise to the Endurance 170... but my thoughts on this would be it would be more expensive than say getting two E-170 built through the Singaporean yards and two for the Singapore Navy (if we time with the build etc) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Mistral_140Personally if the Singapore go for the E-170 which I think they will, and we decide hey ok... then the timing would be ripe... If NZ were to agree to purchase either of these LHDs and considering a probable buy of a second to replace Canterbury then is there any capability in NZ where any modular parts could be built? I’m thinking ST marine with a build total of 4 E-170, it would be nice to see an NZ build share in all 4. I’d imagine build share would be impossible with French Mistral 140. |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 17, 2019 20:20:30 GMT 12
If NZ were to agree to purchase either of these LHDs and considering a probable buy of a second to replace Canterbury then is there any capability in NZ where any modular parts could be built? I’m thinking ST marine with a build total of 4 E-170, it would be nice to see an NZ build share in all 4. I’d imagine build share would be impossible with French Mistral 140. I am sure there would be some business given to NZ companies... as with the ANZACs, NZ business did pretty well-making parts for the vessels. But it probably won't be making any of the modules but things like air ducting, generators, and various other things during the fit-out process... |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 17, 2019 20:38:33 GMT 12
Another over looked option is the Mistral 140 smaller that the Mistral BPC 210. The Mistral 140 is very comparable in size wise to the Endurance 170... but my thoughts on this would be it would be more expensive than say getting two E-170 built through the Singaporean yards and two for the Singapore Navy (if we time with the build etc) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_assault_ship#Mistral_140Personally if the Singapore go for the E-170 which I think they will, and we decide hey ok... then the timing would be ripe... If NZ were to agree to purchase either of these LHDs and considering a probable buy of a second to replace Canterbury then is there any capability in NZ where any modular parts could be built? I’m thinking ST marine with a build total of 4 E-170, it would be nice to see an NZ build share in all 4. I’d imagine build share would be impossible with French Mistral 140. The Mistral wouldn't be value for money when compared to the E-170 built in Singapore or any LHD built in South Korea or Japan, purely because of cost - it's very expensive to build in Europe. The Mistral is also a relatively old design now and I an given to understand has some design issues. Also you would now have to consider the Mistral a compromised design since the French sold it to the Russians, who are building two examples in Russia. The two French built examples were subject to EU embargoes after the Russian annexation of Crimea so were resold to Egypt.
From reading the DCP19 documentation, the second of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels is the Canterbury replacement, and it would make sense to have two vessels of the same class for that capability. However there is a lot of water to pass under the keel, multiple elections, both domestic and international crisises etc., to / will happen between now and then so whilst we suggest the E-170 Endurance as a good contender, in the end it is Cabinet who will make the final decision based upon recommendations and advice from the Ministry Of Defence, Treasury and MFAT, but it will also depend upon the politics, world view of the government of the day and factions within Cabinet.
Regarding NZ companies participation in the build, that would have to be negotiated in the government to government conatract negotiations and in recenttimes NZ govts haven gone for offsets in their defence procurements.
|
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Aug 17, 2019 22:01:47 GMT 12
The Mistral wouldn't be value for money when compared to the E-170 built in Singapore or any LHD built in South Korea or Japan, purely because of cost - it's very expensive to build in Europe. The Mistral is also a relatively old design now and I an given to understand has some design issues. Also you would now have to consider the Mistral a compromised design since the French sold it to the Russians, who are building two examples in Russia. The two French built examples were subject to EU embargoes after the Russian annexation of Crimea so were resold to Egypt. From reading the DCP19 documentation, the second of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels is the Canterbury replacement, and it would make sense to have two vessels of the same class for that capability. However there is a lot of water to pass under the keel, multiple elections, both domestic and international crisises etc., to / will happen between now and then so whilst we suggest the E-170 Endurance as a good contender, in the end it is Cabinet who will make the final decision based upon recommendations and advice from the Ministry Of Defence, Treasury and MFAT, but it will also depend upon the politics, world view of the government of the day and factions within Cabinet. Regarding NZ companies participation in the build, that would have to be negotiated in the government to government conatract negotiations and in recenttimes NZ govts haven gone for offsets in their defence procurements. I tend to agree about where we get it built, and I will almost guarantee it will be in Singapore, South Korea or Japan (most likely South Korea) even if they get the rights to a European vessel...just based on cost and as you say value for money. Just out of curiosity what design issues are there? |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Aug 17, 2019 23:35:37 GMT 12
I tend to agree about where we get it built, and I will almost guarantee it will be in Singapore, South Korea or Japan (most likely South Korea) even if they get the rights to a European vessel...just based on cost and as you say value for money. Just out of curiosity what design issues are there? I would have to go back and try and find the material. I remember that it didn't stack up well during the Australian LHD project, which the Navantia Juan Carlos I LHD design won. I think it had more to do with internal structures and layout that would've involved a rather expensive major redesign, which the Commonwealth of Australia wasn't willing to undertake. It was also at the time they were having problems with the MRH90, ARH Tiger, and KC-30 so weren't very receptive to French promises of fixing design problems within budget and on time. Cost wise it also worked out a bit cheaper having Navantia build the ships in Spain because their yard costs were cheaper than French labour costs etc. |
|
|
|
Post by kiwirob on Sept 5, 2019 20:16:38 GMT 12
If NZ were to agree to purchase either of these LHDs and considering a probable buy of a second to replace Canterbury then is there any capability in NZ where any modular parts could be built? I’m thinking ST marine with a build total of 4 E-170, it would be nice to see an NZ build share in all 4. I’d imagine build share would be impossible with French Mistral 140. The Mistral wouldn't be value for money when compared to the E-170 built in Singapore or any LHD built in South Korea or Japan, purely because of cost - it's very expensive to build in Europe. The Mistral is also a relatively old design now and I an given to understand has some design issues. Also you would now have to consider the Mistral a compromised design since the French sold it to the Russians, who are building two examples in Russia. The two French built examples were subject to EU embargoes after the Russian annexation of Crimea so were resold to Egypt.
From reading the DCP19 documentation, the second of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels is the Canterbury replacement, and it would make sense to have two vessels of the same class for that capability. However there is a lot of water to pass under the keel, multiple elections, both domestic and international crisises etc., to / will happen between now and then so whilst we suggest the E-170 Endurance as a good contender, in the end it is Cabinet who will make the final decision based upon recommendations and advice from the Ministry Of Defence, Treasury and MFAT, but it will also depend upon the politics, world view of the government of the day and factions within Cabinet.
Regarding NZ companies participation in the build, that would have to be negotiated in the government to government conatract negotiations and in recenttimes NZ govts haven gone for offsets in their defence procurements.
That's not correct, the two vessels built in France for Russia were half built in Baltic Shipyard St Petersburg, the half hull was towed to France where it was joined to the other half of the hull built in France. There are not two more under construction in Russia for the Russian Navy, the deal was cancelled. The two vessels intended for Russia were sold to Egypt. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 7, 2019 23:10:50 GMT 12
The Mistral wouldn't be value for money when compared to the E-170 built in Singapore or any LHD built in South Korea or Japan, purely because of cost - it's very expensive to build in Europe. The Mistral is also a relatively old design now and I an given to understand has some design issues. Also you would now have to consider the Mistral a compromised design since the French sold it to the Russians, who are building two examples in Russia. The two French built examples were subject to EU embargoes after the Russian annexation of Crimea so were resold to Egypt.
From reading the DCP19 documentation, the second of the Enhanced Sealift Vessels is the Canterbury replacement, and it would make sense to have two vessels of the same class for that capability. However there is a lot of water to pass under the keel, multiple elections, both domestic and international crisises etc., to / will happen between now and then so whilst we suggest the E-170 Endurance as a good contender, in the end it is Cabinet who will make the final decision based upon recommendations and advice from the Ministry Of Defence, Treasury and MFAT, but it will also depend upon the politics, world view of the government of the day and factions within Cabinet.
Regarding NZ companies participation in the build, that would have to be negotiated in the government to government conatract negotiations and in recenttimes NZ govts haven gone for offsets in their defence procurements.
That's not correct, the two vessels built in France for Russia were half built in Baltic Shipyard St Petersburg, the half hull was towed to France where it was joined to the other half of the hull built in France. There are not two more under construction in Russia for the Russian Navy, the deal was cancelled. The two vessels intended for Russia were sold to Egypt. Thank you for the correction. I had presumed that the Russians would have carried on with ships three and four. I knew that the Egyptians acquired the first two ships because they were familiar with the Russian systems. |
|
dgd911
Flying Officer
Posts: 56
|
Post by dgd911 on Sept 9, 2019 13:58:39 GMT 12
That's not correct, the two vessels built in France for Russia were half built in Baltic Shipyard St Petersburg, the half hull was towed to France where it was joined to the other half of the hull built in France. There are not two more under construction in Russia for the Russian Navy, the deal was cancelled. The two vessels intended for Russia were sold to Egypt. Thank you for the correction. I had presumed that the Russians would have carried on with ships three and four. I knew that the Egyptians acquired the first two ships because they were familiar with the Russian systems. So were the Russians planning to have four Mistrals? Can’t find any mention of the third and fourth Russian Mistral. although since they constructed the stern sections of their first two Mistrals there must have been some design and maybe technology transfer to enable them to do this. So there could be possibility they can completely build their own Mistral design LHD. |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 9, 2019 14:47:06 GMT 12
Thank you for the correction. I had presumed that the Russians would have carried on with ships three and four. I knew that the Egyptians acquired the first two ships because they were familiar with the Russian systems. So were the Russians planning to have four Mistrals? Can’t find any mention of the third and fourth Russian Mistral. although since they constructed the stern sections of their first two Mistrals there must have been some design and maybe technology transfer to enable them to do this. So there could be possibility they can completely build their own Mistral design LHD. From memory the program was four Mistrals with two built in France and two in Russia. However the Russian annexation of the Crimea put paid to that project. I don't know if the Russians would continue with that particular project, however undoubtedly any learnings gained will inform future LHD projects. Kiwi Rob would know more, I suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 9, 2019 22:24:08 GMT 12
Landing Helicopter Dock
- ST Endurance 170 LHD
- San Giorgio class.
- Damen Enforcer 18000 LHD
- Ōsumi-class tank landing ship
- Dokdo-class amphibious assault ship
- Mistral-class amphibious assault ship
- Spanish ship Juan Carlos I/Canberra Class amphibious assault ship
LPD/LSD/LSL
- Makassar/Tarlac-class landing platform dock
- Albion-class landing platform dock
- Damen Enforcer 13000 LPD (Below ships based off the Enforcer design)
- HNLMS Rotterdam.
- Bay Class LSD / HMAS Choules
- Galicia-class landing platform dock
thumbs up nighthawke for your list. Maybe the FLSS (Future Littoral Strike Ship) might also be contender for the Sealift equation? Right scale with our current force infrastructure, more affordable as opp. to full on LHD,LPD,LSD, design certified & compliant with shipping rules, serves military and Humanitarian Disaster Relief sealift needs, complementary military asset for allies, command ISR/hospital ship to boot. Just no well dock ... but NZDF doesn't have a marine contingent right?, our amphibious assets are; SAS A,B D & E squadrons which this design concept caters for, so how critical is a well dock? I'd be happy if we forgo pursuing a LHD or LPD for a FLSS - if there were enough millions to be saved that could go towards equipping 2x MV-22s or CH47Fs as part of each ships' assets for airlift (MTOW: 23,000kg | 22,000kg) The FLSS concept has the adoption in the USN and attention of the Royal Navy. www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-closer-look-at-the-littoral-strike-ship-concept/www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4058/check-out-this-picture-of-the-pentagons-shadowy-new-special-operations-mothershipThe MV Ocean Trader specs: Draft 5.6 m Length 193 m Beam 26.0 m Displacement 20,980 t Complement 50 crew, 159 special forces Speed 20 kn (37 km/h) Range: 8000 nm Note: The RN FLSS crew requirement is; 35 crew, up to 400 additional passengers, 28 days -10000 nm, 21 kn |
|
|
|
Post by nighthawknz on Sept 9, 2019 23:42:30 GMT 12
thumbs up nighthawke for your list. Maybe the FLSS (Future Littoral Strike Ship) might also be contender for the Sealift equation? Right scale with our current force infrastructure, more affordable as opp. to full on LHD,LPD,LSD, design certified & compliant with shipping rules, serves military and Humanitarian Disaster Relief sealift needs, complementary military asset for allies, command ISR/hospital ship to boot. Just no well dock ... but NZDF doesn't have a marine contingent right?, our amphibious assets are; SAS A,B D & E squadrons which this design concept caters for, so how critical is a well dock? I'd be happy if we forgo pursuing a LHD or LPD for a FLSS - if there were enough millions to be saved that could go towards equipping 2x MV-22s or CH47Fs as part of each ships' assets for airlift (MTOW: 23,000kg | 22,000kg) The FLSS concept has the adoption in the USN and attention of the Royal Navy. www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-closer-look-at-the-littoral-strike-ship-concept/www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4058/check-out-this-picture-of-the-pentagons-shadowy-new-special-operations-mothershipOne of the main upgrades the NZDF and RNZN want and need is the well dock according to the Defence Capability Plan 2019 the well dock is one of the main things they say they need and want on the enhanced sealift vessel. They want to be able to launch in a greater sea state which means a well dock and I believe to accept the allies landing craft without using the paddle system etc... I also believe through reading between the lines, they want the LPD/LHD for more than Humanitarian Disaster Relief sealift (though that is how they will sell it to the public)... without making assumptions... I think they maybe are wanting to build up the our amphibious capability all round to be more inline and helpful with our allies... mainly Australia with the Joint Task Force/Ready Reaction Force... |
|
|
|
Post by macnz on Sept 12, 2019 21:47:05 GMT 12
Yes - I agree with your assumption & observations. What I wonder about with this amphibious capability ambition is the medium/long term infrastructure investment that will require NZDF to pursue in order to effect a contestable marine force : -Purchase of Amphibious Combat Vehicles i.e. BAE ACV 1.1 or AAV? -Purchase of Amphibious Connector i.e. CNIM LCAT -Purchase of auxillary vehicles like AVLBs - Armoured vehicle-launched bridges, High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers i.e. Land Ceptor, -Purchase of heavy lift helicopters i.e. CH-47s or MV-22s -Purchase of attack helicopters i.e. Tiger, A129, AH-1z, AH-64 Apache? I would welcome all of these future purchases but not sure NZ public's appetite would countenance the outlay this entails to provide a credible amphibious asset Someone might find this recent article of interest regarding capital ship procurement - the rationale behind it is insightful. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29608/marine-bosss-audacious-plan-to-transform-the-corps-by-giving-up-big-amphibious-ships".. threat to amphibious assault ships from ASCMs has gotten much more capable, prevalent, and dispersed. The recent emergence of even more complex Anti Access Area Denial (A2AD) weapons is an even more difficult challenge to handle [...] what will happen is that the Marine Corps will shift from putting a single relatively large organization, like a MEU, on a few big expensive amphibious assault ships, to dispersing a larger number of smaller units on more numerous, less expensive ships, and even potentially existing supply and logistics vessels. " |
|
|
|
Post by senob on Sept 12, 2019 23:28:51 GMT 12
Yes - I agree with your assumption & observations. What I wonder about with this amphibious capability ambition is the medium/long term infrastructure investment that will require NZDF to pursue in order to effect a contestable marine force : -Purchase of Amphibious Combat Vehicles i.e. BAE ACV 1.1 or AAV? -Purchase of Amphibious Connector i.e. CNIM LCAT -Purchase of auxiliary vehicles like AVLBs - Armoured vehicle-launched bridges, High-Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) launchers i.e. Land Ceptor, -Purchase of heavy lift helicopters i.e. CH-47s or MV-22s -Purchase of attack helicopters i.e. Tiger, A129, AH-1z, AH-64 Apache? I would welcome all of these future purchases but not sure NZ public's appetite would countenance the outlay this entails to provide a credible amphibious asset Someone might find this recent article of interest regarding capital ship procurement - the rationale behind it is insightful. www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29608/marine-bosss-audacious-plan-to-transform-the-corps-by-giving-up-big-amphibious-ships".. threat to amphibious assault ships from ASCMs has gotten much more capable, prevalent, and dispersed. The recent emergence of even more complex Anti Access Area Denial (A2AD) weapons is an even more difficult challenge to handle [...] what will happen is that the Marine Corps will shift from putting a single relatively large organization, like a MEU, on a few big expensive amphibious assault ships, to dispersing a larger number of smaller units on more numerous, less expensive ships, and even potentially existing supply and logistics vessels. " IF we were to go with an amphibious force capable of undertaking opposed landings, then we would require much and more that is on your list. However, if it was decided we were going to go down that route, we would be best to emulate the USMC as far as we can. Since we don't have an ACF, we lack one leg of the triad straight away.
From memory the USMC are in the process of acquiring the BAE ACV1.1, so we would be wise to consider adopting that vehicle, because we could acquire them through FMS, meaning we can then access the USN fleet train for spares support etc. For a ship to shore connector LCMs and mexeflotes would be ideal. The RCN have ordered some mexeflote equivalents to be built in Canada, so we could tag some on to that order. Land Ceptor is not a HIMARS; it is a SAM system and is the land based variant of the CAMM (link) system, with Sea Ceptor being the naval variant that is being installed on the frigates. HIMARS (M142 High Mobility Artillery Rocket System) isn't a capability in the NZDF CONOPS (Concept Of Operations) and neither is an armoured force, because the Army is built around a light infantry force.
Having said that, ideally the army should have a missile based GBAD (Ground Based Air Defence) and Land Ceptor would be an obvious choice considering Sea Ceptor is entering service with the navy. The army currently operates the M119 105 mm towed howitzer which is capable of being airlifted in one piece by the NH90. A mobile variant of the 105 should be acquired as well so that it can shoot and scoot before counter battery fire can engage it. The CH-47 would be a good asset for the RNZAF to do the heavy lifting, because our rotary wing fleet is short in numbers. The MV-22 is a good capability, but very expensive to acquire and operate. IF we were to acquire attack choppers / armed reconnaissance helicopters maybe acquire the Aussie Tigers if they retire them and then wait and see what the US Future Vertical Lift program comes up with in the attack helicopter area.
However, all of this is really moot because no NZ govt is willing to spend the money or political capital for such capabilities, no matter how sensible and logical that they may be, given the current deteriorating international situation. Unless there is a major shock to their system, none of the politicians will even think about spending big money on defence.
The Cabinet papers for the 2019 DCP link here have been released and it is stated that they are looking at a LPD for the "Enhanced Sealift Vessel" see pages 28 & 32 of 68. |
|
